1. Fresh off her huge victory at UFC Fight Night 105, Randa Markos returns to Sherdog for her second LIVE Q&A, FRIDAY at 3:00 PM EST. Check it out here.
    Dismiss Notice

Serious Movie Discussion | Page 22

Discussion in 'Mayberry Lounge' started by Bullitt68, Sep 24, 2016.

  1. Bullitt68 Senior Moderator

    Bullitt68
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    23,798
    Likes Received:
    720
    I own that special extended Blu-ray they put out a while back. As one of my absolute favorite movies, even I agree with those people who say the new scenes are superfluous. But superfluous in the sense that they shouldn't have been put in as part of the film. If they would've had them as Deleted Scenes, that'd be one thing, but shoved into the movie the way they are, it's definitely jarring. On top of which, there was only one scene that felt like it actually belonged (a late scene with James Woods) whereas everything else felt like cutting room floor material.

    That sounds like very strange programming o_O

    I mentioned when I was talking about Silence to Ricky that my friend and I were disappointed there was nothing for us to see in theaters. Well, Doctor Strange would've qualified, but I didn't catch-up with all my Marvel viewing until right before I was going to head back to Wales so I didn't have time for it. I was considering it, though, and regardless of the fact that I missed it on the big screen, I'll definitely watch it down the road.

    A bunch of characters? Yes. Organic? Yes. But worth it? No. At least not to me. I didn't/don't need Spiderman in this universe and nobody should need/want Ant Man ever. Although, given how stupid the idea of his character is and how stupidly they've dealt with him, I'd prefer Spiderman to Vision.

    This I agree with. I liked the character and the actor.

    I've seen it twice now and I loved it just as much the second time. By far the best Iron Man and one of the strongest Marvel efforts IMO.

    I actually don't care for him but I thought he was great and as a villain, as a karmic comeuppance for Tony's arrogance, I thought he worked very well. He was also vicious, but not comic booky vicious. Actually vicious.

    I thought that worked and entirely due to how awesome and hilarious Kingsley was. He was like his character from The Wackness dialed up to 11 (The Wackness is an awesome movie BTW).

    I thought it was pretty inventive with all of his suits flying around and him constantly trying to get in and out of them.

    Not arguing with this point. They definitely should've ended it differently.

    No, but it was real close.

    The crazy people are the ones who didn't think she was hilarious.

    [​IMG]
     
    #421
    chickenluver and ufcfan4 like this.
  2. Bullitt68 Senior Moderator

    Bullitt68
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    23,798
    Likes Received:
    720
    I watched Only Lovers Left Alive last night and just wanted to add that I agree with you, I liked Paterson more. Only Lovers Left Alive reminded me of Dead Man. I loved the vibe, I loved the sound, but there wasn't enough meat on the bone to satisfy my love of characterization and plotting.

    What do you think of Jarmusch on the whole (this question is open to everybody, BTW)? I haven't seen much from him yet, but so far, Down by Law is easily my favorite of his. I can't - and don't want to - imagine the person who can watch that movie and not like it. Benigni alone makes that impossible IMO.
     
    #422
    chickenluver likes this.
  3. chickenluver Bookmobile Driver

    chickenluver
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    6,963
    Likes Received:
    1,446
    Location:
    The Magical World of Reading

    I mean that they went all out with cramming as many stock characters into this one film as possible. The Ax brothers, the Drunken Master, the stoic warrior and his woman, the evil gang, any of these could have had a whole movie surrounding them, yet them threw them all into one. I don't think it was overstuffed though, just packed with more wacky characters than usual.
    [​IMG]

    Good insight.
    Yeah good point. I guess relative to Japanese having fangs and karate chopping Jimmy Wang's arm off this seemed a bit more grounded.
    Agreed. I thought it was interesting that the criticism of karate was that it's unladylike and that the movement opened her robe and left her exposed to peepers.
    ****ing hell I completely forgot about the crab style. That was terrible. Ruined any chance there was of me taking the ninja seriously.
    That's funny. I did a MCU marathon recently as well. I mainly wanted to watch Winter Soldier and Civil War, and I'm a stickler for context, so I needed to see everything. The only one I skipped was The Incredible Hulk, since I'd already seen it twice, didn't like it very much, and it's almost irrelevant to the franchise.

