Posts by Mark Smith56

Dana Miller2 said:I have to disagree there. Some idiot at my office accidentally swapped out the regular beans for decaf—total disaster. I spent ten straight days dealing with these brutal headaches all day long, basically living on Advil. I was actually about to go see a doctor before it finally clicked what happened. I remember reading in a few books that you shouldn't just quit coffee cold turkey; you’re supposed to taper off. Honestly, a lot of addiction specialists categorize drugs into legal and illegal groups, and they usually put coffee and cigarettes right up there in the "legal" category. It really comes down to how you define a drug, though. If a drug is any substance that messes with your brain chemistry and mood—something you feel like you *have* to take because if you don't, you get withdrawal symptoms and can't function normally after a while—then yeah, in my book, coffee is definitely a drug. It’s also the one and only drug I’m currently 😁 hooked on, plus it's my favorite morning ritual.

See, in my case, it took me a whole week to realize I’d been drinking decaf every single morning just by glancing at the label—and honestly? The effects were exactly the same. Turns out, it was pure placebo. And mind you, I am a massive addict; there were times I felt like I practically needed to wash my face in coffee just to get my eyes open in the morning.

Since my blood pressure is naturally super low—like, borderline non-existent levels—coffee is pretty much essential to keep my system running, but I’ve noticed that about fifteen minutes after an espresso, I sometimes hit a massive wall and want to nap. For me, two cups of green tea actually hold me steady much better without that jittery feeling.

Lately, I've been sticking to drip coffee, mostly because I realized French press was way too heavy for me. As long as it's strong enough, I'm good—not that watery, weak stuff you often see people making over in Europe.

Oh, and I remember seeing those studies floating around maybe four or five years ago claiming that drinking four or more cups a day could actually protect you from heart disease.

electricmoose29 said:Hehe, so, have you guys just never seen 'The Last Man on Earth'? Or maybe 'The Omega Man'? Or perhaps you haven't even picked up the novel that those three movies were more or less based on? 😁
Wait... I hope this isn't actually a spoiler 🙂 (😁)

Seriously though, people... even if I personally don't mind spoilers, please try to show a little more empathy toward those who do. It really isn't that much trouble to change your font color, and I promise ten people aren't going to follow you around just because you ruined a movie for them.
(And besides that, those white letters are honestly the best; I always find myself squinting to see what's hiding 😁 )

Oh, and one little tip: when you're quoting someone who uses spoiler-white text, just be careful, because white definitely doesn't stay invisible against a blue background 😉
(I truly can't wrap my head around why so many people think that 😬)

Let me show you what I mean. ☕

The second half totally falls apart for me—plus, Ashley Judd is doing way too much with the acting. It’s such a bummer because that first half was incredible... just pure, gritty misery and this crushing sense of claustrophobia. You really feel that creeping dread building up, but then everything just gets way too literal and loses its edge.

I’ve completely stopped going to Central Park lately, and honestly, there are a few big reasons for it.
First off, the copies they play are absolutely terrible. Second—and this is just plain stupid—is how they program the events. Correct me if I’m being too much of a diva here, but calling something a "film cycle" and then just showing two movies back-to-back over two days by simply flipping the schedule is straight-up small-town movie theater behavior. I get that these films are probably just on rental, but come on, common sense says that shouldn't be the way to do it. Even with just one screen, you should run cycles in parallel—like, if not for every single film, then at least for the big ones, there should be at least four screenings throughout the month. Not to mention that Central Park is mostly closed on Sundays, so they aren't even using those perfect weekend matinee slots. Plus, starting a screening at 9:00 or 9:30 PM is just way too late; I wish they’d move everything up by half an hour, especially since they keep pushing these directors who have a tendency toward those super long runtimes.
And third—this part is totally unacceptable—the staff from Hemingway's constantly barge into the lobby carrying crates of drinks in and out because their storage entrance is right through that same foyer. It’s catastrophic and honestly feels pretty degrading. To make matters worse, that lobby doesn't offer anything besides one pathetic coffee machine and two large ones for all the visitors, and because it's so cramped and interconnected, you can't rule out some serious voyeurism happening.

silentpuma7 said:Okay, let me backtrack—when I said "a couple," I really meant a handful, just to be clear...

Tarkovsky and Parajanov aren't the same thing... even if they’re close... But one is definitely superior because, take his movie >, for example—he uses this totally groundbreaking cinematic language that hadn't been seen before. He leans into non-linear storytelling where the main guy is physically absent for almost the entire film. Then you've got him mixing in documentary footage, switching between black-and-white, sepia, and color shots, using a narrator, having the lead actress play double roles, reciting poetry... he even films the wind by tracking the camera in whatever direction it's blowing! And all of this is done just to tell a personal story—this raw, autobiographical reconstruction of his own life. It actually started because he imagined making a film that was basically a series of hidden-camera interviews with his mother, and that evolved into >. So, we're talking about a deeply clever, unique film that reconstructs what *actually* happened (well, mostly), acting like a fictional documentary woven out of reconstructed reality. The director isn't trying to make stuff up... some people might call it an "experimental" film, though I personally hate those kinds of rigid categories, because in this movie, the *way* it's told—the style—is everything. Tarkovsky reaches for every tool necessary to rebuild lost time; his lens pierces right through into the memory of a life already lived...

