Content
Thread
Forum
Date
Quote by steve_muse
VWhat's with the foreign obsession with incest?

I've never noticed this, although european films seem generally less conservative than american ones, so that's that.

Any notable films to illustrate?
My favorite is the 2nd film (Before Sunset), and yeah I would agree that they all feel like they could be mistaken for Woody Allen films... when I was watching Before Midnight earlier I thought that down to the music, even the credits (how they were just white text on black) and choice of font.
Just finished Before Midnight this morning and found it to be a brilliant progression from the first two movies, although quite sad and difficult to watch.

Nine years from now, when they're both 50, I wonder what we'll see.

Last night I finished Blue Jasmine and Cate Blanchett was indeed amazing in it as reported. I can't imagine how they're touting Bullock in Gravity as her closest competitor for Best Actress when Bullock's performance was nowhere close to Blanchett's work in this.

The story itself was middling for most of the film: Steadily written and directed as far as competent Woody Allen films go, but nothing special. It really opens up when you hit the 1-hour mark, which is when the movie comes alive, and thankfully it carries that energy and momentum until the credits roll.

Before Midnight = 9/10
Blue Jasmine = 8/10
Quote by Baby Joel
It's not the clipping that's rude, but the noise it makes is quite annoying.

Yeah I would think that the noise would be annoying so I do it with my hands under the desk and try to make as little of a clicking sound as possible.

But aside from that, I don't really see it as rude or disgusting
Was just wondering.

Imagine "work" as your typical 9-to-5 white collar desk job.

I was clipping my nails just now. Always wondered what the etiquette was regarding that but only bothered to look it up today.

Apparently it's frowned upon by most?
Quote by Diamond Dave
agreed, but my main complaint would have to be that they blew their entire "scary space" wad in the first 20 minutes and had nowhere to go after that. My secondary complaint would have to be the ridiculous physics fail they used to
write out Clooney.
Absolutely jarringly stupid IMO. Obviously there are a lot of inaccuracies in the movie but this one was particularly unforgivable

Yeah I also had a problem with that one. It seemed like
he should have stopped when Bullock's character was able to grab the cord sine they're in space, but there was still a force/momentum causing him to drift away and I don't know where that came from
I'm not an expert though so idk...
re: Gravity --- that film had very little developments in character and plot imo. It's special because of its technical achievements.

The writing is only serviceable and made just to have a vehicle to showcase the visuals. The acting isn't even that great (even though Sandra Bullock is getting raves left and right, which I don't understand).

Life of Pi I think has a much more fleshed out story and central character.
Quote by cornmancer
Have you guys already talked about Inside Llewyn Davis. I want to talk about it.

I want to see it first.

That and Her. I really really really need to see those films ASAP.
Quote by eGraham
Is "realism" analogous to non-fiction?

I don't think so. Realism is a characteristic while non-fiction is a classification.

Realism for me pertains to how similar the representation on-film is to how they are in real life... with as little romanticization, stylization, idealization, abstraction and sensationalism as possible.

Non-fiction means that the story/characters are based on people and events that actually happened.

So you can have a non-fiction story that is not realistic and a fictional story that is realistic.
Saw Richard Curtis' latest film About Time.

I have a special place in my heart for romcoms and Richard Curtis is among the best at writing them, so I loved this immensely
Quote by Diamond Dave
has anyone seen Satantango?

I only heard about it yesterday and while my first impression was a bit "7 hour movie? lol, nah" but I'm kind of intrigued by it now...

just have to put away an entire Sunday

I started watching it and it opened with an 8-minute slow pan across a field showing a herd of cows. I thought to myself "Oh hell naw..." and stopped watching.

Not for me for that time. Maybe in the future...
So I saw American Hustle and it was okay. After watching his last three films, I'm of the opinion that David O. Russell may very well be the best creator of ordinary films in Hollywood. If there were a boat of directors who create ordinary films, Russell would be its captain, and Ron Howard would be his first mate.

Ron Howard's Rush was great, by the way. I enjoyed it more than American Hustle. These are films that I recognize as being very entertaining and well put together with a solid sense of craftsmanship, yet at the same time, I'm hard-pressed to find anything to say about these films that I feel can distinguish and elevate them further than merely being a successful exercise in filmmaking.