    My favorites are Iron Man, Avengers, Winter Soldier, Guardians, Ant-Man, and Civil War
    Agreed. Thanos is gonna kill Tony Stark. You heard it hear first.
    Yeah I didn't like the collateral damage argument either. I guess it was trying to use the idea because collateral damage is relevant to society, but it doesn't really work when your talking about an end of the world scenario.
    [​IMG]
    I haven't seen One-Eyed Jacks, maybe it's really good. But I can't help but thinking it would have been better if it was directed by Kubrick and written by Peckinpah, rather than directed by Brando and written by a guy I've never heard of.
    The Silence of God trilogy are some of his bleakest and least hopeful films for sure. Even The Virgin Spring ends on a hopeful note after featuring the most horrific events Bergman has depicted in film (that I've seen)
    She's a keeper.

    I liked the movie a lot. Yeah mailbox scene was very funny. It felt good to see that movie in a theatre with an appreciative audience.

    Have you seen Mystery Train? The Japanese man that speaks to Driver at the end of Paterson was also in Mystery Train.
    I liked both Thor movies which kind of surprised me since it seemed like the common opinion was that they're the worst of the franchise. I have a hard-on for Hiddleston's Loki so I think that's a big part of my enjoyment of the movies. Him and Hemsworth are good together.
    I second the Dr Strange recommendation. Main cast is really good, and I'd go as far as to say it's the single most impressive film in the series in terms of the visuals. Origin story was good as well with Strange as this super arrogant skeptic being willing to try anything out of desperation.
    Agree on all points. Going into the movie I was excited for Spider-Man and Ant-Man, and then so much happened before they were introduced it was almost like a surprise when they showed up. When they opened the van door and Rudd was chilling inside it was a serious hooray moment for me. The scene at the airport is one of the best in the franchise imo, especially the Giant-Man reveal. Spider-Man was used really well in the action pieces, and I liked his interactions with Tony and Cap.

    "Where you from kid?"
    "Queens"
    "Huh. Brooklyn"
    I liked his earth squad in both movies. That seems to be something that many don't like about them. Not too crazy about Portman's Jane. Just seems like kind of a shallow character.
    [​IMG]

    That sure is disappointing.
    It's happening as we speak. I swear.
    You're crazy. Having Spider-Man in the MCU was totally needed. The more characters they bring in the better. Fantastic Four are coming soon, just you wait. After Infinity War FF with be introduced to take the place of the scattered/crippled/shell shocked Avengers as the prominent earth-based superhero team, then they will build up to the Galactus story line. You heard it here first.

    Such disrespect for Ant-Man. He's a classic hero and a founding member of the Avengers. MCU already screwed Hank Pim out of his role as an Avengers founder and the creator of Ultron, doing the Scott Lang story was the least they could do to make up for such blatant ****ery.

    Also don't worry about Vision, Thanos is gonna kill him.
    That movie was pretty good.
    Yeah I liked that as well. He had all those suits, might as well put them to use.
    I liked Paterson a lot, but I liked Only Lovers Left Alive more. Hiddleston and Swinton are two of my favorite actors working today, I loved the music, the atmosphere, the settings, the raltionship between the two. It felt like a much more cynical and pessimistic movie than is usual for Jarmusch, with Hiddelston calling the humans zombies, saying "are they still fighting about the oil? No it's about water now."

    I got a kick out of him having secretly written the Adagio of Schubert's String Quintet. That piece sounds like something he would have written, very dark and ambient.



    It was pretty sad to watch that scene where Anton Yelchin gets killed.
    If looks can kill, I am dead now.

    A few years back my father and I watched most of his movies. I've now seen everything from him except his first film, Permanent Vacation, and The Limits of Control, the one just before Only Lovers Left Alive.

    I really like Down by Law, Dead Man, Ghost Dog, Broken Flowers, Only Lovers Left Alive, and Paterson.

    Stranger than Paradise, Mystery Train, Night on Earth, and Coffee and Cigarettes I thought were not as good but still solid.

    One of the few directors working today that I am always excited to see a new film from.

    Oh yeah, for anybody who's a Wes Anderson fan and also saw Paterson, did you notice the two kids from Moonrise Kingdom on Paterson's bus?
     
    #423
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2017
    ufcfan4 likes this.
  4. Loiosh Detective

    Loiosh
    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    33,093
    Likes Received:
    13,140
    Location:
    Baltimore
    And the love, trust, support and confidence a man had for his younger brother, who he knew would have to shoulder an enormous responsibility.

    I keep hearing people say how negative this movie was, and I get it, but I loved the resolutions.
     
    #424
  5. Loiosh Detective

    Loiosh
    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    33,093
    Likes Received:
    13,140
    Location:
    Baltimore
    I'm a really big fan.

