[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

Well, that's not what you appear to have said in your original post, unless you are simply careless concerning your means of scientific self-expression. Learn to write well, so that I can at least rest assured that I'm actually instructing you, as opposed to merely debating that which you'd never intended to say.

You're always such a nice person Robert, keep up the good work!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

No, no, no, no, NO!!!! Ice giants can hardly form near suns. Which is what you appear to suggest, and which your own cites clearly refute.

I didn't say near the sun. I said nearer to the sun.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

If Neptune migrated outward, it can flip the zones around a bit. I'm not saying these giants formed near the stars, but some evidence possibly suggests nearer than previously thought

***

You're changing your premise in order to defend your stance. WAY not allowed in science, and WAY not the first time I've seen you do this.

Changed my premise? In which way. Want to read my original post? Here it is..

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

New theories suggest that possibly the gas giants can form nearer to their stars and then move out. l

I can easily be wrong about the science, but I never changed any premise, you just haven't been reading. You said I said Kuiper Belt objects orbit Neptune, I never said that. Now you're saying I said ice giants form near stars, never said that either. What I said was that Kuiper Belt objects are influenced by Neptune's gravity, and there is in their orbits evidence to suggest that Neptune as moved outward, just like the "hot Jupiters" are evidence of those exo-planets moving inward. What we're talking about is the movement.. But I don't think we are talking about anything. I can be totally wrong about the science, BUT you are totally not right in what you have been accusing me of saying.


***

If you want me to teach you, I'll BUST MY BUTT in order so to do. If not, kindly refrain from wasting my time.

Oh, you're ever so kind.

[!@#$%!]

GENTLEMEN BRONCOS

 

i love the weird rural sensibilities of the director (same as napoleon dynamite). i liked the movie, it was funny and depressing at the same time-- t wasn't a great movie but it was goofy enough to have me laughing often. unlike napoleon dynamite though, i'm not sure i'd rewatch this a million times-- though some scenes are fucking brilliant (if you like that sort of stuff).

THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT

 

possibly the Ultimate White People Movie (in America, anyway). it's got pretty much everything listed here, and then some:

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com

watching it can be a hilarious exercise in anthropology. like watching national geographic.

having said that: nice characters, good actors, good premise, the story develops well. having said that (again): in spite of the auspicious beginnings, i didn't like the end-- i get the logic of the story, but it feels sort of forced/jammed into the last third of the film, and that was irritating. a good movie shouldn't be a "surprise" movie, because that ruins all the expectations that it set you up to build. e.g.: wally has dinner with andre in new york, they talk about life and their work for hours (andre is a theatre guy and has been traveling), the audience somehow gets involved in all that, at the end of the dinner andre gets into his flying saucer and heads for the stars-- what???

[Diesel]

Some i've been watching lately.

Love Exposure - The length is something like 4.5 hours. Ace.
Benny's Video - Animal killing for our entertainment ...YAY!
Confessions.
5 Broken cameras - Disturbing killings, couldn't sleep afterwards...

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

The Contractor.

 

It was only 2/3 terrible as I expected..
I was in a drunk induced coma, unable
to change the channel or even do anything..
so I watched it.. seen worse.

[_tunic_]

Bitman Begins

[Genteel Death]

I watched Spring Breakers. I liked it but I can't take anything Harmony Korine does seriously. I am a fan but his movies mean fuck all unless you're a wannabe rapist who plays for the local football team in a small American town. Nice stuff, I'd probably get it if I was a little less gay and sensitive. How do I become less gay and sensitive?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

I watched Spring Breakers. I liked it but I can't take anything Harmony Korine does seriously. I am a fan but his movies mean fuck all unless you're a wannabe rapist who plays for the local football team in a small American town. Nice stuff, I'd probably get it if I was a little less gay and sensitive. How do I become less gay and sensitive?

i don't know, but i have a visceral dislike of harkor. couldn't even tell you why. i've watched his movies as one does homework. gummo had an okay soundtrack and some memorable stuff but it was depressing. julien donkey boy i think i turned off a quarter of the way. kids i found too cynical. didn't watch the one about the impersonators and probably won't watch this one unless someone here convinces me.

honest question: does gay = sensitive? aren't there ubermacho gays in like, i don't know, the pirates? (honest question dammit).

[evollove]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

probably won't watch this one unless someone here convinces me. .

If yr not into him, I'd avoid it. Normally I say "At least start it," but in this case you might not want to bother. It's very shallow. I've watched and skimmed it a few times, and it's really not a biting satire or even much of a comment on anything, and you won't care about the characters or what happens to them.

But I am sort of fascinated by Larry Clark, Ken Park and Bully especially. They are just so fucked up. How do they get made? Dude auto-erotic-asphyxiates himself to what looks like a real orgasm in KP! It's a real actor. I've seen him in other stuff. How do you get an actor to do that?

On the one hand, they are silly over-the-top movies. On the other, real things really happen. I can't even say if I like them or not. Just sorta fascinating.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

. How do I become less gay and sensitive?

Suga Free can help you with that

 

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by evollove

If yr not into him, I'd avoid it. Normally I say "At least start it," but in this case you might not want to bother. It's very shallow. I've watched and skimmed it a few times, and it's really not a biting satire or even much of a comment on anything, and you won't care about the characters or what happens to them.

thx mane. i'll steer clear then.

Originally Posted by evollove

But I am sort of fascinated by Larry Clark, Ken Park and Bully especially. They are just so fucked up. How do they get made? Dude auto-erotic-asphyxiates himself to what looks like a real orgasm in KP! It's a real actor. I've seen him in other stuff. How do you get an actor to do that?

