Man, 2002 Will be Big for Movies
DarthPuck99
about quality though. What a line-up of sequels and blockbusters this year has
in store for us.
ET 20th Anniversary re-release
a new Star Trek
Stuart Little 2
The Scorpion King (another Mummy movie)
Spiderman
Minority Report
Men in Black 2
Austin Powers: Goldmember
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Matrix 2
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Star Wars: Episode II- Attack of the Clones
There's gonna be a lot of money flowing into Hollywood this year, but I still
bet they take the opportunity to raise ticket prices when the new Star Wars
comes out.
Narelle Darcy
>
> Well this year will certainly be big at the box office anyway, I don't know
> about quality though. What a line-up of sequels and blockbusters this year has
> in store for us.
<snip list>
Also, a new James Bond film, the 20th from EON Productions
--
Cheers
John
Derek Janssen
>
> Well this year will certainly be big at the box office anyway, I don't know
> about quality though. What a line-up of sequels and blockbusters this year has
> in store for us.
>
> ET 20th Anniversary re-release
"DVD on sale in the lobby!"
> a new Star Trek
So, they stopped arguing over salaries, got the cast list together and
decided who *wasn't* going to sit out, decided on one central script,
started and completed principal photography ALL LAST WEEK?...
Oh, good. Shows what happens when people work together. : )
> The Scorpion King (another Mummy movie)
So, this would come under the heading of "big", then?...
Ah. Okay. Gotcha.
> Minority Report
(another A.I.)
> Men in Black 2
Hoo-boy...Have I got a lame teaser trailer for you. >_<
("People, we have a bug in the electrical system!...And we're going to
explain this gag *very slowly*, two or three times in detail, just in
case you couldn't see it coming ten miles away!...")
Let's just invoke "Addams Family Values" and leave it at that--
Coppola can do sequels, Lucas can do sequels, but Sonnenfeld, er... no,
let's spare the gory details.
> Austin Powers: Goldmember
(AKA "AP:Spy Who Shagged Me, Pt. 2"...And at least the lame MIB2 teaser
was *coherent*.)
Derek Janssen (yep, another four or five months of "I've *heard* of this
title!--It's going to be BIG!! : D ")
dja...@ultranet.com
Phil7101
movie in its spot on this list.
Jeff Coleman
"DarthPuck99" <darth...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020101151942...@mb-cd.aol.com...
> Well this year will certainly be big at the box office anyway, I don't
know
> about quality though. What a line-up of sequels and blockbusters this year
has
> in store for us.
>
> Stuart Little 2
> The Scorpion King (another Mummy movie)
FINALLY, the masses of the world can cease their wailing and moaning, their
prayers have been answered!
Jeff
--
www.isaacpriestley.com
Latest album "Days of Being Dumb"
available for download now!
Kungaloosh!
>
> > a new Star Trek
>
> So, they stopped arguing over salaries, got the cast list together and
> decided who *wasn't* going to sit out, decided on one central script,
> started and completed principal photography ALL LAST WEEK?...
> Oh, good. Shows what happens when people work together. : )
>
They've been shooting Trek X for several weeks now. That's been confirmed-
so yes, it will be released next year.
Cadillac_Jones
<dja...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>> a new Star Trek
>
>So, they stopped arguing over salaries, got the cast list together and
>decided who *wasn't* going to sit out, decided on one central script,
>started and completed principal photography ALL LAST WEEK?...
>Oh, good. Shows what happens when people work together. : )
>
Considering how bad the Star Trek franchise has become it wouldn't
shock me :)
"I'm the luckiest man in the world. I have a cigarette
lighter and a wife...and they both work!"
Ruth
darth...@aol.com (DarthPuck99) wrote:
> Well this year will certainly be big at the box office anyway, I don't
> know
> about quality though. What a line-up of sequels and blockbusters this
> year has
> in store for us.
>
> ET 20th Anniversary re-release
> a new Star Trek
> Stuart Little 2
> The Scorpion King (another Mummy movie)
> Spiderman
> Minority Report
> Men in Black 2
> Austin Powers: Goldmember
> Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
> The Matrix 2
> Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
> Star Wars: Episode II- Attack of the Clones
Why does this list *not* make me ecstatically happy?
( ok, so I did a little dance of joy over Austin Powers, but really ,
who wouldn't?).
Flojomojogo
WHO LOVE SCOOBYDOO!
ANTHONY HOPKINS AND CHRIS ROCK./ JERRY BRUCKHEIMER FILM
LOOKS COOL TOO
John
"Adaptation" - the next Spike Jonze/Charlie Kauffman (Being John Malkovich)
film
"Simone" - the next Andrew Niccol (The Truman Show & Gattaca) film
-- John Young
visit The Movie Reviewing Teens --
http://youngmorrell.homestead.com
"DarthPuck99" <darth...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020101151942...@mb-cd.aol.com...
Derek Janssen
>
> Let me add two small films that look intriguing:
> "Adaptation" - the next Spike Jonze/Charlie Kauffman (Being John Malkovich)
> film
> "Simone" - the next Andrew Niccol (The Truman Show & Gattaca) film
Uh, remember, we're still talking "big", in the header--
(Uh-oh, cue inevitable "B-but wait! Final Fantasy didn't kill off ALL
digital actors! It's still got a future...doesn't it? It's so cool 'n
futuristic, 'n everything!..." discussion.)
Derek Janssen (and even THEY couldn't get through the average Niccol
scipt without cringing)
dja...@ultranet.com
John
I have no idea why you brought up Final Fantasy either.
--John
"Derek Janssen" <dja...@ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:3C328C6A...@ultranet.com...
aemilia
Derek Janssen <dja...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> John wrote:
> >
> > Let me add two small films that look intriguing:
> > "Adaptation" - the next Spike Jonze/Charlie Kauffman (Being John Malkovich)
> > film
> > "Simone" - the next Andrew Niccol (The Truman Show & Gattaca) film
>
> Uh, remember, we're still talking "big", in the header--
>
Well, after having seen it, I think "Death to Smoochy" will be pretty
big, I think people will go just to see A) Edward Norton and B) Robin
Williams being funny again.
aemilia
Derek Janssen
>
> > > "Simone" - the next Andrew Niccol (The Truman Show & Gattaca) film
> >
> > digital actors! It's still got a future...doesn't it? It's so cool 'n
> > futuristic, 'n everything!..." discussion.)
