MovieChat Forums > MartyDeniro > Replies
MartyDeniro's Replies
No.
Yes.
Tarantino is the most overrated director ever.
6.1
Yes.
No.
4.75
She was good in The Aviator, but that's it.
The point is to give you a fly on the wall perspective, like a hidden camera set up to monitor the habits of some animal in its natural habitat. The actors weren't even aware of where some of the cameras were. You're supposed to feel like you're eavesdropping on the actual thing. Close-ups and the type of characterization you're looking for would make it too stylized.
Better on the big stage
Cerberus Shoal - The Real Ding
They're all actors - male, female, young, old, black, white, gay, straight, etc. So why separate out genders? When it comes to the craft of acting, why wouldn't genders be allowed to compete with other genders?
They should've scrapped gender for those awards a long time ago. One award for each acting category.
Never did. My library has it all.
Need Big G's name in the title to sell it.
But anyway, some do know why the heck that's the title, b/c they read the director's comments regarding it.
Japan is at zero after the bomb. Godzilla drives them into negative territory, less than zero, minus 1.
I'm still not excited. And with Shawn Levy at the helm, even less so.
But how are we defining bigger in "bigger and better"?
Your friend is right.
Blood Simple
The Natural
Places in the Heart
Repo Man
Romancing the Stone
A Soldier's Story
Broadway Danny Rose
Body Double
Gorky Park
Purple Rain
The Pope of Greenwich Village
Silkwood
It's not the cost that keeps people from coming. It's the number of alternatives that younger people grew up with. And alcohol and real food is an enticement that most didn't require in the past, so even what you're describing shows the evolution away from the traditional theater experience.
7.65
Oh, so using a logical fallacy, like a Straw man, is fine -- but someone daring to point out that you did is using a "douchebag technique"? Calling out your bullshit is bullshit? That's fucking brilliant. Those with sense would say that the douchebag technique is you using a Straw man in the first place. You only need those when you don't have a real argument, or that you're so precious about the subject that any negative comment triggered you into a spiral of sarcasm, exaggeration, and speculation that even ascribes to me an opinion I must hold about alcohol and depression (wtf?).
And no, I don't think the entire doc is bs, and that's what makes docs so insidious. Enough elements of reality are mixed with bs to make many believe everything they're seeing and hearing is the truth. But you don't need someone to lie to you with their every word to call them a liar, do you? And if they do it intentionally to manipulate you into thinking and feeling a certain way, perhaps also lying by omission, what would you call that? Straight shooter or bullshitter?
Another Straw Man to go with the rest.
Point to where I ever said "non sequitur". When you can't, you'll realize you're one of those who can't remember who he's attempting to argue with this time.
Point to where I said "there are no adverse health effects from eating only McDonald's your whole life" or "it was an absolute farce by the Big Healthy food companies to besmirch the good name of Fast Food" or your most bizarre comment on alcoholism and depression. When you can't, you'll realize you haven't really challenged me at all.
Without knowing what I mean by bs, tell me what your argument actually is, besides presumptuous nonsense, where you think you couldn't possibly be wrong in your mind reading ability -- when in reality it has nothing to do with what I meant at all? You need your Straw man or you're mute. Unless you wanna ask me,"What do you mean by bs?"