More people need to watch this show, seriously.

It's not Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, The Wire or The Sopranos-level TV, but it's incredibly good.
Quote by beadhangingOne
Good god NETS are frustrating,

Hibbert playing great. Pacers down 5.
15pts, 3rebs, 2blks, 2fouls in 12 mins. indiana up by 2.

glad to see hibbert bounce back.
We all know that each season's Episode #9 turns out to be the most well-received and climactic part of the season yeah? For this season, will that be the episode where
Tyrion kills Tywin

^ I swear that is a legit major spoiler so don't click if you haven't read the books.
I don't think I could really be disappointed with any GoT episode considering how the series has been done thus far, but that latest episode was just okay.

E02 > E04 > E01 > E05 > E03

^ My enjoyment of the episodes this season so far.

Anyway... Brienne + Podrick is an awesome pairing.
Wow Hibbert is horrible.
good lord... -_-
lol what did joey crawford do?
dafuq has happened to the pacers??
Quote by Cadj
So I know sometimes people like to read scripts so here's interactive Cornetto Trilogy scripts since Edgar Wright is celebrating 10 years since Shaun.

Whoa nice!
Quote by seventh_angel
I'm not saying it is, because I only saw Modern Times, but don't his films get a bit repetitive ?

In a way, yes.

Actually, I opined on another forum a few days ago that writing individual reviews for his films is so challenging because they are all great in very similar ways. They all feature hilarious gags that rarely fall flat; and at the same time, he's able to deftly weave sentimentality in his films such that all his pictures end up poignant and funny at the same time.

Yet, I don't ever recall him repeating the same jokes in any of the films and there is enough variance in all of the five films' narratives to make viewing them feel fresh and distinct from each other.

I guess what I'm saying is that they are all very similar in themes, tone and type of humor, but I never really felt like he was getting repetitive, and the way that he makes his films distinct from each other despite the similarities is part of what makes him so great, I think.

I suggest you should try at least one more of his films to have an idea. I highly recommend 1928's "The Circus"
Just watched all five of Chaplin's feature-length "tramp" films (The Kid, The Gold Rush, The Circus, City Lights, Modern Times).

The man is a frakkin' genius. Damn.
Quote by andyscoot
Hopefully should spark a bit of debate, but, favourite final shots? Or at least some of them.

Great call with The Searchers.
Ikiru = best Kurosawa.

(arguably though, since I also love Seven Samurai)
Yeah I'd second Hard Boiled. And watch The Killer while you're at it. That would be a great John Woo + Chow Yun Fat action film combo.

Also get some Arnie in there: Terminator 1 & 2 + Predator
Quote by WhiskeyFace
Not sure I agree because most critics don't know a thing about what it's like to make a film.

That's what the author is saying: That critics should have at least some fundamental knowledge into things like editing, mixing, production design, cinematography, etc so that they could incorporate insights regarding how a film's form synergizes with its function.

Granted, "required" is too strong a word. Talking about filmmaking in a review shouldn't be mandatory. Reviewers should be free to include whatever content they think best describes the movie, and I'm sure there are plenty of movies out there that are just so thoroughly conventional that there's little insight to be gleaned from discussing those conventions, so I wouldn't always begrudge a person for looking mostly at acting or writing or what have you. But when a film allows insights into these elements of a filmmaker's craft, it would be great to see a review of the film touch on those topics.
In light of the recent discussion about writing about one's thoughts on a film:

Please, critics, write about the filmmaking

The argument is that film critics should basically be required to write about the filmmaking of the movies they're reviewing. That even if you have, say, a 500-word limit, you should squeeze out at least 25-50 of those to comment on some particular aspect of the cinematography or editing or etc. The author goes on to say that if you particularly cover film or TV via some sociopolitical lens (i.e., feminist or Marxist criticism, etc.), you can still back those arguments up with discussion of how the director chooses to frame particular ideas, then gives an example from 12 Years A Slave.
Quote by lolmnt
City Lights is a GODDAMN masterpiece.

Agreed. As is Modern Times. The rollerskating sequence in the mall from that film is GODDAMN genius.
Quote by Dreadnought
Aw I'm just teasin' ya pal!

Quote by Dreadnought
You and will can go rent a room and each try to out-contrarian the other

Just keeping it real.

I'm sure my opinions for most other films are unoriginal and adhere to more or less what the majority consensus is. Though it's a bit exciting when I come across a universally-loved film and end up not liking it... or the opposite.
if everyone who disagreed felt the need to react to my dislike for The Great Dictator, that would take up a whole page
I'm sure lots of people don't agree, but it fell flat nonetheless.
oh wow, Chaplin's The Great Dictator is a bland and preachy mess of a film.

Modern Times and City Lights are all-time greats. The Kid, The Gold Rush & The Circus are lesser classics, but The Great Dictator did absolutely nothing for me. In terms of satire and comedy regarding the Nazis, Lubitsch's To Be or Not To Be is far better in every way.
Are you saying that the cinematography in The Descendants was good? O_o It was nothing special. Neither is the cinematography in Nebraska aside from that it was shot in black & white (I'm not saying B&W = good. I'm saying it got nominated just because it was a good film shot in B&W).

Also, Emmanuel Lubezki's most notable works are Children of Men & The Tree of Life --- both excellent examples of great cinematography.
seventh do you actually feel anything?

I get the thought that you should analyze/judge/criticize a film (or any work of art for that matter) as a whole, and that one's review of a film should be personal (as opposed to academic) as much as possible.

But I don't get the staunch resistance towards the approach where a viewer chooses to comment on some of the individual elements of a film either. That's a perfectly acceptable approach towards reaching a final conclusion about the film as a whole imo.

And with regards to a "personal" review of the film, not all films leave you with something personal worth saying about it. A lot of films are actually just flat and dry and leaves a viewer relatively indifferent.

Also, opinions of a film are most definitely built. Maybe not consciously, but they are certainly created thorugh the process of watching a film / experiencing a work of art.
^ everything he said.

short term 12 = awesome.

nate = sucks/pointless.

brie larson = yes.

the two main kids - Marcus & Jayden - are excellent as well.
eh I'll stick with my warlock-taunt deck for now --- which seems like the opposite of aggro since it's more defense-oriented? O_o
Yeah, although: Magic real card game > Hearthstone > Magic CCG video games
actually "magic but really casual" is pretty accurate.

I hope the game expands in variety and complexity as more cards/sets are introduced.
Actually, that's quite acurate. I play it only an hour or so on most nights before sleeping :p

I only have one deck that's fairly competent, and that's a Warlock deck with a lot of taunt minions. I usually get busted up early on and then come back mid-late game.
Anyone else here regularly playing this game?

It just came out of open beta this month and I got on-board just last week.

No idea yet what deck build I want to focus on. Just levelling-up my characters.

It basically follows a similar premise to Magic: The Gathering, but much more bare in terms of game mechanics and variety.