> >
> > scipt without cringing)
>
Oh, then you recommended it Because It Was a Big Title, and You'd Heard
of It, without actually knowing the plot....Er, yeah, kinda guessed.
Okay:
When the star actress walks out of a major picture, producer Al Pacino
decides to make the "ultimate sacrifice" and finish her part with a
digitally-created star (using, of course, actual FF-style CGI, which,
everybody knew back then, was going to be the big threat of the future,
just like gene testing in "Gattaca" and reality TV in "Truman")...
And, this being an Andrew Niccols film, cue lots-and-lotsa
self-affirming "power of the human spirit" allegorizing that would
embarrass Stuart Smalley, coupled with Reasons Why Our Hero Is Right,
Even Though Everyone Thought His Big Brother Would Be the Successful One
in the Family.
(And, of course, remember that this was written 'bout a year *before*
FF:TSW, which would explain its classification as "fiction".)
Derek Janssen (oh, and don't forget the cool logo--Y'see the title is
really "S1m0ne"...See, digital numbers! Isn't that neat? <wretch>)
dja...@ultranet.com
TomRipley
>The Matrix 2
Actually that one's been pushed to 2003, opening Memorial Day weekend,
with Matrix 3 to follow at Thanksgiving. (Have to wonder if that
leaves any time for a video/DVD release of part 2, or will they both
be released in 2004? Hmm...)
Tom
--
"We have crossed some strange boundary, and our world has
taken a turn for the surreal." -- Saving Private Ryan
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
fiction fella. I just hope by Fall there's some good quality pics that roll
around...
2001 sucked. Nothing but dissapointments. From the flaccid "Planet Of The Apes"
to the lemonsaccharine "KPAX" to the off-key "From hell", it was nothing but
failures. Pictures regular consensus and buzz would place as oscar worthy and
THE NEXT BIG THING, turned out to be downers...
Peace...of mind...
--------------------------------
"It's my head, Craig!! It's my HEAD!!!" --- John Malkovich in "being john
malkovich"
Come to www.famous-sumatran-doowop-whalemusic.com for free komodo dragon
teeth...
MY NAME IS MANFRED STEINER AND I'M A SCHIZOPHRENIC..
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>WHO LOVE SCOOBYDOO!
Scooby, I am sorry to say, will suck. But it'll be lightweight fare strictly
for the entertainment, with sight gags splashed here and there, updated toilet
humor, updated techno soundtracks; we'll eat our popcorn, laugh, have a good
time, and it'll all be forgotten come Oscar time (tongue in cheekly, of course
there) Peace..of mind...
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>"Adaptation" - the next Spike Jonze/Charlie Kauffman (Being John Malkovich)
>film
Adaptation, thats definitely a film cant wait for. And the other kaufman
script, Human Nature, directed my Michael Gondry should come out sometime this
year... I saw some small French foreign subtitled snippets of it and it looked
quite funny...Hopefully, just as inventive as BJM. Peace...of mind...
Bob
Ruth wrote:
Anybody who thinks Austin Powers films are childish, at best.
Bob
Grimfarrow
"John" <y...@home.com> wrote in message
news:5BvY7.13511$B61.5...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com...
> Let me add two small films that look intriguing:
> "Adaptation" - the next Spike Jonze/Charlie Kauffman (Being John
Malkovich)
> film
> "Simone" - the next Andrew Niccol (The Truman Show & Gattaca) film
>
> -- John Young
> visit The Movie Reviewing Teens --
> http://youngmorrell.homestead.com
Here's my Top 30 most anticipated 2002 films, in no order:
1) Ararat (Atom Egoyan)
2) The Son's Room (Nanni Moretti) (2001)
3) Warm Water Under A Red Bridge (Shohei Imamura) (2001)
4) Beijing Bicycle (Xiaoshuai Wang) (2001)
5) All About Lily Chou-Chou (Shunji Iwai) (2001)
6) Italian for Beginners (Lone Scherfig) (2001)
7) Hero (Zhang Yimou)
8) I'm Going Home (Manoel de Oliveira) (2001)
9) The Piano Teacher (Michael Haneke) (2001)
10) It's All About Love (Thomas Vinterberg)
11) Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese)
12) The Believer (Henry Bean) (2001)
13) Monsoon Wedding (Mira Nair) (2001)
14) Adaptation (Spike Jonze)
15) About Schmidt (Alexander Payne)
16) The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (Peter Jackson)
17) In Praise of Love (Jean-Luc Godard) (2001)
18) Heaven (Tom Tykwer)
19) Y Tu Mama Tambien (Alfonso Cuaron) (2001)
20) What Time is it Over There? (Tsai Ming-Liang) (2001)
21) The Pianist (Roman Polanski)
22) Rain (Christine Jeffs)
23) Human Nature (Michel Gondry) (2001)
24) Quitting (Zhang Yang)
25) The Lady and the Duke (Eric Rohmer) (2001)
26) Happy Times (Zhang Yimou)
27) The Road to Perdition (Sam Mendes)
28) Punchdrunk Love (Paul Thomas Anderson)
29) Untitled Mike Leigh Project (Mike Leigh)
30) Last Wedding (Bruce Sweeney) (2001)
Derek Janssen
>
> Well this year will certainly be big at the box office anyway, I don't know
> about quality though. What a line-up of sequels and blockbusters this year has
> in store for us.
>
> ET 20th Anniversary re-release
> a new Star Trek
> Stuart Little 2
> The Scorpion King (another Mummy movie)
> Spiderman
> Minority Report
> Men in Black 2
> Austin Powers: Goldmember
> Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
> The Matrix 2
> Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
> Star Wars: Episode II- Attack of the Clones
>
> There's gonna be a lot of money flowing into Hollywood this year
Okay, just by way of demonstration what I've been talking about, let's
ask THIS basic question:
Can't help noticing that, despite its already being hi-profile mentioned
for March, in all the continuing fanboy "Titles I've Heard Of" parade in
this thread, not one single person--NOT ONE--has mentioned "The Time
Machine" as being one of the Big Movies of 2002:
Oh, come now...What's the matter? Why not? After all, it's big-budget
science-fiction, and a cool remake, and it comes from Spielberg's
studio!...And the lobby poster was really, really cool, too! : D
...No, don't worry, I saw the preview, too.
