hey, you're welcome; you've been flogging the same silliness for weeks now, so someone had to tell you, there's a shitstain on your pants, before you continue parading yourself like that.

and you're welcome. again.




i fell asleep at least a couple of times watching chinatown, but i'm glad i woke up and rewatched/finished. the slowness is a polanski thing. he'll do that shit. e.g., tess. i can't even fucking remember tess, except for nastassja's mouth. oh, what a mouth.

and re: mean streets, it's an okay movie for someone fresh out of film school, but i think it's overrated, i mean, it's kind of sloppy and if it wasn't cuz whatsisname made it, probably nobody would watch it anymore. it's more of an academic thing i think-- "oh, here scorsese for the first time did -----" "oh, here you can see that he wanted to be a priest." that kind of thing. it was very promising for sure for a certain style of filmmaking, mainly his own dark shit, but it wasn't quite there yet.

fwiw, i am okay with taxi driver but it doesn't blow my socks off or anything. but raging bull, or goodfellas, damn damn damn.

Excuse me, facetiously saying that the best Jack Nicholson flicks are post-1980 and being a total, condescending prick are entirely different things, don't conflate the two, our z-scores aren't even remotely found within the same Normal Distribution. What is funny, is that you are so genuinely just a prick in real life, that you don't even notice the difference or see yourself doing it ;)












I agree completely but we also have to put it in its chronological context. Our sock aren't blown because we live in a world post-Taxi Driver where a lot of films explore the same psychotic menial grit. However then? It was a bit more revolutionary. Honestly, I kind of liked Taxi Driver better than Goodfellas, even though admittedly Goodfellas is the obviously better flick.


Casino is totally dull, and Ronin is totally one of the best movies ever made. Bobby D rolls that way, best of all time, total shit, no in betweens.





I knew you were, and I wasn't trolling it the slightest, I was dead serious not deadpanning. I mean seriously, what film is daring enough to hide their leading role behind an ugly bandage for about 45 minutes of the film? Why not just NOT have that scene? What exactly was the point of it? To show us how risky his job was? To show us how tough a guy he was? To make Jack look absolutely ridiculous for over 45 minutes wearing a fucking maxi pad on his face? Sighs. It honestly almost ruined the movie for me, and I had totally forgot about it until last night!

no no, i totally know and notice i'm a prick, and i try to put that to good use. it's my natural talent. sometimes i'm even a social assassin, like larry david. in fact, i was hired to tell you that because nobody else could.

you know, it's one of those "things you can't say to their face" situations. well, i can, and do, ha ha ha ha.

jack nicholson: easy rider. chinatown. cuckoo's nest. all before the 80s.

i haven't seen the last detail or five easy pieces, but i hear he's good in them too. check those out. prevent shitstains.



oh, i definitely will admit it taxi driver was groundbreaking, and the production is excellent, and it is perhaps de niro's most iconic role, an made a huge mark in pop culture, but scorsese went on to do shit that's even greater no matter when it was made and that's bigger than any actor even if it's less "famous." still, there are people today who see taxi driver as the greatest thing ever, which it might be, but it just doesn't do it for me at the emotional level-- and yes it's one of the best movies ever, but i can't connect with it the same way. now anybody can quote taxi driver or do a travis bickle impression, and not a lot of people can quote from raging bull or impersonate jake lamotta, but raging bull is just another category of beast over taxi driver for me. most people would make taxi driver and die happy, but i think scorsese surpassed himself.

the new star trek



as you can see, very nice, ha ha ha. (if you like that sort of thing. i do.)

but i liked the first movie better. it had more surprises.

i don't know about the frumious bandersnatch as kahn. montalbán defined that role. but i see the new one and my brain goes "sherlock!". every time. the old kahn was much more flamboyant and over the top-- a kind of liberace of supervillains. this new one is rather cold.

Tombs of the Blind Dead

^^ that looks kind of funny. funny haha not peculiar.


speaking of funny, earlier today watched john ford's stagecoach. some memorable photography and impressive stuntwork, but it was not the great epic thing i expected it to be (perhaps demonyo can tell me why i'm wrong). at first it reminded me of hitchcock's lifeboat, but i like hitchcock better. i did appreciate the comedic bits (e.g., yakima the apache wife), and the bit of social commentary (the banker crook), but at times i also found it involuntarily funny-- a bit corny all around. but of course this being a 70+ year old movie shit like that can happen.