    I strongly recommend Night on Earth. It tells five stories involving a cab driver in each of five different cities around the world.

    Here's Rome (Roberto Benigni), funny as hell. You can find all five cities on YouTube.


    Other favorites of mine are Broken Flowers, Ghost Dog, Coffee and Cigarettes, and Mystery Train.
     
    #425
    chickenluver likes this.
  6. Bullitt68 Senior Moderator

    Bullitt68
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    23,798
    Likes Received:
    720
    But, on the other hand, it should allow you to appreciate this a lot more :D



    Iron Man was better than I remembered, but RDJ, while undeniably awesome, was the only awesome part IMO. Iron Man 2 had Rourke, which was so much fun for me, but it still felt like they were working out the kinks for the Stark/Iron Man saga. Iron Man 3 is where they kicked shit into high gear.

    As for the rest of your favorites: I literally couldn't watch Guardians of the Galaxy and won't watch Ant-Man.

    [​IMG]

    Not yet, but I've been briefed on how often Jarmusch not only makes references in his movies but how often he makes references to his own movies. There's also that scene with the big Indian in Ghost Dog who's played by (and is supposed to be the same character as?) Nobody from Dead Man.

    **** all Thor haters. Both films are operating on the same level of awesomeness IMO. I think Thor is the better film overall but I think the attack on Asgard in Thor 2 is better than anything from Thor. They've just got that world and the people in it locked down. It sucks Natalie Portman seems no longer to be a part of it, though. I can't imagine that yielding anything positive.

    Me? Crazy? No...

    [​IMG]

    As a non-comic guy, the more isn't necessarily the merrier. I don't need Spider-Man (never been a fan of that character even though I loved the old Spider-Man and X-Men Super Nintendo game), nobody should need Ant-Man (one of the dumbest ideas for a superhero ever even though I love Paul Rudd and hate having to hate on him), and I for damn sure don't need the Fantastic Four. They did enough integrating with the Avengers. I don't need every comic book character in the history of comic books sharing the screen.

    See, this is a comic guy perspective. I'm not a comic guy. So it's not even disrespect. It's simply no respect. I don't care about this shit, I have no stakes beyond what makes for a good movie.

    I welcome that.

    You're right, it wasn't just dark but was also depressing. I'm used to shit like Down by Law, Ghost Dog, and Paterson now, where you can notice some critical aspects but where ultimately it seems like positive shit is being said. Only Lovers Left Alive was pretty bleak.

    Sad in the sense that I liked his character, but not sad in any narrative sense, if that makes sense. It wasn't sad like Ricky in Boyz n the Hood sad, for example. Adam was so far down the depression rabbit hole that he barely even registered it, and Eve only registered it insofar as it presented problems for her to deal with.

    The Limits of Control looks like it could be cool, as it looks like Jarmusch's second take after Ghost Dog on the Le Samouraï/Point Blank style slow burn, meditative crime film.

    For me, it also helps that he's a huge film fan, too. You ever see this? It's worth it for his Scorsese impression alone :D



    I'm becoming a big Benigni fan on top of it. He was hilarious in Down by Law and Life is Beautiful is one of the most Chaplinian films I've ever seen, which is quite a compliment. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing that one just to see him again.
     
    #426
    chickenluver likes this.
  7. Ricky13 You are who you choose to be.

    Ricky13
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    93
    Despite a number of posts I suppose I'm not being clear. Apologies.

    It is my contention that the vast majority of current episodic storytelling lacks the ability to compel episode by episode, as opposed to episode to episode. Viewers have been de-trained from wanting a story each week, given how, first DVD box-sets, and later, binge-watching via streaming transformed, and in fact, transcended the former TV landscape. The way to approach TV now is to discuss, perpetually, an ongoing narrative, rather than have a chat about it at work (/water cooler). Discuss. Look for Easter eggs. Fan theories.

    This episode to episode thing didn't used to matter so much. What mattered was that you tuned in once a week for a whole story, whether it was serialised or not. I don't think the change is a bad thing in and of itself, but I think we're starting to see some bad writing habits because of it. It's why I'm not sold on the idea that TV shows are a better medium for fleshing out a story because they allow more time for characterization/plot. That's ass-backwards to me. It's important to maintain an overall thread, but the real skill lies in keeping a viewer hooked for that half-hour/hour.