But just wanted to ask: What keeps TM, which we've *already* seen
previews of and know how stinky it's going to be, OFF the lists, and
"Minority Report", of which very few have seen even one frame of one
single teaser, ON the lists?
Can't answer *that* question, don't bother contributing--
Why be part of the problem? : )
Derek Janssen (oh, heavens, not even a 2002 Oscar Prediction?)
dja...@ultranet.com
Vincent
Memento + LOTR = Great Movie Year
Enjay
know
> about quality though. What a line-up of sequels and blockbusters this year
has
> in store for us.
>
> ET 20th Anniversary re-release
> a new Star Trek
> Stuart Little 2
> The Scorpion King (another Mummy movie)
> Spiderman
> Minority Report
> Men in Black 2
> Austin Powers: Goldmember
> Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
> The Matrix 2
> Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
> Star Wars: Episode II- Attack of the Clones
>
I'm looking forward to Scorsese's "Gangs of New York"; that is, of course,
if it is ever ready...!
Enjay
Emanuel Brown
<grimsarrow@att*SPAMOFF*bi.com> wrote:
>
>Here's my Top 30 most anticipated 2002 films, in no order:
>
amazing. It's JANUARY 2ND, for goodness' sakes! Until I saw the
trailers before LOTR, there wasn't anything I was planning on seeing.
I'm now looking forward to BLADE 2 and SPIDER-MAN. Heck, I'm already
looking forward to the DVD of SPIDER-MAN :-)
Emanuel
"Everybody wants a normal life and a cool car;
most people settle for the car." Chris Titus
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1966-rolls.jpg
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1983-porsche.jpg
Emanuel Brown
<dja...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>Can't help noticing that, despite its already being hi-profile mentioned
>for March, in all the continuing fanboy "Titles I've Heard Of" parade in
>this thread, not one single person--NOT ONE--has mentioned "The Time
>Machine" as being one of the Big Movies of 2002:
>
>Oh, come now...What's the matter? Why not? After all, it's big-budget
>science-fiction, and a cool remake, and it comes from Spielberg's
>studio!...And the lobby poster was really, really cool, too! : D
>
>...No, don't worry, I saw the preview, too.
>But just wanted to ask: What keeps TM, which we've *already* seen
>previews of and know how stinky it's going to be, OFF the lists, and
>"Minority Report", of which very few have seen even one frame of one
>single teaser, ON the lists?
>
>Can't answer *that* question, don't bother contributing--
>Why be part of the problem? : )
I read the book as a young'un and liked it, but the preview didn't
generate that "I've gotta see *this*" feeling that other trailers
have. There doesn't seem to be a lot of action to it, and iirc the
book didn't have lots, either - wasn't it a sort of Wellesian fable on
communism not working?
Ruth
<chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > ( ok, so I did a little dance of joy over Austin Powers, but really ,
> > who wouldn't?).
>
> Anybody who thinks Austin Powers films are childish, at best.
> Bob
>
Yes, but it is that lovely essence of the class clown in the back of the
room with the whoopee cushion childishness that ...well....I <hangs head
in shame> LOVE.
Sophie Sensat
<snip>
> 23) Human Nature (Michel Gondry) (2001)
Michel Gondry is making a movie? Has he made movies before? I love what
he does with music videos.
Anyone know anything about this movie?
Sophie
--
scse...@simons-rock.edu
"I think that heaven must feel pretty much like a freshly toasted
english muffin with lots of butter on it. Because that's ecstasy, man.
Don't say you don't know what I mean." - http://gloamling.diaryland.com
Grimfarrow
"Sophie Sensat" <scse...@simons-rock.edu> wrote in message
news:1f5ebvj.150vh5b1mw3kxsN%scse...@simons-rock.edu...
> Grimfarrow <grimsarrow@att*SPAMOFF*bi.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > 23) Human Nature (Michel Gondry) (2001)
>
> Michel Gondry is making a movie? Has he made movies before? I love what
> he does with music videos.
>
> Anyone know anything about this movie?
>
> Sophie
2. No.
3. I agree - I love his Bjork/Daft Punk/Cibo Matto videos
4. Yes - Out in April 2002. Written by Charlie Kaufmann,
scribe of Being John Malkovich. Starring Tim Robbins,
Patricia Arquette & Rosie Perez.
Frankly, though, the film has garnering very mixed reviews
when it opened at Cannes last year.
You can check out IMDB's info ont he film if you want
info/read reviews.
Grimfarrow
Grimfarrow
"Emanuel Brown" <epbr...@att.net> wrote in message
news:m3n63ugghgq6png55...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 16:43:05 GMT, "Grimfarrow"
> <grimsarrow@att*SPAMOFF*bi.com> wrote:
> >
> >Here's my Top 30 most anticipated 2002 films, in no order:
> >
> That you already *have* 30 films you plan on seeing is just
> amazing. It's JANUARY 2ND, for goodness' sakes! Until I saw the
> trailers before LOTR, there wasn't anything I was planning on seeing.
> I'm now looking forward to BLADE 2 and SPIDER-MAN. Heck, I'm already
> looking forward to the DVD of SPIDER-MAN :-)
> Emanuel
Well, most of the 30 films I listed are films that opened at
Cannes or Venice last year, but won't be released in the US
until 2002. Either that or they're by directors I like, and I know
they have films coming out in 2002.
Grimfarrow
Bob
Ruth wrote:
Ruthie, if you like it, go for it. I found AP #1 to be a bore. The trailers
for AP#2 indicated that it would be worse. Why should I be eager for #3?
BUT - if you like them, go for it. They certainly aren't harmful.
Bob
Bob
Vincent wrote:
> > 2001 sucked. Nothing but dissapointments.
>
> Memento + LOTR = Great Movie Year
Two films to not make a great year. Hell, they barely make
a great week.
bob
Sven Milliam
> ET 20th Anniversary re-release
Will never be able to properly respect it because it's full of
overearnestness and cheese. Some people like that but I think it ruins
films.
> a new Star Trek
> Stuart Little 2
> The Scorpion King (another Mummy movie)
> Spiderman
Commercial drivel. All special effects, no plot.