I think in part its reputation is purely historical: talking very broadly, it helped modernise the western away from the 'singing cowboy' stuff with Roy Rogers, etc and its B movie origins, as well making a star out of Wayne and a cult figure out of Ford - arguably the first Hollywood director to gain a following at a time when the overwhelming focus was still on the studios/producers and the stars. As such, it also helped establish the idea that great directors could express themselves in the kinds of genre films that'd traditionally had a quite low status, while helping to inspire a group of young European critics to start talking about the possibility of a Hollywood 'auteur', able to rival the established European directors - many of whom (like Lang, Hitch, Renoir) were far more open to taking on genre films when they moved to Hollywood because of the artistic credibility Ford gave them in Stagecoach.

So in a sense its reputation is pretty academic. It's the set text that underpins much of what's taught in Film Studies programmes today. Beyond that it's more subjective. I just think it's a great western. It may have dated slightly politically but there's a kind of epic timelessness to it, bordering on pure mythology. As well as that, something that I think often gets overlooked by people who focus perhaps a bit too much on Ford's purely 'western' content, is what a great romance it is. The love affair between Ringo and Dallas is one of my favourites in any film, regardless of genre.

Tombs of the Blind Dead is great. Actually that's not true. It's pretty boring for the most part. It does have the coolest zombies you'll ever see, though. No mean feat given the amount we've seen over the years.

thanks for that post mang. that was pretty great. in a hurry right now but thanks.

JOBS

Fucking sucked. On every level. Aston Kutcher's shitty acting isn't even the worst thing about the movie, and he's about the worst actor to ever appear on a screen ever.

at least ashton kuchner is not playing Batman....

Fuck Steve Jobs.

they've run this into the ground IMO. This was an action film. The old Star TRek was great because it had imagination. There is none in this. Its is hackwork. I mean, they are listening to old hiphop in the future- I don't fucking think so.

so what's wrong with action films? it's a summer blockbuster. and it's well-done action.

as far as i recall also "the wrath of khan" wasn't the most mind-blowing of movies but it saved star trek from extinction, allowing shit like tng and ds9 to be developed..


i listen to 300-year-old music on a daily basis -- i "get performance today" on the radio. today they had a beethoven musical puzzle (some kids song w/ the archduke trio).

i also listen to old whorehouse music from 100 years ago.

the fans expect more. Star Trek was always about more than just the action.


I don't buy it, its just laziness and pandering. Even Star Wars tried to create 'alien' music in the bar scene, maybe it didn't work.

I'm not asking for an intellectual masterpiece, but some intelligence would be nice. Anyway, as it was explained to me, this franchise of ST is in another time zone, so the studio can do whatever they want with the characters.

you could say the same thing about the wrath of khan. roddenberry wasn't even involved in the production because the first movie bombed.

read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Tr...an#Development

what really really failed for me on this one was the casting of bandersnatch as khan. it was a real mistake for me. khan noonien singh? no waii. the original khan was above all a fucking peacock (even the hairdo). this one is-- sherlock!


the bar music in star wars was an atrocity, but i really didn't pay too much attention to the music in this one. molehill -> mountain.


you can always watch some ds9 reruns!

DS9 is GAWD

Wrath of Khan is about a lot more than just the action, which was awesome.

It makes me cry.

best star trek series ever


you saw how they reversed the roles for this one? kirk gets the radiation and spock cries?

(but the thing is, here we don't have the loooong story of friendship to justify the whole "friends" theme)

also, the new uhura is FANTASTIC.

Yeah, agree with Tesla. I'm not a massive Star Trek fan but I've always seen it as more ideas than action based (the US's equivalent to Dr Who, in a way).

The use of rap didn't have to be inappropriate but for me it comes down to motivation and I didn't see any genuine reason for it being there other than as a way of attracting the kind of audience Hollywood execs think a film has to reach just in order to survive. Same as the brief underwear shot of Alice Eve which, as nice as it was, just seemed like it was there purely for the trailer.

Since my wife and I have been living out of a suitcase for two and a half months, I have not been able to illegally download the new star trek flick from PirateBay, so I have not seen it.

The previous one was OK. just OK. It really had nothing to do with Star Trek and could just as easily have been called "Space Cadets" or something equally stupid. I HATE the lensflares. HATE THEM They make no sense scientifically, nor visually. lens flares occur ONLY when looking through a LENS. normal human sight does not see lens flares, and even with glasses, which I have worn since age 3, there are NO LENS FLARES.

yes and no-- see, roddenberry was a horny mofo, and kirk was a horny mofo, always banging green ladies.

this was the equivalent of alice eve back in the 60s



we just live in slightly more perverted times

for more info about the original series sexpots, kindly visit this link:

http://www.listal.com/list/star-trek...l-series-babes