    The X-Files: those guys didn't give a shit. Mytharc episodes showed up willy-nilly, because writers were sure of their ability to re-establish stakes, and had faith that viewers didn't care. This often led to some unevenness, but in general, writing was headed in the right direction: tell a story each week. It peaked, probably, with The Sopranos. I often just pick an episode to watch. It relies on understanding who characters are in relation to previous events and other characters, of course, but they're all self-contained stories where cause-and-effect relies on events within the episode to a more profound degree than those outwith.

    Does that make sense? Have you noticed that nowadays, it's often the case that the first in a series is the best one? How shows repeatedly have interesting first halves to first seasons before going out with a whimper? How the origin stories of rebooted universes have true moments and clear rooting interests: Star Trek (2007), all the Marvel origin films, for instance?

    A good way to explain this is to review how iconic sequels worked. Their creators often had no clue that there would be another film in the franchise. So stories had to be built from the ground up. This forced little adjustments in writing approach that added up to a lot, while maintaining the feel of a larger, continuous saga.

    For instance, they tended not to use character history from prior films to set up reveals (like the Bucky one), but to depict extreme emotions that they wanted the audience to expect based on information they had, suspense being used for "moments" more than mystery.

    Sarah's horror at seeing Arnie in T2 at the sanitarium works this way as well. And yet its success doesn't hinge on it. The movie lends Sarah a whole arc that we could never have guessed at to start the film, which contributes to our feeling her anguish at the sight of Arnie. Her paranoia, her anger, all lead up to that classic moment of frozen fear. Similar to this is Ripley's indignation at the start of Aliens. Of the current crop, Hannibal worked this way. So did Breaking Bad. The information is on the page. The creators are therefore free to **** with you to their heart's content, episode after episode.

    When they did reveals, there was usually little relation to prior instalments. Vader being Luke's father: it comes out of nowhere because it comes out of nowhere. It is felt because it relies on the arc of the character in the film. Vader curiously being invested in Luke. Luke trying and failing at Jedi training with Yoda. Of course it made people think back to A New Hope, but that only added to the mythology, the nerdy pontificating. It's not why it worked in the moment.

    Yeah but I'm saying something concrete when I say it. With conventional narrative, function is driven by what the writer thinks will make a viewer feel something. This is simply a fact. And the best guys don't just acknowledge this, they embrace it (definitely watch 21:31 to 22:10):



    The better a writer/director is able to make elicited emotion match what they intended their audience to feel, the more skilled he/she is. For example, you get to know a character well, and then they die spectacularly. Build empathy for a character, then **** with the audience empathy. This is why an action movie is the hardest film to make.

    What's happening now is an issue of assumed empathy. With the Marvel movies, I'm watching folks bend over backwards to explain why certain characters are saying/doing something, because writers assume viewers care enough already. With great drama, this isn't needed. You use shorthand that's crisp and efficient for character moments, that explain themselves with the camera:



    What you shouldn't have to do is make a viewer explain motivation, or events that are supposed to explain themselves. It's not immersive. I mean things like this:

    I've heard these sorts of explanations by friends about Civil War. I don't know mate. It's almost like the writing is just weak enough that it allows fans wiggle room to theorise about "deeper" themes under the surface. Lending weight where there is none.

    **** deeper themes. I'm at the movies for a superhero action film. Make me cheer and whoop and cry and laugh. I don't want to pontificate to a woman after about how Cap's deep brofeels accurately reflect camaraderie between PTSD soldiers who've seen battle together, so I can get laid. The Russos just aren't good enough to have their cake and eat it too like that. QT/Mann/The Coens/Raimi/McTiernan/Cameron are.

    Because what they know is the fun comes first. And that truly felt fun comes with empathy you work your balls off trying to instill.

    Yes, I part with you on needing people to die, as you noted. Good drama doesn't work off a certain category of event occurring. It works from every event occurring as it relates to what we know so far.

    I can't remember too much about IM3, but I know he destroys the suits in the end, and that is his way of dealing with the inner conflict the film establishes. He was making too many from experiencing anxiety over his own mortality, and commits in the end to destroying them, because he finally realises he's Tony Stark wearing a suit of armor. Tony Stark the man, with a woman who loves him for who he is.

    And it seemed to crescendo quite nicely. The multiple suits action sequence was his coming to terms with how it was never about the suit but him all along, occurring right before the resolution where he destroys them, and is no longer Iron Man.

    Again, I'm hazy on the details, but Paltrow dying while he's actually growing, is learning, does nothing but punish him for no narrative reason.

    The reason I advocate for his death in Ultron is because his conflict was different. He's turning megalomaniacal, and nobody is noticing except to make a joke now and then. Hell, one of them helps him create Ultron. His death, in that case, would allow the protagonists (the Avengers) to reassess their purpose.