> Minority Report
With Speilberg, you never know what you're going to get: extreme
cheese (AI, ET, well, pretty much 75% of what he directs/produces), or
a great film with some on-the-surface aspects that take away from it's
overall effectiveness. Occasionally, he does something really
outstanding, but that's rare, and I don't expect MR to be part of
this.
> Men in Black 2
Sequels. Script that's probably gone through 12 writers, been
second-guessed 100 times by big-wigs. It's going to suck.
> Austin Powers: Goldmember
> Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
> The Matrix 2
These are all worthy. The fact that each of the respective
directors/producers has some experience outside Hollywood is the key.
If Jerry B. got his hands on any of these films, they would be instant
shit.
> Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
> Star Wars: Episode II- Attack of the Clones
Please see my responses to ET and the other 5 POS', combine, and
multiply their negative effect by 5.
> There's gonna be a lot of money flowing into Hollywood this year, but I still
> bet they take the opportunity to raise ticket prices when the new Star Wars
> comes out.
I rarely go to the bourgeois complex. I support my local Odeon, that
plays all the indies.
Sven
Derek Janssen
>
> Big may be correct. Good, definitely not.
>
> > ET 20th Anniversary re-release
>
> Will never be able to properly respect it because it's full of
> overearnestness and cheese. Some people like that but I think it ruins
> films.
Heck, it was the '85 re-release that almost singlehandedly killed off
the "theaters instead of video" re-release industry for the next twenty years...
(Advertising the DVD months before isn't going to help this one much either.)
> > Minority Report
>
> With Speilberg, you never know what you're going to get: extreme
> cheese (AI, ET, well, pretty much 75% of what he directs/produces), or
> a great film with some on-the-surface aspects that take away from it's
> overall effectiveness. Occasionally, he does something really
> outstanding, but that's rare, and I don't expect MR to be part of
> this.
Oh, that's right, haven't seen the teaser yet, have you?
Live to serve:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/minority_report/
Looks familiar, don't it?--
That's right: Gimme an A. Gimme an I.
> > Men in Black 2
>
> Sequels. Script that's probably gone through 12 writers, been
> second-guessed 100 times by big-wigs.
And directed by Sonnenfeld, who goes for the easy franchise marketing
and can't remember/doesn't bother with why the first-film gags worked in
the first place.
(Exhibit A: "Addams Family Values"--With Wednesday now as Lisa
Simpson-esque champion of the PC downtrodden...
Now, Barry, I happen to know you *saw* the first film, because you
*directed* it...What could be your possible EXCUSE??)
As for MIB2, however:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/columbia/men_in_black_2/
Yes. The gags are THAT unfunny.
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Jim Roberts-Miller
news:95486bc.02010...@posting.google.com:
> I rarely go to the bourgeois complex. I support my local Odeon,
> that plays all the indies.
"Never trust a movie that grosses over 30 million."
Jammer Jim Roberts-Miller
--
Texas A&M '89, '91 "Is there in Truth no Beauty?"
"Of course, you do not have to go to the moon to find cold, dark, and
inhospitable...conditions. Much of Canada will do." -- the Economist
http://www.mindspring.com/~jammerjim/jimpg01.html
Denise Perry
>> 2001 sucked. Nothing but dissapointments.
>
>Memento + LOTR = Great Movie Year
Did you see the Entertainment Weekly where the two critics picked their top
tens? One picked Memento and one picked LOTR. The accompanying picture was a
drawing of Lenny with tattoos that said things like "Fact #1: The Ring is
evil." ROTFL!
This is where it's at!
http://www.will.uiuc.edu/WILL_Contents/WILL/news/livewill.ram
Denise Perry
>
>Okay, just by way of demonstration what I've been talking about, let's
>ask THIS basic question:
>
>Can't help noticing that, despite its already being hi-profile mentioned
>for March, in all the continuing fanboy "Titles I've Heard Of" parade in
>this thread, not one single person--NOT ONE--has mentioned "The Time
>Machine" as being one of the Big Movies of 2002:
>
>Oh, come now...What's the matter? Why not? After all, it's big-budget
>science-fiction, and a cool remake, and it comes from Spielberg's
>studio!...And the lobby poster was really, really cool, too! : D
>
>...No, don't worry, I saw the preview, too.
>But just wanted to ask: What keeps TM, which we've *already* seen
>previews of and know how stinky it's going to be, OFF the lists, and
>"Minority Report", of which very few have seen even one frame of one
>single teaser, ON the lists?
>
>Can't answer *that* question, don't bother contributing--
>Why be part of the problem? : )
>
The Time Machine AND Minority Report are on my list. Plus The Count of Monte
Cristo, Austin Powers, Star Wars, and the James Bond movie.
Derek Janssen
>
> The Time Machine AND Minority Report are on my list. Plus The Count of Monte
> Cristo
Just saw the ads--Oo. Owie. >_<
(Guy Pearce...Get as far away from any future "commercialized mainstream
Classics Comics Illustrated adaptations" while you HAVE THE CHANCE.)
Fortunately, the darn-good French 8-hour Gerard Depardieu miniseries is
available on DVD and Bravo Network, for those seeking recovery from the
movie version...
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
Yeah. But the fall 2001 season was full of disappointments. (If LOTR wouldve
been anything but a hand touch from satisfying this year woulda sucked big
time) From Hell disappointed. As did Final Fantasy; Pearl Harbor; Planet Of The
Apes; and of course the Big Kahuna of Disappointments-- Ocean's 11. The number
of disappointments compared to successes (critically, sometimes financially
too) are disproportionate. There were no big standouts. It was like any other
year...Just yet another successive ho-hum year that had a few nice, good films,
but also alot of bad ones. Where the hell is this ostensible Film Renaisance
Resurrection, that people like EW's movie writers claimed to have been sparked
in 1999? 2000 and 2001 rolls by, and all we get are a few wonderful gems but a
lot of atrocious ones. Point made. Two good films alone, (Memento and LOTR)
dont automatically a great year make. Peace...of mind....
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>a great week.
>bob
Exactly my point. Except you went the Brevity Way, and I went on for an ayn
rand sized novel. Peace...of mind...
