MovieChat Forums > HarvardBarbie
avatar

HarvardBarbie (242)


Posts


Why was it acceptable... De Niro bringing flip phones back Behar in Blackface Informative and Sorrowful Ladies and Gentlemen, meet our new... A Wet Road Warrior.... Gratulujeme Karolína Plíšková! Best Synopsis I've Read Macron is the first French president not to have served in the army... Insomniacs Rejoice! View all posts >


Replies


Agree, this was extraordinary. At my screening, all the previews and ads were in black and white that looked amateurish once Lukasz Zal's cinematography came on the screen. The rural songs, dances and costumes were a joy; a joy that was stolen by Stalin. I know several people who were put off by the soundtrack. For me, the repetitive note had the feel of a heartbeat that added tension. I also enjoy Baroque music but will not be buying the soundtrack. Also, a couple of the pieces had not yet been composed during the reign of Queen Anne, but were no less effective in supporting the film and were not a distraction for me. Not addressing and "having no problem" are quite different. But you bring up another question. Why is that offensive word alright for some and not others? There's an outdoor fitness area where I sometimes workout, and two very fit, fast, African-American teenage boys were loudly using that word. They were wearing clothing that is considered enviable by the young and hip kids. I walked over to them and said, "Do you guys see that little blond boy who looks to be seven or eight and is watching and admiring everything you guys are doing?" They both said yes. I told them that "because they come across as "cool" he might think that word is okay. When he says it at home, he will learn the taste of soap." A bit later, the woman who brought them strode in my direction and I thought she may tell me to mind my own business. She did not. She thanked me sincerely for schooling them. That still fails to address how we know with certainty who intended what in jest or irony. People seem to be condemning only those who do not share their political opinions. It was not meant to be funny, but I agree that Ironman gives him a pass with fans now. My question is why was it greenlit and why has it not been mentioned in the larger context of what's in the news now. When RDJ was in jail/prison, he was given permission to work on films and be picked up by a driver. I don't remember the exact statistics, but I recall reading that he worked more from prison than a huge percentage of SAG members worked from their homes. Yes, he has talent, but so do others. Most of the rabid Michael Jackson fans failed to believe anything negative about his kiddie diddling because he was a 'musical genius'. We see what's coming out now of the goings on at Neverland. Finally...what ARE the rules and why aren't they enforced with egalitarianism. Since we are on Movie Chat, acceptable: "able to be agreed on; suitable," clearly refers to the studio and producers who made it, the critics who mostly liked it, and the public-at-large who flocked to it. Your response is my question. What are the rules and how are they enforced so randomly? Good. If you've not seen Shine, give it a go. Geoffrey Rush was brilliant. Even won an Oscar. He plays a pianist who suffers a breakdown. Rachel seems to have done the "Reverse Fox News Channel" transformation. [url] http://www.snakkle.com/galleries/before-they-were-famous-stars-surprising-real-hair-colors-in-hollywood-then-and-now/rachel-maddow-split-2/ [/url] Shine (1996) Perfect explanation. View all replies >