That's my quick version of why it stands above the rest... it's all about that cinematic expression and style. Personally, I find Hitchcock pretty meh, except for maybe two or three of his flicks, though I still respect the man. As for Godard, I haven't watched much of his stuff, so I can't really weigh in...

Even with all this idol worship going on, I can see there's some total, heartfelt devotion here. I'm not trying to call you a snob, though... 😁
But a real snob would be singing praises to Griffith, obsessing over Vert, and declaring > and the Beast the greatest movie ever made. You just have a very specific, niche taste in film. That said, claiming those two (and who else, Bresson?) are the only truly "authentic" works of cinematic art is bordering on pure arrogance.
From its very inception, film has always been an incredibly self-aware, analytical medium, with countless directors working hard to create an autonomous cinematic syntax—basically just trying to prove they're more than just a weird hybrid of technology. Look, it hurts to watch lazy filmmaking that relies on outdated theatrical or literary tropes, even today, but saying that is like saying Balzac is garbage just because Joyce came after him. Besides, no matter how much film production—especially the commercial stuff—has borrowed from the theater, Tarkovsky and Parajanov draw just as much from painting and poetry. It's no more "authentic" than that, and honestly, it can be pretty static (though, yeah, I'll give you that > is Tarkovsky's best and most illustrative work).
And I hope you realize that about three-quarters of what you wrote about > could easily be swapped into a description of >.

So you used the word "a few" 🤷

But honestly—Andrei Tarkovsky and Sergej Paradžanov... they’re kind of cut from the same cloth, right? I mean, I can't quite wrap my head around why people claim they're somehow superior to guys like Alfred Hitchcock or Jean-Luc Godard. What's the deal there?

Wait, which other movie are we talking about?

Brenda Lee50 said:Veronica Lake, totally cool. I didn't catch who that last lady underneath her was—if I didn't know better, I’d swear she was a super young Bette Davis, but 🤷

Yeah, honestly, I'm not sure if she's actually that young or if it's just because she isn't wearing much makeup.
I really should have posted a shot from Jezebel.

Hmm, I gotta say, those more recent ones definitely felt like they were just posing for the camera in full color.

But hey, on the bright side,







I mean, let's be real—Katharine Hepburn wasn't really going for that "bombshell" vibe, was she? She always felt more like this poised, totally untouchable ice queen.

Joseph Cotten is just stunning 🙂
not as a psychopath, though—more like in The Third Man and Portrait of Jenny.

And I mean, don't get me wrong, John Wayne is such a legend when he shows up in Stagecoach looking all cool and collected—man, that charisma and that cheeky grin? Unbeatable.

I’ve also got a huge soft spot for Clark Gable... honestly, I think he beats Cary Grant when it comes to that whole "charming rogue" vibe. Plus, there's just something about those strong, chiseled faces; take James Mason, for instance—he is incredibly sexy. He really has that voice, you know?

And Jean Gabin. A total classic man.

Jose Chase2 said:Well, looks like John Jarrat—the main villain from Wolf Creek—is landing a lead role in Tarantino/Rodriguez’s 'Grindhouse.' Pretty wild, right? 👍

Honestly, I'm betting he turned it down because his schedule is already packed with McLeod's Daughters.
🤷

If you’ve got someone who’s going to be stuck in bed for a while and can't really shift themselves around, seriously—grab a pressure ulcer prevention cushion right away. In my experience, those ring-shaped ones that keep the tailbone hovering just off the surface are absolute lifesavers. You can get those high-tech air mattresses too, but honestly, even with those, you might still end up dealing with heel sores by morning—so make sure to grab some heel protectors for them as well.
I’m not entirely sure if Blue Cross Blue Shield will cover the cost upfront, but you should definitely keep all your receipts because you can usually claim them as a medical deduction on your taxes.

Look, you can definitely qualify for home health care in certain situations, but honestly, I think it’s pretty limited—maybe like half an hour a day, up to five times a week, plus an extra thirty minutes if they need help with bathing. On top of that, you might be able to get a physical therapist sent over too, provided your doctor thinks it's actually necessary. There's a whole bit of paperwork involved, though—a visiting nurse has to write up a report, and then you have to take that along with a certified request, discharge papers, and medical history to the review board. In our case, since we were dealing with the terminal stage of cancer, the request just got automatically renewed every month, but I'm guessing in other scenarios, you might have to head back to the board for approval again.
You can also reach out to the Red Cross to see about getting some "helpers" who can come by to tidy up, cook a few meals, or run errands to the grocery store—I believe there's a fee for that, but it shouldn't be too crazy. Also, if the person is completely immobile, the family member acting as the caregiver might be eligible for some social assistance, but there are specific rules there—from what I understand, the person has to be totally bedridden so they don't start factoring in everyone's household income.
And hey, you're also entitled to things like medical gauze via prescription; for things like adult diapers if there's incontinence, or for orthopedic aids, IV fluids, or catheters, you usually have to go through the review board for those. I don't know what your primary care doctor is like, but with ours, they didn't really volunteer much information—we basically had to ask for everything ourselves.
Check out this site: http://www.hospicefoundation.org/info.asp?sif=29
I really think they can give you some extra pointers and advice.

She’s definitely above average, but let’s be real—she’s not exactly legendary.

She’s gorgeous, sure, but she can come off a little bit stuck-up sometimes.