OT: The Movies Thread

[nuraman00]

Wow, thanks. So the movie was technically wrong in calling, what they saw, as buffalo. But they were culturally correct in calling those animals what they had been actually called, at those times.

 

[nuraman00]

I had something in the 2010's that was claimed to be buffalo (technically Bison, Buffalos aren't there where I had it) and saw it in the stores in Wyoming. So Bison is either acceptable and true or it is pretended to be eaten by calling the meat that.

I guess bison is still "acceptable", it's just rare.

 

[nuraman00]

Watching "Airplane!"

 

[nuraman00]

Funny dialogue over the PA about which airport zone ("red" or "white") is for loading/unloading.

Normally when at an airport, those things are repetitive and robotic, but now, during this scene, I'm actually paying attention to what they're saying.

 

[nuraman00]

Saving Private Ryan:

Watched "Saving Private Ryan".

The battle scenes were intense, sometimes too intense and graphic. Good directing.


Black Hawk Down:


I didn't like the directing style of "Black Hawk Down". I thought it was boring.



The events pertaining to the movie were interesting, but I didn't like the movie itself.

 

[nuraman00]

Watching Gangs of New York.

 

[nuraman00]

Starting "Argo".

 

[nuraman00]

Saw "True Grit" yesterday.

What did Mattie mean at the end when she met the guys who were doing the traveling West show, and when told that Rooster had died, she said "You can keep your seat, trash !"?



According to Yahoo Answers, it's because you're supposed to stand up when speaking to a lady. And also, she might have disliked Frank James. I don't think either stood though, but she only got mad at the one on the right. Also, they seemed like old men anyways, not in good physical health.



True Grit (new version) question? - Yahoo! Answers



+++++++++++++++++



Overall I thought it was a good movie and good story, but not quite Oscar worthy.


Watching Blazing Saddles now.

"Excuse me while I whip this out . . ."

 

[nuraman00]

Beaches: I wanted to watch this because Seinfeld referred to it. Good acting and storytelling of a sometimes rocky relationship between friends.

Trainspotting: Great special effects and directing. Some amusing stories from the heroin addicts.
Renton’s character though still doesn’t seem to be the type to steal his friend Tommy’s sex tape, and then not confess that he caused Tommy and his girlfriend to break up because of the missing sex tape. Renton seemed to be the type of character that would have had a little bit of remorse.

2001: A Space Odyssey: Great directing. It took me a while to get into 2001, but once they introduced HAL 9000, I was intrigued.

The Goonies: I liked it, a good kids adventure movie. Best kids movie I've seen since the mid 90s movies with McCaulay Culkin, or The Sandlot.



The Hurt Locker: Pretty good, a unique setting for war movie, with the focus on the bomb squad. Not one of the greatest war movies, but worth watching. It wasn't THAT good to win the awards that it did.




Children Of The Corn (2009 Syfy channel version, not Stephen King version): The suspense in this movie was good. They had great timing on the suspense, more than most other scary movies. I liked the acting too.

Should I watch the original 1980 Stephen King movie? Not sure if I want to watch essentially the same plot twice.

The Big Lebowski: Another one of those movies with interesting characters, and an unpredictable plot, comprising of various incidents. I can see why there’s so many internet references to these characters.

Gravity: Good special effects, saw it in 3-D. It’s a survival/all-hope-is-lost movie. Pretty good acting by Bullock.

Spawn: Combines sci-fi with themes of good vs. evil and the afterlife. The special effects seem a little dated, and the directing style is a little weird. But a decent rental type of a movie.

Home Alone 4: Great kids movie. Also had some nice homages to the original movie, like with Marv being on fire, and Kevin singing in the shower.

A worthy sequel. If you never saw the first two, while they had some great actors, you'd like this one as much.

Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy: The first 35 mins or so contained most of the soundbites and clips that I’d heard about this movie. After that, it was a little boring.

It’s hard to watch this movie with so much being said about it already. I wish most of the good parts weren’t so concentrated at the beginning.

Brick might be the funniest character in the movie, even more than Ron.

Cujo: Wow, great acting by the kid Danny Pintauro. One of the best child acting jobs, for a more serious movie (not a comedy), that I’ve seen. I can see why Pintauro would later star on Who’s The Boss.

This movie developed the characters well, with themes of marriage, disconnect/boredom in the marriage, adultery, and the suspicions and trust issues that arise from that.
And also, the child being scared of monsters in his room, only to have a rabid dog (another form of a “monster”) lurking outside, when the mom and child are trapped in the car.

They also developed the kid, Tad’s character, by showing that his dad was slightly better at comforting him from monsters than his mom, and that Tad wasn’t liking summer camp, but that his mom couldn’t figure that out. And that Tad could really only be truthful with his dad. They did a good job with showing a child having a different level of closeness with each parent.

Friday The 13th: I’m going to compare this to A Nightmare On Elm Street. I thought Nightmare had good special effects, but the plot was dumb. A guy killing people while they dream? I’m going to give this series another chance, and try part 2 sometime. But it will be a shame if I can’t get into this series, especially since Freddy Krueger is supposed to be an iconic character. And it has the same actor play Krueger in all the movies! How rare is that.

Now, back to Friday The 13th: I thought this did a solid job with the setting, music, and plot. I didn’t think the acting was that good. There wasn’t much material to work with though, just a bunch of people in their teens or early 20s hanging out at camp, and getting it prepared for camp opening which was a few days away.

