Sundown

That's true... I'd mentioned Band of Brothers before, and it even has David Schwimmer/Ross being a compelling and thoroughly hateable villian.

Agreed. Chasing Amy is one of my favorites, and is a more solid film than most of Smith's other works. Dogma's amusing, and Jay and Silent Bob has its moments, but Chasing Amy has more going on for it. It's also features Ben Afleck in his most believable role before he annoyingly became heartthrob/superhero. As an actual semi-Smith fan, I find Clerks largely unwatchable. It has like all of two interesting scenes, and the rest just sort of hurts to sit through.

I'm not denying that there was narration in the drafts and scripts. There was. But we have two sources, Scott, and Ford, who both state that the movie wasn't made with narration in mind. Furthermore, two writers were hired to write the narration after the movie's filming, which implies that the narration wasn't set in stone, if it was to be included at all. It at least suggests that the narration in the script was largely unsatisfactory. To say flatly that the narration had always been intended from the get go by those that matter and that anyone who disagreed was simply being difficult involves a great deal of speculation. It also requires us to dismiss what's been said by more than one of the film's crew in favor of our personal theories. Yep, Scott obviously revised his opinion on Deckard, which cheapens the film a tad and eliminates the ambiguity that added to the film's meaning. But if we're taking Ford as a source here to disprove Scott's credibility regarding the film's narration, I'd think that what Ford himself says about the narration should also have some merit. I know Scott was a pain to work with, and I'd concede that at least the writers and producers thought that there should be narration, but it's pretty apparent that Scott's dislike of the narration made him film and direct the movie in a way that didn't best serve the inclusion of a voice-over. His approach and direction also seems to have affected Ford's opinion on whether Blade Runner required narration, and thus, Ford's actual performance and delivery. In the end the voice-over, to me, feels pieced together and the production value of the film suffers, even as it helps some parts of the viewing.

Just replace them with the cast of Red Dwarf or something. Or the aformentioned Arnold. One danger to this scenario is that all we'd get are Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley movies. But this might also mean we get to see more of Rachael Weiss and Clive Owens.

See, that's just the thing. I'm not sure where the decidedly bad part of Devil's Advocate is supposed to be found. It's a tad over the top, okay... and some of it is pretty gratuitous, but it really drives home the character of the devil, temptation, man's weakness, pride, gullability, and both his prision and hope in free will. And it does what it sets out to do pretty well. And Pacino isn't even screaming. Maybe people just hated the "it was all a dream aspect". But who saw it coming that Keanu's solution was to blow his own head off? Kate Beckinsale's another Brit actress that makes my guilty pleasures watchable. Plus shes more gorgeous than most actresses hired for their looks, and can actually do action to boot.I almost feel like we'd get along fine if the entire collective of American actors disappeared overnight. The British and Australians would just fill their roles, often being better at portraying Americans than Americans are. Blew my mind to know that a heavy portion of the cast of Band of Brothers were in fact British.

I'm still not quite sure why it was so loathed on its release. There are a lot of good quotes and gems in that movie. I also want to take this moment to slather praise for Tilda Swinton as the angel Gabriel/David Bowie in Constantine. Except for the longest time I thought she was Kate Blanchett, and was amazed by her range, thinking "Galadriel, Kathrine Hepburn, and andyrogenous he-she, too? Wow."

I have to agree that Peter Stormare made for a pretty good Satan. Somehow he pulled off ugly, creepy, and swuave all at the same time. Next you're going to tell me I'm not the only one who kind of enjoyed the Devil's Advocate.

Yep, this is actually my favorite scene in the movie. Batty is pretty much the emotional highlight of the film. Without him we'd just have to endure through two hours of plodding akwardness between Ford and Young. Maybe I really oughta finish watching the original version. This voice-over probably would have made the climax more satisfying than trying to discern what Deckard's thinking, and made him ultimately more relateable by movie's end.