David O. Russell is just so much more focused on his characters than on his narrative. While that works for certain films, I feel that for something like American Hustle, the plot has to be tighter than what it ended up being. It's not a story that lends itself well to a lot of character exploration or else it muddles up the central plot, which is what I think happened and it bogged the movie down. The soundtrack is amazing though.

I also saw Saving Mr Banks recently. It's an enjoyable film, but I was not a fan of going back and forth between the making of Mary Poppins and flashbacks of P.L. Travers' life. The Hollywood scenes were good. The flashbacks were unengaging, even though Colin Farrell was really good in them.

Last of the new films I saw recently was The Butler and it was a mess.

I'm not an American, so whenever something in the nation's history would come up that fascinated me, I'd pause the film and Google/Wiki whatever it was (i.e. - The Black Panthers, JFK's assassination, a particular president's term, etc etc). I ended up spending more time on the internet than watching the film.

I feel that David Oyelowo was the best thing about the movie. Oprah and Whitaker were okay, but far from great.
lolololololol Bargnani :lol:
Quote by Alexishxc1337
Paul George put up Kobe type numbers tonight, wow.

...in a losing effort.

(also Kobe-ish )
Quote by darkcheef
Wow the East is so shit that the Wizards have the third best record

I don't watch a lot of NBA but what happened? I don't remember the conferences being that imbalanced

I know right? Only Indiana and Miami have records over .500, it's hilarious

Contrast that with the Western division and you only have three teams under .500.

Actually, if you rank all 30 teams purely by winning percentage and take the Top 16 teams, you're going to get these:

1. Indiana
2. San Antonio
3. Miami
3. Portland
5. Oklahoma City
6. Houston
7. LA Clippers
8. Denver
9. Dallas
9. Golden State
11. Phoenix
11. New Orleans
13. Memphis
13. LA Lakers

13. Washington
16. Atlanta

16. Minnesota

West teams in blue, East teams in red
come on pacers.
I just realized there was this 2-hour "The Ultimate Guide to Doctor Who" special that the BBC aired before the 50th. Just got around to watching it and it was so great. They cover all the Doctors equally from Hartnell to Smith. Really fascinating.

Is the 6th Doctor relatively disliked by fans?

Also, I cracked up at the part where the 5th Doctor was dying and during the death scene, one can't just help but stare at the companion's cleavage )
Quote by BladeSlinger
Well, he should be out of regenerations. He needs the extra regenerations to become Capaldi. Once he does they'll probably be like "hey bro, better go help yourself out otherwise everything will blow up"

Sometimes I wonder how set in stone that "twelve regenerations" thing is as a rule, tbh.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
So is this another reboot by Moffatt I'm so confused

Nah he just sort of re-wrote (or "corrected" for some people) what Davies did.
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
I'm still waiting for the day when we won't preface every Oscar discussion with "say what you want about the oscars..."

had no idea
My predictions for the major categories so far:

BEST PICTURE
12 Years a Slave
Gravity
Captain Phillips
Saving Mr. Banks
American Hustle
Nebraska
Inside Llewyn Davis
The Wolf of Wall Street
The Butler
Blue Jasmine

BEST DIRECTOR
Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity)
Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave)
David O. Russell (American Hustle)
Paul Greengrass (Captain Phillips)
Joel and Ethan Coen (Inside Llewyn Davis)

BEST ACTOR
Chiwetel Ejiofor (12 Years a Slave)
Robert Redford (All is Lost)
Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyers Club)
Tom Hanks (Captain Phillips)
Bruce Dern (Nebraska)

BEST ACTRESS
Cate Blanchett (Blue Jasmine)
Sandra Bullock (Gravity)
Judi Dench (Philomena)
Meryl Streep (August: Osage County)
Emma Thompson (Saving Mr. Banks)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Jared Leto (Dallas Buyers Club)
Michael Fassbender (12 Years a Slave)
Tom Hanks (Saving Mr. Banks)
Barkhad Abdi (Captain Phillips)
James Gandolfini (Enough Said)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Oprah Winfrey (The Butler)
Lupita Nyongo (12 Years a Slave)
June Squibb (Nebraska)
Jennifer Lawrence (American Hustle)
Julia Roberts (August: Osage County)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Blue Jasmine
Inside Llewyn Davis
American Hustle
Nebraska
Her

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
12 Years a Slave
Before Midnight
Captain Phillips
August: Osage County
The Wolf of Wall Street

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Frozen
The Wind Rises
Monsters University
Despicable Me 2
The Croods
Say what you want about The Oscars, but they're definitely a spectacle. Certainly still interesting most especially for the punditry that surrounds it.