    The reason I like Iron Man 3 is its Shane Black-ness. Narratively, it's in a category all by itself. It's really not a Marvel film. It's not safe and it doesn't give a shit what you think. Guardians is another one that's cut from a different kind of cloth.

    Yes, let's.

    Yes. But it's why I said something like, "...when the camera isn't doing the job."

    The audience surrogate, for me, does the job of the director where he can't do it himself.

    I think the difference between the way we're defining it is that you're thinking about it in a textbook sense, and me in a functional sense. Shocking, I know.

    Going to cut to the crux of the Sorkin/feminism shit:

    For one, research (just a glance at papers around the time) suggests overwhelmingly that women under-report instances of sexual harassment, when definitions for what constitute it under various categories are adjusted for.

    Further, the negative effects of harassment are unrelated to how a woman perceives them. From a review looking at this around the same time The West Wing was airing:

    Magley et al. (1999) conclude: “These data from three organizations demonstrate that whether or not a woman considers her experience to constitute sexual harassment, she experiences similar negative psychological, work, and health consequences.”

    Honestly, this is just well-known stuff. I found tons more and very easily. Saying he's a "diligent researcher" is a little lazy, no? Further, when a writer is propagating a point of view that deviates from the norm (eg. black people are policed more stringently because they have low moral fortitude), I believe a viewer should err on the side of sympathy for the perceived victim, and check the writer's conclusions rather than assume his/her non-expert view is correct. This would make it far less possible for the viewer to contribute to minimising the seriousness of sexual harassment. It happens to be the kinder thing to do to assume women aren't complaining for no reason.

    Speaking of which, the whining that Sorkin perceives has its own hypothesis (literally called "the whiner hypothesis"), which has been thoroughly refuted.

    Nobody said he had the mentality of a redneck. I don't even think he believes such antiquated notions as women having their place. He is (perhaps was, I don't know), however, hopelessly out of touch for a man writing things at the forefront of progressive thought.

    I meant Silence and Wolf.

    I'm not even a Scorsese guy, and I get worked up to see everything he makes. I like to see someone good at his/her job doing something new, period. All this complaining about sequelitis and shit, and we're not watching legitimate masters trying new things?

    I'm no snob and you know it. I revel in the simplest shit. The Iron Giant is my favorite movie. But a Marvel film that feigns depth to kick my wallet's ass, over a genius with true experience, is just ****ing blasphemy at this stage.

    There were two posts I made in relation to this. You seen both, or just the one you quoted? Go ahead and multiquote the shit out of them so we can crack this open. It's hard to start without being argued with. LOL.

    And thanks for bothering with the Marvel stuff. You're one of the few that chases after me down the rabbit hole.

    EDIT: ****. @Caveat: Imma get to you on Manchester by the Sea soon.
     
    #427
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2017
  8. europe1 It´s a nice peninsula to Asia

    europe1
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,805
    Likes Received:
    4,645
    Location:
    West of Finland, East of Norway
    Hey sweet Bullitt is back! I missed you buddy! It's been far to long since you last posted here. I hope you never leave. :D

    Jesus Christ why the hell are you even on here!? Do you have to assult us with these wrong opinions!? I hope you bury yourself in some closet and never come back!:mad:

    My old friends converse in a similar manner too (but for the life of me I've never been able to become fondly nostalgic over such talk. But that's probably just me). So I agree that it's "natural", but I still found it plainly done. We have no idea who that dame they're talking about is. It's like hearing two people have a heartfelt conversation but you have no idea or context of what they're talking about so you can't dive in yourself. I think the emotion could have been communicated through something a lot more minimalistic, something visual, a look or something like that.

    I know about the Kubrick Confusion, if that's what you're asking.:D

    But yeah, all those stories sound downright bizarre. All those people gathered around Brando as if he was holding court -- all while he meditates and occasionally strikes the gong. Sam Peckinpah was another one of those guys that supposidly lost years to that vortex.

    I liked the actor. He seemed to have this pained, introverted face. It felt quite natural. Can't say I had any strong feelings for the character though. He was easily overshadowed by the rest.

    I've only seen 4 of those films. Angels with Dirty Faces I loved but need to re-watch to properly judge. One of the first old films I saw. Public Enemy is up there. It's difficult to compare the two since Enemy is much more uneven, all that "mommy moralizing" is pretty bad. But it's highpoints are downright spectacular. Truly iconic moments.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    And who could forget this moment?