DarthPuck99
>> Austin Powers: Goldmember
>> Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
>> The Matrix 2
>
>These are all worthy. The fact that each of the respective
>directors/producers has some experience outside Hollywood is the key.
>If Jerry B. got his hands on any of these films, they would be instant
>shit.
You call Spiderman, Minority Report, Stuart Little 2, and the new Harry Potter
and Star Wars pictures "commercial drivel" but somehow Austin Powers 3 is a
worthy film.
What? How can you possibly believe that?
Vincent
year make.
I disagree. Everyone considers 1939 as one of the greatest movie years
ever, because of "Wizard of Oz" and "Gone With The Wind". Nobody ever
mentions anything else that came out in that year - just those two
movies.
I'm not here to argue that "Memento" and "LOTR" are/aren't better than
"Wizard of Oz" or "Gone With The Wind" (that's like comparing apples
and oranges), but think about it this way : When you know that you're
going to like two movies that are this different & from the same year
for a long time, then you tend to think of that year as a "good"
year....because those two movies are going to become classics.
Vincent
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>I disagree. Everyone considers 1939 as one of the greatest movie years
>ever, because of "Wizard of Oz" and "Gone With The Wind". Nobody ever
>mentions anything else that came out in that year - just those two
>movies.
Baloney. 1939 is also remembered for Stagecoach, Mr Smith Goes to Washington,
and Gunga Din, among others.
--Kevin
***
"They'll never catch me ... because I'm fucking innocent."
Derek Janssen
>
> Everyone considers 1939 as one of the greatest movie years
> ever, because of "Wizard of Oz" and "Gone With The Wind". Nobody ever
> mentions anything else that came out in that year - just those two
> movies.
There were 10 Oscar nominations for Best Picture that year (the five
rule hadn't been invented yet), a tad unusual for the time:
- GWTW
- WoZ
- Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
- Stagecoach
- Ninotchka
- Goodbye, Mr. Chips
- Of Mice and Men
- Dark Victory
- Wuthering Heights
- Love Affair
(And even back then, everyone whined about the films that DIDN'T get nominated--
Y'know, like "Babes in Arms", "Gunga Din", "The Four Feathers", "Each
Dawn I Die", "Only Angels Have Wings", "Young Mr. Lincoln", "Private
Lives of Elizabeth and Essex", the Laughton "Hunchback of Notre Dame",
and the two *real* Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies...)
Derek Janssen (heehee...love doin' that) : )
dja...@ultranet.com
Ron Christian
Vincent <vincentb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>Two good films alone, (Memento and LOTR) dont automatically a great
>year make.
>
>I disagree. Everyone considers 1939 as one of the greatest movie years
>ever, because of "Wizard of Oz" and "Gone With The Wind". Nobody ever
>mentions anything else that came out in that year - just those two
>movies.
Doesn't mean they're right.
Ron
--
[www.europa.com/~ronc]
"I think he's injured."
"He said 'not' at the end of a sentence. He deserves to be injured."
Sven Milliam
Simply put, Austin Powers 3, even though it's a sequel, is more or
less a parody of sequels. This, alone, does not let it off the hook of
low expectations; rather, the fact that the script is probably going
to come primarily from one source does. I never trust a movie that has
more than 2 names on it under screenwriter. I haven't seen AP3's
credits yet, but if it does, there's a 99.9% chance that it's going to
suck.
Side note: As opposed to AP1, which was a fluid and inspired story
woven through lots of gags that worked fresh in an original context,
AP2 managed to glue together several gimmicks and gags together with a
thin plot (which almost never works) that clicked in a very funny way,
barely. AP3 has a 50/50 chance of falling apart at the seams, but I
trust Myers' instincts enough to believe that he knows what he's
doing, with some insight into how to approach a project like this.
Those aren't good odds of it being a good movie, but they're a hell of
alot better than any of the other films you mentioned in your response
above.
Sven
Vincent
> tens? One picked Memento and one picked LOTR. The accompanying picture was a
> drawing of Lenny with tattoos that said things like "Fact #1: The Ring is
> evil." ROTFL!
>
> This is where it's at!
> http://www.will.uiuc.edu/WILL_Contents/WILL/news/livewill.ram
Where is this ? I followed the above URL & couldn't find it .....
Thanks,
Vincent
Denise Perry
It's not the url to the picture, it's the url to our live broadcast stream
(requiring RealAudio).
Bob
"Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk..." wrote:
> >Two films to not make a great year. Hell, they barely make
> >a great week.
> >bob
>
> Exactly my point. Except you went the Brevity Way, and I went on for an ayn
> rand sized novel. Peace...of mind...
> --------------------------------
>
HOWEVER::: I disagree with you on OCEANS 11. I thought it was better than the
original ( which I saw in first run, also.). The original was faun just
because of the Rat Pack. The new film is a good caper film, and with the
exception of how the turned out the lights in Vegas ( I thought the first film
was a bit more realistic in that aspect ), I thought this one was simply a
better film. Now, a GREAT film? No, not at all. But it DID pass the acid
test, namely, I felt I got my moneys worth of entertainment. Any film where I
walk out with the feeling "Hey, I sorta liked that" is, to me, a decent film.
I will say I did NOT have that feeling at most of the films I saw in theaters
in 2001.
Bob
Bob
DarthPuck99 wrote:
He's about 15. At 15, AP is a great movie.
Bob
Vincent
> and Gunga Din, among others.
uh, it is ?
For some reason, I see GWTW or Oz and I think 1939....I see Mr. Smith
and I don't think 1939...
don't know why - just do.
DarthPuck99
LOL But shouldn't a 15 year old also be super-excited for Spiderman and Star
Wars?
Bob
DarthPuck99 wrote:
How much S-E-X is mentioned in Spiderman or Star Wars. At 15 he wants sex and
scatology.
Bob
Ron Christian
I'm willing to bet that JarJar steps in poop again, but that's probably
not sufficient.
As to sex, I understand Kirsten Dunst has a significant wet-t-shirt
scene in Spider Man. Hey, I'm there...
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>This, alone, does not let it off the hook of
>low expectations; rather, the fact that the script is probably going
>to come primarily from one source does. I never trust a movie that has
>more than 2 names on it under screenwriter.