On the one hand, they are silly over-the-top movies. On the other, real things really happen. I can't even say if I like them or not. Just sorta fascinating.

& thx agin. i'll add it to my homework file & report one of these days.

[Diesel]

Some fuking film erm yea......

Precious - Mariah Carey wank weyyyy

[Diesel]

13 assassins the Takeshi Mike remake.
Really good hum. yea likey like film entertain...

[Diesel]

Another one by our catholic lord saviour Takesh esh

Gozu. Came off as some David lynch rip off but overall enjoyable.

[MellySingsDoom]

Hey, demonrail - I watched this one again!

"Flaming Creatures" (dir. Jack Smith, 1963) - A re-watch for me of NYC-based Smith's third "underground" feature (first saw this at the Lux Cinema in Hoxton in 2000). No real plot to speak of - mainly depictions of LGBT-style sexuality, with cross-dressing by the male leads thrown in. What could in theory have been a decent effort mainly induced boredom in me - there's a 10 minute group-sex scene (mostly simulated) which didn't exactly hit the spot for me (and the male-female sex scene made me go "hmmm..." for overtly-groping reasons). After the sex scene is over, there's really not much to write home about - just shots of the performers posing and lounging around in their get-ups, a bit more erotica...and that's it.

I know that Smith has got a fairly hard-hitting reputation in various film circles, but on the strength of this, I'm once again completely baffled as to where this reputation comes from. I think that the lack of structure and solidity definitely works against this film, and the actors attempt a laconic insouciance that simply doesn't work. I mean, Smith should I guess be credited for attempting a study of fluid sexuality (and for which he got hammered for on legal terms by the NYC authorities at the time), but he simply hasn't captured the essence of what this sexuality actually is.

The print in question I saw was in very poor quality - a lot of stock deterioration is on this copy, making it virtually unwatchable in places. There are also multiple sound drop-outs on the soundtrack - songs used suddenly cut off, never to re-appear (or re-appear in poor sound quality). The film is shot on 8mm stock on one camera, and although the editing is OK, I think (even at 42 minutes) some trimming could had taken place to tighten up the whole flow of the film.

Although my reaction this time is not as negative as it was on my initial viewing all them years ago, I can't help but feel that I'm either totally missing the point of this film, or a case of me simply finding this sphere of "underground" film-making not to my taste at all.

If you are a follower of this genre of cinema, I guess that you should give it a go at least once. Otherwise, I'm afraid to say that I can't recommend this one to the casual viewer.

[Antagon]

This movie had the most gorgeous cinematography I've seen in a long time. 8,5/10

 

[an evening with viewtiful]

 

6.5/10
A movie that falls oddly flat by the time the credits roll and has no excuse to do so. Great cast, obvious talent on the technical end, but a meandering plot and a ho-hum script just left this one feeling like a big budget reject from Martin Scorcesse's idea book.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by MellySingsDoom

Although my reaction this time is not as negative as it was on my initial viewing all them years ago, I can't help but feel that I'm either totally missing the point of this film, or a case of me simply finding this sphere of "underground" film-making not to my taste at all.

If you are a follower of this genre of cinema, I guess that you should give it a go at least once. Otherwise, I'm afraid to say that I can't recommend this one to the casual viewer.

As much as I still love it, it's maybe more historically significant now than anything else. I'm sure plenty of those who originally mentioned it as an influence when the whole Queer Cinema and B Movie revival thing kicked off never actually saw it. Prior to the web it was really hard to see, even compared with a lot of other underground films, so a lot of its classic status is probably based on reputation more than from actually watching it. And its rarity obviously enhanced its cult status among those who had. But there's also a cult that's built up around Jack Smith himself, which increasingly seems to exist separately from his actual output. I went to a conference on him a couple of years ago and even that was largely just a lot of old East Village types trying to outdo each other with funny anecdotes about him. Either that or linking him to other cultural currents. But invariably it was about him rather than his work.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

As much as I still love it, it's maybe more historically significant now than anything else. I'm sure plenty of those who originally mentioned it as an influence when the whole Queer Cinema and B Movie revival thing kicked off never actually saw it. Prior to the web it was really hard to see, even compared with a lot of other underground films, so a lot of its classic status is probably based on reputation more than from actually watching it. And its rarity obviously enhanced its cult status among those who had. But there's also a cult that's built up around Jack Smith himself, which increasingly seems to exist separately from his actual output. I went to a conference on him a couple of years ago and even that was largely just a lot of old East Village types trying to outdo each other with funny anecdotes about him. Either that or linking him to other cultural currents. But invariably it was about him rather than his work.

i wanted to answer him too but melly has left the building (he said temporarily, anyway)

watched lars von trier's medea which is an homage to carl theodor dreyer (it was his screenplay that "von" trier shot). i think it was made for tv, and the dvd looked horrible, not sure if it was a lousy transfer or that's how the original looked (washed out, fucked) but i have to say THE COMPOSITION OF THE SHOTS WAS AMAZING. incredible visual imagination on the part of lvt (or maybe he just ripped off dreyer). in any case-- YES, CINEMA. that is the fucking language of moving pictures. god damn i was blown away by something that looked like an old worn out and faded umax tape from a video archive. simply incredible.

 

 

 

i cant find my favorite shots on the internet but there were some incdebibe shots underwater and shots with projections behind it and such fucking visual poetry, it was incredible.

[EVOLghost]

 

(helter skelter)