    [​IMG]



    G-Men and The Roaring Twenties are both very good but Marked Woman topples them both.


    Hahaha. That was ****ing hilarious. Mean Streets is such a good film.

    Yeah. That was interesting... and such unmitigated bullshit at the same time. Gordon Liu must have been frothing with rage when The Leg Fighters was released the very next year.:D

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    When I sat down and watched Ant-Man, I told myself that this was going to be the most stupid Marvel film yet... and it was but it was also the best one outside Winter Soldier. And Paul Rudd is easily one of the most likable actor of the entire Marvel roster.

    [​IMG]



    I loved the vibe. I loved the sound. But what really made it for me was the theme.

    Nobody thinks that Johnny Deep is the poet William Blake, on account of them sharing the same name. Deep has never heard of William Blake the poet, and has no idea of what Nobody is talking about. They stay in this state of confusion for the entire film.

    Nobody even states "It's so strange that you would forget your own writting". And when Nobody "buries" Deep in the end, he tells him, "you're going home, William Blake", to which Deep replies, "Where? To Cleveland?" :D

    Deep has no idea that he's getting buried, that he's about to die. Nobody simultaneously has no idea that it's not the actual William Blake he's burying.

    The entire film is filled with these snippets like these on how strange cross-cultural communications can be. Nobody constantly asks if the white people he encounters (including Deep) has tobacco. They interpret this as some indulgent indian asking for a smoke. However, tobacco was in fact considered sort-of-a sacrement in Native American religion. They think that he's asking them for a vice. When in fact he's asking them for something sacred.

    Likewise, Nobody goes around quoting the poetry of William Blake. Yet not a single one of the white characters in the film has any idea of what he is speaks about. Even Johnny Deep -- who is an educated man -- even has a passing familiarity with Blake's poetry. Nobody is literally communicating to them with the highest poetry in the English culture. Yet they interpret this as "indian babble". The fact that he is educated in the finest writting of their own culture completely goes over their heads, and they just assume that it's tribal crazy-talk.



    Jarmusch overall has this truly fascinating view on culture. He's interested in how culture crosses ethnic boundaries, how information comming from one culture is filtered through one's own culture, and how people of different cultures interact with one another. This same phenomenon in there in Ghost Dog too (another splendid film). Just like Nobody is an Indian who spend his formative period submerged in the writing of William Blake -- Forest Whitaker is an African-American who has adopted the culture of the Samurai. Just like Nobody, there are a ton of moments between him and others that are misinterpreted along cultural lines.

    My favorite part though is probably when those Italian Mafia-bosses are discussing how weird Black and Indian names sound... Ghost Dog, Ice Cube, Method Man as well as titles like Red Cloud, Crazy Horse and Black Elk. Really odd names, right? I thought so too. And then in the end they call for Sammy the Snake, Joe Rags and Big Andy! Shit had me hurting my belly in laughter<45>

     
    #428
    chickenluver likes this.
  9. chickenluver Bookmobile Driver

    chickenluver
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    6,963
    Likes Received:
    1,446
    Location:
    The Magical World of Reading
    Johnny Deep? Is that the name he used when he made porn early in his career?
     
    #429
  10. Bullitt68 Senior Moderator

    Bullitt68
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    23,798
    Likes Received:
    720
    [​IMG]
     
    #430
    chickenluver likes this.
  11. Flemmy Stardust King of Lea

    Flemmy Stardust
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    15,399
    Likes Received:
    11,097
    I would. I thought it was pretty good. I liked it significantly more than some of the ones you watched, including Thor 2.
     
    #431
    chickenluver likes this.
  12. europe1 It´s a nice peninsula to Asia

    europe1
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,805
    Likes Received:
    4,645
    Location:
    West of Finland, East of Norway
    With my dyslexia it took like a minute to figure out what you were jabbering about.... but then I had to admit it's pretty funny:D
     
    #432
    chickenluver likes this.
  13. Rimbaud82 The owls are not what they seem

    Rimbaud82
    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,810
    Likes Received:
    2,275
    Location:
    Belfast, Ireland.
    Watched Once Were Warriors last night, wow...pretty generic plot, a bit melodramatic, but the performances are so intense that it really hits you hard. Brutal look at domestic violence, poverty, alcoholism etc. The Auckland setting really makes it as well, interesting contrast between maori tradition and modern urban life.
     
    #433
    europe1 likes this.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "fd5733925866a04e50edd70f38dfaa35"
monitoring_string = "603ac9fff68f23709f2a42bf5e29272b"