It took at least 6 writers to write Casablanca, the same number as It's a
Wonderful Life. Five writers for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but only 4
for Apocalypse Now, and a mere 3 for Dr Stangelove.
The list of great films with more than 2 writers could go on for awhile, though
these days guild rules have strict guidelines which tend to limit the number of
writers that can be credited.
Curiously, the best way to evaluate a film is by watching it. Counting the
screenwriters is interesting, but is no more a prediction of quality than
examining the entrails of the roadkill you hit on the way to the theater.
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>> 1939 is also remembered for Stagecoach, Mr Smith Goes to Washington,
>> and Gunga Din, among others.
>
>uh, it is ?
By people interested in old movies, you bet it is.
>For some reason, I see GWTW or Oz and I think 1939....I see Mr. Smith
>and I don't think 1939...
>
>don't know why - just do.
You should work on that then.
If I could only watch the films from one year, it'd be 1946.
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>ever, because of "Wizard of Oz" and "Gone With The Wind". Nobody ever
>mentions anything else that came out in that year - just those two
>movies
Okay...
>I'm not here to argue that "Memento" and "LOTR" are/aren't better than
>"Wizard of Oz" or "Gone With The Wind" (that's like comparing apples
>and oranges), but think about it this way : When you know that you're
>going to like two movies that are this different & from the same year
>for a long time, then you tend to think of that year as a "good"
>year....because those two movies are going to become classics.
Hmmmm. Well going by that same idea, this movie was NOT a great year, for me,
because there were no movies that stood out so kick ass like Wizard Of Oz and
Gone With The Wind (although LOTR came close). Even 1994, which was the year
one of the most personally influential movies was released, "Pulp Fiction", was
a movie I wouldnt have considered a great year, just based on that awesomely
excellent movie alone.
And even then, I dont go on that philosophy that if I see two good films in one
year, the whole friggin' year is good. If thats what you meant. Hell, every
year would be an ace year for movies if it was like that for me. Or am I
missing your point? Clarify if I am. Peace...of mind...
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
For me it'd be 1955. "Kiss Me Deadly", "The Big Knife", "The Big Combo", etc.
Dr. Mellow Golden Acid Monk...
>>ever, because of "Wizard of Oz" and "Gone With The Wind". Nobody ever
>>mentions anything else that came out in that year - just those two
>>movies.
Still doesnt make 1939 THAT great a year, in my view. A good year for movies,
based on two films only. Only TWO? Dont think so. Not my philosophy. Peace...of
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>In article <20020105023018...@mb-fz.aol.com>,
>Kevin FilmNutBoy <filmn...@aol.comatose> wrote:
># vincentb...@mindspring.com (Vincent) wrote:
># >> 1939 is also remembered for Stagecoach, Mr Smith Goes to Washington,
># >> and Gunga Din, among others.
># >
># >uh, it is ?
>#
># By people interested in old movies, you bet it is.
>
>By people interested in movies period. (Though to me, 1939 means The Four
>Feathers, any ten minutes of which puts to shame FOTR or Momento.)
>
># If I could only watch the films from one year, it'd be 1946.
>
>Depends when you place Les Enfants du Paradis...
Let's just make it a '46, since '45 is perhaps a little thinner, and we don't
want to lose The Big Sleep, Best Years of Our Lives, The Killers, Gilda, A
Matter of Life and Death, Rome Open City, My Darling Clementine, Let There Be
Light, etc.
Sven Milliam
> sven...@hotmail.com (Sven Milliam) wrote:
>
> >This, alone, does not let it off the hook of
> >low expectations; rather, the fact that the script is probably going
> >to come primarily from one source does. I never trust a movie that has
> >more than 2 names on it under screenwriter.
>
> It took at least 6 writers to write Casablanca, the same number as It's a
> Wonderful Life. Five writers for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but only 4
> for Apocalypse Now, and a mere 3 for Dr Stangelove.
All of these movies you listed play on unrealistic melodrama and
overacting to provide relevance. I find none of them particularly
interesting, because the characterization is rather on-the-surface.
Great films are not directed, or acted. Great films could be made
without a script, because the concept is so natural that the actors
feel the characters from the insight only life experience can provide.
No film funded and tooled by a major studio can ever reach the
artistic heights of one free of restrictions of commercial
expectations. The idea of a professional actor is ludicrous to me,
because one under circumstances such lives in a life-cycle where
planning ahead is as important as the current endevour, trivializing
any semblence of emotional transformation. It is impossible, under
those circumstances. Quentin Tarentino, while lacking in many areas,
is probably the best (bourgeois-style "successful") director at
getting his performers to give a realistic performance. No star
pandering. No "well, the script calls for you to gain 25-pounds, but I
realize that you have an ego, but...." Fuck that. That's why the
sponteneity and free-wheeling, unpretentious beauty of art free of
expectations will always survive beyond films that rely on the
nostaltia-mongering of celebrity-cultists.
David Sander
It's interesting you saying that.
The film I'm currently making is being treated in a way that you may
find relevant (though there is certainly not the level of emotional
exploration you might prefer in it). I am directing it in such a way
where the talent are shown documentary footage of people from the era
I'm depicting (the 1960s) so they understand context, and then being
left to their own devices - sans script.
I'm not demanding award-winning performances out of them. Indeed,
because I'm making a film that looks and feels like a documentary (but
isn't), I want them to be as "natural" as possible, i.e. aware the
camera is there, avoiding it, mugging it, embarrassed by it, pained by
it, ignoring it, etc etc - whatever they feel like at the time. My
'talent' is more often than not people with little to no experience in
front of the camera at all, but enough of an understanding of the
subject matter to feel more at home than most. Nobody wears make up;
there is no special 'hair' considerations (other than my telling them a
week or two prior to shooting to 'get a haircut'); nobody is given
special lines to learn or anything (not that there's sync sound to begin
with anyway), they are just given the scenario of where they are, when
they are, and approximately who they are.
The results thus far have been astoundingly stunning.
Not to denigrate professional actors, but I have found this technique to
be fulfilling, effective and perfectly suited to the subject at hand.
David
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>filmn...@aol.comatose (Kevin FilmNutBoy) wrote in message
>news:<20020105020818...@mb-fz.aol.com>...
