MovieChat Forums > Dalyngrigge > Replies
Dalyngrigge's Replies
She might not be as great as Robert Pattinson but she is certainly no Taylor Lautner
Is TV acting really still seen as a downgrade? With the rise of streaming the quality of TV shows have really gone up, I think there are many who even hold them up to as high a standard as movies. I still prefer movies over TV but I wouldn't really see it as a downgrade anymore, not like back in the day.
im gonna say yes because that makes me look clever
Botox'll do that for you.
I don't really mind that, though I do agree it's a bit lazy and a story can benefit from a more original title.
HOWEVER I think it's worse when it's a historical or biopic, since there's probably a wealth of life stories you could pull from for a title. If it's a fictional character, like Amelie or Rambo, I don't mind as much, since the movie is about the fictional narrative they've constructed for them.
What really gets my goat are films that only take one of someone's full name. They do this especially with remakes and biopics, I find, an example being 'The Times of Harvey Milk' from 1984 being condensed to just 'Milk' in 2008. But yeah, things like 'Capote', 'Ray', it feels like they're trying to add a weight to the name that just isn't there.
What are you talking about, is this sarcasm?
To be completely honest I am not entirely sure what it is you're trying to say with all of this, so please enlighten me if you want, but to comment about the "star power" of modern film actors I would just say it has a lot to do with what cinema has become/is becoming. Cinema is still a considerably young medium so the stars that were developed back in the day have pretty set the precedent to what a movie star is, but the films that were made back then were obviously quite different than now. Matt Damon and DiCaprio might not immediately exude that kind of classical star quality, but I think that they're serving different purposes now, with regards to the kinds of genres that have prevailed. I'm sure when all of them are dead or retired and the next wave have taken center stage, we'll be talking about how different their star power is to the ones before as well.
They're actually doing a 'Boyhood' sort of deal, they're getting the actor's great-grandchildren to be reprising the roles.
Personally, I think it was a masterpiece as it is, doesn't need any kind of followup. Further proof Louis Le Prince is out of ideas!
I liked it. I thought it was a fresh way to approach an idea as overdone as WWII, especially how it deals with time.
But yeah, I'd have to agree, Hollywood does seem to be running out of steam in regards to WWII. I mean, it was a six year affair, there aren't any other moments they could make a movie of? It was a world war for god's sake, of course there are...
This will become his 'Apocalypse Now'. He will release a new cut every so often, since as we all know, true art is never really finished....
Is it time to bully the actresses off of Twitter again?
I feel like if I were really wasted just the arythmic timing of the title card getting all cut up would be enough to make me think I was wigging out.
Ultimately I'd probably just fall alseep.
I agree that should've been less funny. It's a film that makes fun of Nazis and Nazism but other than the gestapo, there are pretty much no bad Nazis in the film. I think that having every Nazi be funny in some way clashed with the tone and ended up muddying up the film's presentation.
that's not the kinda boof you'd wanna pass
You're right about not being able to judge who 'the best' is ultimately. It's all a matter of personal opinion and taste, ultimately. Time is a factor as well. Me saying that Nolan could still 'fuck up' isn't really accurate, when I think about it. He still has his great films to cement his legacy.
I just think that, being as mainstream and within Hollywood as he is, there is a bit of a precedent to compare him to, which would inevitably place him at some level within that history. You couldn't compare Nolan to some of the best avant-garde filmmakers, for example, since their cinemas aren't reaching as wide an audience and aren't really aiming for the same goals.
I'm really sympathetic towards Snyder. I won't hesitate to say a good chunk of his movies are garbage, but I really get the feeling that he actually tries and cares about what he does. You can tell he's talented in some areas more than others, I just think he doesn't always apply them correctly and it leads him to producing these often awful products. I feel like if he didn't get involved in the comic book stuff his filmography would be a lot more interesting; Sucker Punch, regardless of what you think of it, is at least original.
Bay, to me, just feels like a director-for-hire who's somehow managed to build of a cult of personality around him. He just directs for the money and I doubt he really cares about the films he makes. I'll agree his impact on cinema will be long-lasting, though I wouldn't say for good reasons....
I would say that Nolan is definetly one of the better popular, mainstream directors right now. Like someone said above me he's a great example of straddling the line between art and entertainment, and for me that's what popular cinema should be. The whole war is definetly just because he involved himself with the nerdy comic book crowds, who now worship him for having made some of the best superhero films (which is true, honestly). And also, like I said, his movies do a good job of mixing art and entertainment, and enjoying the artsy aspects of his films can go to some people's heads, I think.
What I think, though, is that you shouldn't, and really just can't, declare any filmmaker to be one of the greatest ever until they're in the grave, or at the very least on their way out. It's only then that you can really compare the body of work they've produced; he still has lots of time to fuck up.