You're right that there's narration in the shooting script, but Ridley Scott actually filmed it without. The producers insisted that narration be added and it was given a few rewrites by different writers.Ridley himself has said that some noir films work with narration, and some don't. Blade Runner to him was one that didn't. And Ford says that he gave six readings of the narration, none of which worked well, because the film wasn't originally made to have narration. This leads me to believe that the voice over wasn't particularly embraced by the film's makers, and that it was decided that there wouldn't be any when Ridley and crew felt they were "done". I actually looked forward to watching the original version, wanting to like the narration and hoping it would smooth the problems I had with the Directors Cut. It felt off, although I did like some of the insights to what was going on in Deckards mind beyond what was suggested by him staring at a newspaper, an old photograph, or into nothing in particular. I have to admit I haven't finished watching all of that version though. That's probably it, and in the end, I sort of gauge a movie by how much I enjoy it, how much it captivates me, rather than how faithfully it fits into an established school of film and whether it hits the marks I expect of that genre. There's much to love in Blade Runner, and its depth lends repeated viewings, but it still leaves me wanting. I actually like films that some people consider a little slow, as long as the ideas, dialogue, and setups keep things interesting, but I do admit that I enjoy some sort of climactic emotional payoff, happy or bittersweet, for my viewing investment. Oh, that's just us discussing the movie after I'd brought it up as an example of noir wannabe that worked for me.

Cliffhanger -- Sylvester Stallone being Sylvester Stallone. But Michael Rooker as his estranged buddy gave the characters some depth. Add John Lithgow as the villian, and that cute girl from Northern Exposure and you have me watching this movie four times. It's a dumb movie, but I enjoyed every minute of its idiocy. Rogue Force/Renegade Force-- You know a film is B-movie gold when it has more than one name based on where it was released. Mostly silly movie, starring Robert Patrick and again, Michael Rooker. But the SWAT and CQB realism was pretty top notch, especially for such a low-budget film. Helped that actual members of the Cleveland SWAT Team played parts in the action scenes. UHF-- Wierd Al Yankovic. Conan the Librarian, Ghandi 2, and Wheel of Fish. No Michael Rooker though. =( "Dohn't yoo knol da Doowey Deceemol Seesytahm?!!" Armegeddon-- Even guiltier not seeing what's so terribly bad about it. It was a fun flick if not particularly realistic. Underworld-- Kate Beckingsale and an ending that left the possibility for sequels without being too contrived. Constantine-- Help.

Thing is, the narration wasn't ever intended until the studio execs watched the film and forced Ridley to tack it on after he'd finished filming. A writer was hired to write Deckard's narration after the fact. Blade Runner might have started out noir-esque, given its setting and themes, but it wasn't intended to be a noir homage for most of its production, if noir automatically implies narration. He doesn't sound like a miserable detective. He sounds like a miserable actor who's too miserable to bother acting. I don't think the latter is what anyone was going for. It doesn't help that the tone of the narration doesn't always fit the expression on Ford's face, and the mixing of the narration just sounds off. That ain't it (even though I do like the film). I don't want a Matrix-like Blade Runner, although my sensibilities would have preferred something more talky in parts and more traditionally paced. Sin City was also a homage to noir, and I loved nearly all of it.

I also saw the Director's Cut first, and felt that it dragged a bit. I guess I wanted thicker dialogue, or something to break up all the other slow, sparse, and plodding character exchanges. Not sure I like the theatrical release, since Ford gives an even worse performance narrating than he does in front of the camera, but it does break up some of the film's slowness. Unfortunately, it also feels a bit out of place and makes Blade Runner feel a little cheaper. I still feel kind of dirty mentioning Blade Runner, since I actually do like the movie quite a bit. It's presentation is phenomenal for its time, especially as a serious and artistic sci-fi movie that wasn't just a popcorn special effects vehicle. I just think it could have been a much tighter film as a whole, but I don't think that's the film Scott wanted to make.

The Green Berets. Wanted to watch it because it was supposed to be sort of a war classic... unfortunately John Wayne's cool swagger doesn't make him a believable soldier when performed in the middle of combat. And Blade Runner. While I actually like the movie, mostly for its ambience, visuals, and themes, it was a bit of a dissapointing watch given all the praise it gets. And Ford, who I thought would at least be solid and entertaining, turned out to be pretty mediocre. It does get props for being the inspiration of so much anime... after seeing the film you realize how much Ghost In The Shell, Bubble Gum Crisis, etc. essentially rips off/is inspired by Blade Runner. The creators of those series didn't even have to work hard at adopting Blade Runner's world to Japanese culture, since Scott had essentially done it for them.

Definitely would be, if the Duke's okay with it. Otherwise, I'd like to hear your thoughts about it over PM or in a separate thread, or an existing old thread if we've got one.

I have to admit that I have no idea how to spot bad directing, at least not well enough to spot it in the Passion. The only clear instance I can point out of obviously bad direction is in the Star Wars prequels. At any rate, it certainly doesn't follow the film conventions of say, Braveheart. Is that Gibson's real beard? And I still can't figure out what people coated what appears to be plaster has anything to do with Mayans. I'm more confused about that than seeing Saddam Wallace in the trailer.