However, I found out that there’s no iconic hockey mask in this movie! I have to wait for the 3rd movie to see the hockey mask.

Overall, this series has more potential for me than Nightmare, but like I said, I’ll give Nightmare another chance.

This series also seems a little better than Child’s Play (seen the first 4). Child’s Play was good for a few quick surprises, but not much would happen during the other moments of the movie IMO.

 

[nuraman00]

Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind: One of those movies where you don't understand what's going on until partway through, then you try to put all of the details of the movie together to help piece the plot. With the plot, in this case, being Joel and Clementine's relationship, and how they erased it from each other.

A Streetcar Named Desire:

There was plenty of tension throughout the movie.

All of the characters were flawed and had something wrong with them.

This was a difficult movie to watch, as there was so much tension and intensity.

 

[nuraman00]

Donnie Darko: Interesting character movie that also combined time travel.

I knew someone was going to die at the end, but I thought it would be the mom and Samantha, since they were on the plane.

Good camera directing.

Donnie Darko: Movie Explanation - A Detailed Explanation Of What happens In Donnie Darko

The Freshmen: I might have seen this one previously. Funny movie with a running gag about Marlon Brando and The Godfather.

It's one of those movies where you find out what the real plot was about, at the end.

 

[nuraman00]

Kramer vs. Kramer:



I did finish the movie. But even though I saw the ending, I was thinking the whole time why couldn't they have done joint custody? I'd understand a parent wanting sole custody, if they really hated the other parent, and didn't trust the other parent. But these two seemed to have a reasonable relationship together, in terms of raising the kid. Not much animosity in front of the kid. Why did Joanna have to have sole custody?



The stitches scene was uncomfortable/good.



The double chocolate ice cream scene was good too.



Also, Streep won for supporting actress. Does a movie have to have a lead actor, and lead actress? Or can a movie have a lead actor, and only supporting actresses? Or vice versa, with respect to the genders. How does the academy determine whether it's a lead role or supporting role?

 

[MHSL82]

Kramer vs. Kramer:

I did finish the movie. But even though I saw the ending, I was thinking the whole time why couldn't they have done joint custody? I'd understand a parent wanting sole custody, if they really hated the other parent, and didn't trust the other parent. But these two seemed to have a reasonable relationship together, in terms of raising the kid. Not much animosity in front of the kid. Why did Joanna have to have sole custody?

The stitches scene was uncomfortable/good.

The double chocolate ice cream scene was good too.

Also, Streep won for supporting actress. Does a movie have to have a lead actor, and lead actress? Or can a movie have a lead actor, and only supporting actresses? Or vice versa, with respect to the genders. How does the academy determine whether it's a lead role or supporting role?

They could test it by making a movie with only hot actresses who can act really well (don't know who, so don't ask) and no men. Have a great screenplay (don't ask how, I don't know). Then, let's see.

But seriously, they could have a leading actor and only supporting actresses, it's just that no one would be nominated for leading actress.

 

[nuraman00]

They could test it by making a movie with only hot actresses who can act really well (don't know who, so don't ask) and no men. Have a great screenplay (don't ask how, I don't know). Then, let's see.

But seriously, they could have a leading actor and only supporting actresses, it's just that no one would be nominated for leading actress.

What other movies, other than Kramer vs. Kramer, have had that kind of acting role/structure?

As for your hot actresses idea, I'm sure sakataters is on board with that one. And don't be shy. You know both all of the hot actresses who can act well, and all of the hot actresses who can't act well (because they're in a certain genre of film).

 

[nuraman00]

Also, your thoughts on the issue of custody? Since you have a legal perspective.

Is joint custody an underused option?

 

[MHSL82]

Also, your thoughts on the issue of custody? Since you have a legal perspective.

Is joint custody an underused option?

Women get the custody for "reasonable reasons" just like men are paid more for "reasonable reasons." Neither one is reasonable. If you asked me (and even if you didn't), I think the first is less reasonable than the second. Again, neither are reasonable.

If the father is no good, he won't show up and fight for it. If there is no reason to fight, joint is fine. If the father just wants money in the case she makes more, then he should let it go. Better to have no father than a bad one. Note: I am defining bad to actually be bad, not the unintentional. I'm talking about the beaters, the intentional neglectors (assuming the alternative is full time non-neglecting mother), etc.

Haven't seen Kramer v. Kramer.

 

[nuraman00]

Thanks.

 

[MHSL82]

Thanks.

I've never had someone thank me for not seeing Kramer v. Kramer before.

 

[nuraman00]

I've never had someone thank me for not seeing Kramer v. Kramer before.

Joke Of The Night.

 

[nuraman00]

Women get the custody for "reasonable reasons" just like men are paid more for "reasonable reasons." Neither one is reasonable. If you asked me (and even if you didn't), I think the first is less reasonable than the second. Again, neither are reasonable.

If the father is no good, he won't show up and fight for it. If there is no reason to fight, joint is fine. If the father just wants money in the case she makes more, then he should let it go. Better to have no father than a bad one. Note: I am defining bad to actually be bad, not the unintentional. I'm talking about the beaters, the intentional neglectors (assuming the alternative is full time non-neglecting mother), etc.

Haven't seen Kramer v. Kramer.

Do you think judges should rule on joint custody more often though? Assuming that both parents live within the same city, and can both realistically take the kid to school from either parent's location.

In joint custody, the time would be split about 50/50, right?