I love the punditry, and I was wondering if anyone else here did to.

If so, what are your predictions for who will get nominated a few months from now?
Back To The Future reference, I assume :p
LOL this is craking me up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKcRujU9kEA

(1) Kidd pulls a bush league tactic by telling his player to intentionally hit him to spill the drink

(2) In the ensuing huddle made possible by the spillage, Steve Blake and Xavier Henry watch the Nets draw up the play with no one minding them at all.
Jason Kidd tells Tyshawn Taylor to hit to stop play and ice FT shooter with 8 seconds left

http://thebrooklyngame.com/jason-kidd-to-tyshawn-taylor-hit-me/

HAHAHA!
Okay that's sort of starting to make sense.

So that means that if this whole thing is now a time loop, we're saying that what we've watched since the series reboot is all pre-time loop stuff, then?
^ Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by that... O_o
BSG is indeed the best sci-fi I've seen, btw.
Another question: Since we now know that the War Doctor chose to save Gallifrey, but just forgot that he did... why does he remember that he destroyed Gallifrey when that didn't happen at all?
Quote by Ignite
nooo I'm talking about Tennant's last episode, The End of Time. Where The Master does whatever he does and there's "the return of the time lords" with gallifrey and all that shit. (it's been awhile )

Like none of that made sense to me
and if 10 thought Gallifrey burned, then what was even going on

Oh my bad.

Well, for starters, 10 also forgot the events in the 50th Anniv special, just like the War Doctor.

Also, didn't all the time lords from those two episodes come from a time lock, from a time right before what we thought then to be the destruction of Gallifrey?
Quote by Ignite
Someone explain the correlation between the The End of Time and this new special.

I never really understood wtf really happened in The End of Time.

11th Doc went into his own timeline to rescue Clara. After finding Clara, he encountered the War Doctor while inside.

There doesn't seem to be any direct correlation between that and the special episode although it is referred to a couple of times.

I expect that the events on Trenzalore will be touched on more in the Christmas special.
Quote by BladeSlinger
12th Doctor, 13th form.

The Master got more regenerations. The Doctor will as well.

But them showing only 13 Doctors during the 50th Anniversary episode - and that seems to imply that those are already all of the incarnations in the Doctor's timeline - makes it seem so definite that Peter Capaldi will be the last Doctor.

If there were a Doctor after Capaldi, then they have to explain why he wasn't included in that scene.
Something I want to understand a bit better...

It seems odd how Season 7 leaves us with the cliffhanger on Trenzelore with 11th seeing The War Doctor and then we get the 50th starting with War Doc, 10th & 11th having sort of a meet-cute. How are we supposed to view the 50th Anniv episode in within the context/continuity of the ending of the 7th Season? Or is it that we shouldn't... meaning the 50th is meant as sort of a one-off?

Also: What do we call Peter Capaldi's Doctor now? 12th Doc or 13th?
lol has anyone seen the video of Gortat trying to do what looks to be "The Dream Shake"? :p

https://vine.co/v/hT2EI2PXxer

Enjoy.
Quote by Trowzaa
can anyone seriously tell the difference between these though?


Left one is more crisp?

I had to really look at them though and cover one while looking at the other to tell the difference.

Even then, I'm not even sure I'm right.
Is Michael Carter-Williams injured or something?
lol, D'Antoni has turned the Lakers into his old Phoenix team :p
but he's a rookie.... playing his first NBA game... against the defending champs...
22 pts, 12 assists, 7 rebounds, and 9 steals in rookie debut to beat the reigning champs.

WAT.