Even though I thought it one of the more artistic and authentic portrayals of the events leading up to Jesus's crucifixion, I guess I can undestand how someone looking for a film to entertain or compel them, or whatever it is films are supposed to do might find it lacking. Especially since the movie is somewhat predictable, and is constrained by Gibson's faithfulness (no pun intended) to the source material. And it's not like there were any surprises in store-- Jesus wasn't going to start shooting lasers out of His eyes at some point in the movie. So yeah, it worked for me, but I'm curious what makes it so unqualifiably poor to other folks. Could the subject matter even be done in a manner that would be considered undeniably good filmmaking, while remaining nearly verse-for-verse faithful to the Gospels, which obviously weren't originally written as screenplays? And could it ever work in the original language? Or maybe Gibson's enterprise simply couldn't succeed for some audiences. Anyway, I thought the anti-Semitism controversy silly, and I'm pretty undecided about the film's violence. The whipping scene constituted only some 10 minutes of the film, and I'm not sure its length added much beyond the stir it created, at least for me. I know that left the most lasting impression for some folks though.

That would actually be pretty brilliant-- going to the store to zap the movie onto a robust portable drive then bringing it back home. We wouldn't even have to wait for a faster internet. My only worry would be hard drive crashes-- I suppose retailers can keep track of what you've already purchased and let you download those titles again, but that'd be time consuming and an enormous hassle. There's just something comforting about having a physical copy of the movie available to you if you need it.

HEY?!! 353662[/snapback] Don't you mean, "EH?!"

Not BS with something like Legend of the Galactic Heroes, where the characters are constantly yacking away about strategy and politics, sometimes during a battle you'd actually like to watch. I don't like missing even a single word, and having to guess at what they said. The problem is even worse with subs that aren't perfect gramatically and don't read as well as they should.

Heh, wow, that's cynical. Not trying to turn the discussion back. Just felt a thorough apology and explanation was needed for the unwelcome and lengthy foray into off-topic-land. I'm not sure how I'm the new low-vis-lurker considering I've been longwinded on just about everything for a whole lot longer. It's just escaped notice all this time. But okay, as CROM commands: Something about faith-based charities. Blah, blah. Yay Bono. Blah. Something about hope for the destitute... I break into "We Are the World", and then am viciously tranquilized by Mr March. Back on topic-- Given that the destroyer is now bidding for 20k+, anyone know how much that many pieces would actually cost a guy? I'm wondering how design and labor is valued in addition to the bare cost of all the pieces, although I know the actual bare materials cost is higher than just the pieces there because certain parts can only be bought in certain kits. And an estimated $2000 for (free) shipping? Nuts. And if the bidding actually goes high enough, can the guy actually make out by writing the donation of the final amount off on his taxes?

Bribery. 352883[/snapback] With what? Starving Africans? Black labor? But that's so 1600's. Maybe he just threated to play Pop.

Actually, I do really apologize for missing the request to stay on topic. I'd actually missed that until after I'd hit the post button (and ended up adding that half-assed bit at the end when I saw it). Was also hoping for more discussion than just trading cynical quips about a particular charity, but I realize now that this isn't the place for it. Okay, not quite sure where I'm generalizing here-- I was attempting to specifically address each of the generalizing statements that were already made in this thread-- but if I'm inaccurate and generalizing in anything I've stated, and if it's something you'd care to do, I'd really appreciate it if you'd point them out over PM. If there's anything I hate, it's being innaccurate myself when I take issue to a generalization someone else has made. But yeah, I do see how my response could have been seen as kneejerk and a tirade-- being this detailed and verbose response to a few casual comments. So I gotta apologize again for that. I'd actually spent some time thinking through my response before posting, but yeah, I'll admit that having disparaging things said about two things I care about whittled a bit away at my normal restraint. So sorry guys, for not catching the request to go back on topic, and sorry again for extending the discussion where it doesn't belong.

Despite the obligatory defenses I make for the mental health industry out of knowing Scientology's motives in making it a scapegoat for society's ills, I actually agree with DeathHammer on more than a few points. I wouldn't say that there's no benefit to the different branches of the mental health industry, but I think it's more often abused by folks looking for a quick fix. I'm gonna be vulnerable for one quick minute and say that like most human beings, I actually have insecurities and I actually have things that bug me. So I think I can sort of imagine the temptations of a fix for whatever doesn't feel great, whether that fix is in medication or in paying someone to listen to you so you don't have to risk your real relationships. Ended up being my faith and thoughts that lead me to realize-- dude, just get over yourself already. As hokey as it sounds. Probably not something learned medicated on some guy's couch.

