MovieChat Forums > maximmm
avatar

maximmm (828)


Posts


episode 4 decent flick episode 3 episode 2 their jeffrey epstein double parter he seemed annoyed and agitated post the monologue For people with attention deficit disorder saw the cutscenes film the ending.... pretty open and suggestive of a sequel crappy film - much worse than the original View all posts >


Replies


I think it was largely unnecessary in this film, but it didn't really detract from it either, which I suppose is impressive on its own. So, while I thought it was an interesting shooting technique, I wasn't impressed per se - just found it peculiar. It did keep the plot relatively focused and simple though - I'm thinking maybe Nolan could learn a bit from that, but knowing Nolan, he'd skip all the fun parts and just have a dude walking for 120 minutes without saying anything, with no music - nothing - and then everyone would proclaim it as being a masterpiece ^^ That is true - the camera always the same distance away from the main character - and it always had the main character in the shot, never straying away. It was, I must admit, an interesting technique. I'm not sure if it was truly necessary, but it did keep the story focused (I must admit though, I did fast-forward nearly 20 percent of the movie - thereby keeping the story even more focused). Just saw this film - I fastforwarded maybe 20% of the film (the anecdotes one dude tells the other - I wasn't interested in that crap). And Dunkirk .... I had to fastforward through 80% of it (long shots with absolutely nothing happening/incoherent and unfocused plot - Nolan's trademark). So... yeah, 1917 has a coherent story, good visuals, good acting. All in all, Dunkirk was an overhyped crapshow, while this proved to be a decent film (not amazing, but good). So.... it's like comparing that famous banana art to an actual painting. One is nonsensical, overhyped tard, while the other one is an actual painting. The trailer for 1917 is crap though. It really does make it seem like dunkirk wannabe. In reality though, it's just a normal movie about a dude trying to prevent a massacre in war-setting. All in all, ignore the trailer, watch the movie, you'll be pleasantly surprised, especially if you are expecting Nolan crap-like quality. STD season 1 was fairly focused - with new mysterious revelations adding to the anticipation of the climax, not detracting from it. This is more like STD season 2, where very little happens between episode 1 and 10 (were there 10 episodes? I honestly don't care to check). Hell, even the climax in STD2 was lame and not worth force-watching 8 episodes of filler. I suspect that the answers to the suggested 'mysteries' in picard will be equally boring, since, thus far, everything suggests they've hired the same sort of writers. It's like it was made for people who have never seen a ST show before, yet it advertises itself as part of ST canon. STD did many similar things - but it had the advantage of not having any of the old ST actors - so, you weren't necessarily expecting a continuation of the canon. Here - it looks bizarre. If you are right, then that would imply that he truly is a decent actor - because his on-screen persona is one of a friendly, funny and charismatic dude. Having said that, I feel like he became a big name on hollywood despite his actions, not because of them - which means there was a lot of luck involved. lol billie sucks, but so does the old guard Anyways, it's a good question and while I don't know how things were in that universe, soviet union is a possible example of how things might have worked. I imagine there is a credit system of sorts - in the last stages of communism in the soviet union, people had coupons for sugar, rice, etc - because those things were hard to come by. Before that though, to get an apartment - and keep in mind, the apartment was not owned by you, you lived in it, you could trade it (for another apartment in a different area), but you couldn't sell it. In order to get this apartment, there were queues. In Soviet Union, personal connections were very important. If you had good connections with the right people, you could be bumped up in this queue. If you were a war veteran, you were automatically bumped up in queue - and if you were a war veteran, you could also get a phone. In my family, only my grandmother had a phone (from my father's side). In fact, there were only 2 phones in the whole building. Then again, given that so few people had phones, most people didn't have much need to use one, since they couldn't call anyone, other than police in case of emergency. I hear that the higher ups in the military were granted pretty lavish dachas and new cars (which aged eventually - they weren't given new cars often) - same goes for politicians. But even then.... I must admit, the difference between the rich and the poor was pretty small when compared to what we are seeing in the capitalist society of today. Keep in mind, you couldn't really be rich in soviet union - wealth was looked down upon. Famous actors, for example, usually ended up being as poor as anyone else, their wealth was primarily in fame, not money - not like what you are seeing in the hollywood. I figure, Picard could have used his social credit to obtain anything he wanted - he was starfleet's most decorated officer, but yes - his family's vineyard.... my grand-grandma was also a war vet and she had 'hutor' which is like a bigger version of dacha - she had cows, pigs - it was basically a farm. View all replies >