>> sven...@hotmail.com (Sven Milliam) wrote:
>>
>> >This, alone, does not let it off the hook of
>> >low expectations; rather, the fact that the script is probably going
>> >to come primarily from one source does. I never trust a movie that has
>> >more than 2 names on it under screenwriter.
>>
>> It took at least 6 writers to write Casablanca, the same number as It's a
>> Wonderful Life. Five writers for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but only
>4
>> for Apocalypse Now, and a mere 3 for Dr Stangelove.
>
>All of these movies you listed play on unrealistic melodrama and
>overacting to provide relevance. I find none of them particularly
>interesting, because the characterization is rather on-the-surface.
Okey dokey then. But you're looking forward to Austin Powers 3?
>Great films are not directed, or acted. Great films could be made
>without a script, because the concept is so natural that the actors
>feel the characters from the insight only life experience can provide.
>No film funded and tooled by a major studio can ever reach the
>artistic heights of one free of restrictions of commercial
>expectations. The idea of a professional actor is ludicrous to me,
>because one under circumstances such lives in a life-cycle where
>planning ahead is as important as the current endevour, trivializing
>any semblence of emotional transformation. It is impossible, under
>those circumstances.
Interesting. What color is the sky on your planet?
>Quentin Tarentino, while lacking in many areas,
>is probably the best (bourgeois-style "successful") director at
>getting his performers to give a realistic performance.
You do realize that the actors in Tarantino's films aren't generally allowed to
deviate one iota from the script? And that Tarantino's films are anything but
"realistic"? Funny you chose him as an example, since he's the opposite of
what you profess to be interested in.
>That's why the
>sponteneity and free-wheeling, unpretentious beauty of art free of
>expectations will always survive beyond films that rely on the
>nostaltia-mongering of celebrity-cultists.
And you hope to find this free-wheeling, artistic beauty in Austin Powers 3?
I've got to stop smoking so much crack, 'cause one of us isn't making any
sense.
Sven Milliam
> sven...@hotmail.com (Sven Milliam) wrote:
>
> >filmn...@aol.comatose (Kevin FilmNutBoy) wrote in message
> >news:<20020105020818...@mb-fz.aol.com>...
>
> >> sven...@hotmail.com (Sven Milliam) wrote:
> >>
> >> >This, alone, does not let it off the hook of
> >> >low expectations; rather, the fact that the script is probably going
> >> >to come primarily from one source does. I never trust a movie that has
> >> >more than 2 names on it under screenwriter.
> >>
> >> It took at least 6 writers to write Casablanca, the same number as It's a
> >> Wonderful Life. Five writers for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but only
> 4
> >> for Apocalypse Now, and a mere 3 for Dr Stangelove.
> >
> >All of these movies you listed play on unrealistic melodrama and
> >overacting to provide relevance. I find none of them particularly
> >interesting, because the characterization is rather on-the-surface.
>
> Okey dokey then. But you're looking forward to Austin Powers 3?
relevance of upcoming MAINSTREAM films, which I don't care much for to
begin with. I simply said that it's more worthy of consideration than
the others that were listed.
> >Great films are not directed, or acted. Great films could be made
> >without a script, because the concept is so natural that the actors
> >feel the characters from the insight only life experience can provide.
> >No film funded and tooled by a major studio can ever reach the
> >artistic heights of one free of restrictions of commercial
> >expectations. The idea of a professional actor is ludicrous to me,
> >because one under circumstances such lives in a life-cycle where
> >planning ahead is as important as the current endevour, trivializing
> >any semblence of emotional transformation. It is impossible, under
> >those circumstances.
>
> Interesting. What color is the sky on your planet?
Why not respond to what I've said instead of ad homming?
> >Quentin Tarentino, while lacking in many areas,
> >is probably the best (bourgeois-style "successful") director at
> >getting his performers to give a realistic performance.
>
> You do realize that the actors in Tarantino's films aren't generally allowed to
> deviate one iota from the script? And that Tarantino's films are anything but
> "realistic"? Funny you chose him as an example, since he's the opposite of
> what you profess to be interested in.
Yes, but the script is what is in the mind of the creator, sole. If
he/she decides to organize it in some way, their vision, that's fine.
A script can be spontaneous, too. No one can do a Samuel Jackson
character like Samuel Jackson. And what I meant about "realistic" was
not the concept, but the performances. If you watch a movie, one with
a pretense of seriousness, and you have to say: "That is not how
people talk/act in real life," then the movie loses all of it's
effectiveness. That's why I can't watch films from the 30s and 40s.
The dialogue, stories may be great, but that forced, proper acting
school delivery that they all use is absolutely horrid. I want to see
lines delivered in a natural way, like people in real life situations.
> >That's why the
> >sponteneity and free-wheeling, unpretentious beauty of art free of
> >expectations will always survive beyond films that rely on the
> >nostaltia-mongering of celebrity-cultists.
>
> And you hope to find this free-wheeling, artistic beauty in Austin Powers 3?
I see you've learned the art of the straw man argument.
Kevin FilmNutBoy
And I simply pointed out that the reason you gave ("only one writer") is,
historically, a specious one.
You don't like mainstream films much, which is groovy with me. I don't like
big budget action flicks that much, so I figure that any predictions I might
make about the relative quality of upcoming big budget action releases won't be
of much value to people who dig them. Doesn't mean I won't make predictions,
but I do know when I'm talking out of my ass.
>> >Great films are not directed, or acted. Great films could be made
>> >without a script, because the concept is so natural that the actors
>> >feel the characters from the insight only life experience can provide.
>> >No film funded and tooled by a major studio can ever reach the
>> >artistic heights of one free of restrictions of commercial
>> >expectations. The idea of a professional actor is ludicrous to me,
>> >because one under circumstances such lives in a life-cycle where
>> >planning ahead is as important as the current endevour, trivializing
>> >any semblence of emotional transformation. It is impossible, under
>> >those circumstances.
>>
>> Interesting. What color is the sky on your planet?
>
>Why not respond to what I've said instead of ad homming?
Only if you respond to my contention that the emphasis on the influence of
German Expressionism on Hollywood film noir of the 40s has diminished the
appreciation of the impact of French Poetic Realism on the genre.
I hope you get my point.