I don't think a charity having faith in the person of Jesus as god, regardless of whether someone would actually agree or not, automatically makes it a "lousy" one if the less fortunate are helped, and if they're lives are improved, and if they do grow in the ability to support themselves. And if their work is based on Jesus's teaching and example in the way he served and healed society's most shunned and rejected, and it does actually restore lives, then one might consider their faith an actual asset to their work. Then again I'm Christian, so I may be a tad biased. Mr. March's assertions worry me a whole lot more if they're true, especially having worked with Habitat before. There have been cases where the destitute have become self-supporting through the work of non-profit organizations. These organizations don't simply offer basic necessities or throw wads of cash at them, but extend education and training so that the poor can better help themselves. Religious counsel and education are also sometimes offered if the organization happens to hold to a certain faith. Much of third-world poverty is a result of lack of education, certain cultural and environmental conditions, and corrupt governments. Those who suffer in the third world are often the most destitute of destitute. But there's an overwhelming amount of evidence that they aren't actually beyond help, and conditions can and have been improved. U2's Bono is a firm believer of that, is deeply involved in African Aid, and actually seems to be one of the few celebrities who know what they're talking about-- attested to by a staunch Republican Senator no less. So here we have a celebrity vocally tackling a social issue. He's addressing the poorest of humanity, those supposedly beyond help. And he's a Christian. That should be three strikes against him in certain books... yet he's backed by someone traditionally associated with conservative empowerment, wealth, and helping the middle class over the bottom rungs of society. What's going on here? Sure, throwing money at the homeless with abandon isn't much of a solution, because more than likely, they will do just that-- squander it out of not having the habits and skills needed to make that money last. But do we cling to that one thought to excuse ourselves from ever showing compassion, or from working to make things better for them in some other form? Do we selectively tell ourselves easy semi-truths to make it easier not to give a damn? Well, at least I know I'm often guilty of that. For what it's worth, Habitat requires those benefitting from its housing projects to put in their share of work on the house they'll be living in. I have to admit that I've wondered if it's the most efficient way of helping the most amount of people with the least amount of resources, but the families that are helped do qualify as low income families. Should we only help the most destitute? Apparently A1 would disagree. Should we only help those who are low-middling class and might be able to build wealth through something like subsitized home ownership? Obviously Mr. March wouldn't subscribe to that. So where do we meet, or do we just shrug our shoulders to all poverty because we can always come up with a compelling reason not to help one group or another? Or maybe there's room to aid different segments of those needing help, and it's not a all or nothing thing... EDIT: Err. That's some neat legoing. Although I would have preferred it if it were an OT destroyer. (Weak attempt to stay on topic, I know.) =P

Our society is over-medicated at large, and we'd all agree with the surface of Tom's claims-- but Scientology takes what's common sense to most of us, rephrases it in a way that sounds like new knowledge, and then offers it to people looking to improve their lives by selling them books and courses at exhorbitant costs... which all end up having to do with fortune cookie revelations, past lives, and ultimately aliens. Common sense statements all have a deeper implication and different understanding to Scientologists, most of them involving getting you into their cult if possible. Meanwhile, they offer none of the help that psychiatry, medicine, clinical psychology, or counselling offers. You sure feel good though, because you're talking to yourself for 5 hours a day holding two soup cans tied to a poor man's lie detector. Scientology also takes their stance on medication of the mind to an extreme, even for those who are obviously chemically imbalanced or in need of medical help at a particular moment. There was a gal who died in Scientology's custody, because while she was having a psychological breakdown (which isn't supposed to be happening if Scientology was truly helping her), Scientologists told the doctors that it was against her beliefs to receive psychiatric care. They then took her to a hotel where they attempted to treat her themselves through their own methods, some of it involving long periods of isolation. She didn't repond and died a week or two later in their hands of dehydration or pneumonia, depending on who you listen to. People who actually suffer from mental disorders that Scientology can't seem to fix are ultimately blamed for their own condition, or "offloaded" as soon as the cult realizes that person can't benefit the organization financially or materially. Sorry for the long-windedness, but Scientology is some seriously bad juju. Sorry, oblique GI Joe Public Service Announcement reference.