>> >Quentin Tarentino, while lacking in many areas,
>> >is probably the best (bourgeois-style "successful") director at
>> >getting his performers to give a realistic performance.
>>
>> You do realize that the actors in Tarantino's films aren't generally
>allowed to
>> deviate one iota from the script? And that Tarantino's films are anything
>but
>> "realistic"? Funny you chose him as an example, since he's the opposite of
>> what you profess to be interested in.
>
>Yes, but the script is what is in the mind of the creator, sole. If
>he/she decides to organize it in some way, their vision, that's fine.
>A script can be spontaneous, too. No one can do a Samuel Jackson
>character like Samuel Jackson. And what I meant about "realistic" was
>not the concept, but the performances. If you watch a movie, one with
>a pretense of seriousness, and you have to say: "That is not how
>people talk/act in real life," then the movie loses all of it's
>effectiveness. That's why I can't watch films from the 30s and 40s.
>The dialogue, stories may be great, but that forced, proper acting
>school delivery that they all use is absolutely horrid. I want to see
>lines delivered in a natural way, like people in real life situations.
Do you think people in real life talk like characters in Tarantino films? Wow.
I think Tarantino would be very disappointed.
You have a misconception which has been commonplace throughout the history of
film. Every generation thinks that the current actors are "natural," and that
actors from a previous generation were artificial. When Sarah Bernhardt
dominated the stage in the 1880s, critics raved about how realistic her
performances were. She worked long enough to be filmed, and audiences only a
couple decades later who had never seen her on stage were astounded to see that
what passed for authentic performance a generation earlier seemed completely
phony to them. Same thing happens with Lilian Gish. And then James Cagney.
And then Marlon Brando. And then DeNiro. Each acclaimed for uncanny "realism"
in their heyday, but later generations don't always agree.
The more things change, ...
>> >That's why the
>> >sponteneity and free-wheeling, unpretentious beauty of art free of
>> >expectations will always survive beyond films that rely on the
>> >nostaltia-mongering of celebrity-cultists.
>>
>> And you hope to find this free-wheeling, artistic beauty in Austin Powers
>3?
>
>I see you've learned the art of the straw man argument.
Just trying to make sense of *your* argument, which like a straw man argument,
radically shifted gears in mid stream. (See above.)
Sven Milliam
> >> >> >low expectations; rather, the fact that the script is probably going
> >> >> >to come primarily from one source does. I never trust a movie that has
> >> >> >more than 2 names on it under screenwriter.
> >> >>
> >> >> It took at least 6 writers to write Casablanca, the same number as It's
> a
> >> >> Wonderful Life. Five writers for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but
> only
> 4
> >> >> for Apocalypse Now, and a mere 3 for Dr Stangelove.
> >> >
> >> >All of these movies you listed play on unrealistic melodrama and
> >> >overacting to provide relevance. I find none of them particularly
> >> >interesting, because the characterization is rather on-the-surface.
> >>
> >> Okey dokey then. But you're looking forward to Austin Powers 3?
> >
> >I didn't say I was "looking foward to it." I was commenting on the
> >relevance of upcoming MAINSTREAM films, which I don't care much for to
> >begin with. I simply said that it's more worthy of consideration than
> >the others that were listed.
>
> And I simply pointed out that the reason you gave ("only one writer") is,
> historically, a specious one.
Perhaps you're correct, in general, but when you mix a major studio
production with lots of screenwriters, it rarely works. But then
again, I also speficied that I was speaking of mainstream films.
> You don't like mainstream films much, which is groovy with me. I don't like
> big budget action flicks that much, so I figure that any predictions I might
> make about the relative quality of upcoming big budget action releases won't be
> of much value to people who dig them. Doesn't mean I won't make predictions,
> but I do know when I'm talking out of my ass.
>
> >> >Great films are not directed, or acted. Great films could be made
> >> >without a script, because the concept is so natural that the actors
> >> >feel the characters from the insight only life experience can provide.
> >> >No film funded and tooled by a major studio can ever reach the
> >> >artistic heights of one free of restrictions of commercial
> >> >expectations. The idea of a professional actor is ludicrous to me,
> >> >because one under circumstances such lives in a life-cycle where
> >> >planning ahead is as important as the current endevour, trivializing
> >> >any semblence of emotional transformation. It is impossible, under
> >> >those circumstances.
> >>
> >> Interesting. What color is the sky on your planet?
> >
> >Why not respond to what I've said instead of ad homming?
>
> Only if you respond to my contention that the emphasis on the influence of
> German Expressionism on Hollywood film noir of the 40s has diminished the
> appreciation of the impact of French Poetic Realism on the genre.
>
> I hope you get my point.
Uh-huh. It's called pretention.
I now see why we disagree. You are obsessed with a theory of history
repeating in endless cycles--all generations say the same thing about
the previous one--and I find that silly.
> >> >That's why the
> >> >sponteneity and free-wheeling, unpretentious beauty of art free of
> >> >expectations will always survive beyond films that rely on the
> >> >nostaltia-mongering of celebrity-cultists.
> >>
> >> And you hope to find this free-wheeling, artistic beauty in Austin Powers
> >3?
> >
> >I see you've learned the art of the straw man argument.
>
> Just trying to make sense of *your* argument, which like a straw man argument,
> radically shifted gears in mid stream. (See above.)
Nice attempt at a copout.
Sven
Kevin FilmNutBoy
No, I guess you didn't get it. My bad.
Yeah, I'm obsessed with it all right. Night and day, it's all I think about.
>> >> >That's why the
>> >> >sponteneity and free-wheeling, unpretentious beauty of art free of
>> >> >expectations will always survive beyond films that rely on the
>> >> >nostaltia-mongering of celebrity-cultists.
>> >>
>> >> And you hope to find this free-wheeling, artistic beauty in Austin
>Powers
>> >3?
>> >
>> >I see you've learned the art of the straw man argument.
>>
>> Just trying to make sense of *your* argument, which like a straw man
>argument,
>> radically shifted gears in mid stream. (See above.)
>
>Nice attempt at a copout.
Yes it was. Wait, did you mean me and not you? Oh.
Attempting to have a rational discussion with someone who (with a straight
face) makes proclamations like Tarantino being a "bourgeois" director was a
losing proposition, but I gave it a shot.
See ya around!