Even with the shoehorned “Chosen One” shenaningans in the prequels, Anakin’s mother was established as an uninportant slave with no Force sensitivity whatsoever.
I very much loved it when in TLJ Rey’s parentage is stated to be inconsequential.
Why the fuck did Rey have to be the long lost descendant of a previously established character? Why can’t she simply be Rey Nobody from Nowhere?
“Good” by Better Than Ezra. Perhaps the most joyful break-up song ever.
Just finished watching Ferris Bueller’s Day Off for the first time ever.
I guess the reason the movie is so fondly remembered is because it was a product of its time. I personally found it worth watching if only to pass the time, and I did chuckle quite a few times. I subscribe to the theory that Ferris is actually a figment of Cameron’s imagination and that Sloane represents a girl Cameron has a crush on but has never worked up the courage to talk to. Another reason is that they do a lot of stuff in Chicago that is simply impossible within the space of a few hours. If you take a good look at the movie Cameron is the real main character of the story.
Damn, I really felt sorry for Cameron. It’s pretty obvious he’s been neglected by his parents, and all scenes where he’s the main focus are pretty damn depressing.
Given his criminal charges Jeffrey Jones’ character Ed Rooney feels pretty off-putting.
This article IMO perfectly encapsulates the problems with the Sequel Trilogy.
I’m still here wishing that we’d gotten the complete misunderstanding that was Jodorowsky’s Dune. As insulting an adaptation as it would have been, it still would’ve made for a fascinatingly strange experience.
It would have most certainly been a beautiful mess of a movie, but I disagree with Jodorowsky’s plan to make it 14 hours long.
Ray Stevenson excelled at playing rugged tough guys.
The amazing thing is i bet your Bring it On trailer is better than the actual film on blu-ray which is quite lackluster.
Home Video versions will almost always be lackluster for movies shot and colour-timed on film because these companies use the Interpositive (IP) or the negative (O-neg), which have better resolution, but don’t have the grain or richness of photochemical colours that you see on 35mm film prints. O-neg or IPs look much smoother and not as crisper or textured as film prints. This is because prints used to go through a 4-step processing to become cinema release prints. With every step, the processing made the images denser/thicker and grains became more prominent, or so I heard. It is this grain that adds to the textured look of projected prints, which home videos obtained from O-neg or IPs lack.
take a look at the Jurassic Park 35mm scan. Why does it look far more richer than the 4K UHD. This is because the prints are four generations removed from the O-neg, while the UHD is a direct scan of the O-Neg. The result is the print looks crisper and textured while the UHD looks less defined. It doesn’t help that home video companies then apply an additional layer of denoising to water down whatever textures were left; resulting in a mushy, flattened look. Plus, cinema prints have richer and deeper colours because they use actual colour dyes. Digital colour does not look or feel as deep or thick, no matter the processing. Steve Yedlin came close to achieving print-level colours on The last jedi and Knives Out, but the images still looked recognisably digital.
Speaking of digital vs film, one noticeable difference between film prints and Digital Cinema Packages (DCPs) is that 35mm prints have an inherent soft, soothing image, while digital prints look sharp and harsher to the eyes, comparatively. I spoke to a cinema manager and he confirmed my observations.
Not to mention that 35mm prints have this organic look that makes the movie feel alive.
I for one don’t mind the generational loss that results from creating a film print, because another bonus is that visual effects, whether traditional optical effects or CGI, blend a lot better with the live action elements of the image as a result.
Am I glad George sold Lucasfilm to Disney? Well he sold out his own “independent” and “anti-film corp” way of doing things with that decision. Though from the Charlie Rose “White Slavers” interview he didn’t seem to have a high opinion of them. Plus, Disney’s history on this seems to be “profit over risk, rinse and repeat”
At least we didn’t get to see George retcon his own stories further with his latest vision for the Sequel films that would have made Leia as being “The Chosen One” instead of Anakin. Instead we get Favreau and Filoni retconning the EU instead.
So, I am glad he sold up, just not to Disney.
I’m more or less with this. Realistically, I’d have preferred to have seen George sell to a more independent company, with a background in taking risks with their projects. As fmalover posted above, companies with more creative freedom.
Ideally, it would have been great to see how Lucasfilm would have done as a worker owned co-op. With Lucasfilm not having to answer, or compromise with, anyone else.
What you’re suggesting is pretty much what Francis Ford Coppola was trying to do with American Zoetrope.
Personally I think George should have sold Lucasfilm either to Universal or Warner Bros. Based on my observations there seems to be a lot more creative freedom on those studios, and my biggest problem with Disney Star Wars is that Disney’s iron grip on the creative decisions is very palpable.
Plotwise TPM is pure nonsense, but doesn’t detract from it being a pretty damn fun movie to watch.
Seriously, I don’t get why everyone is so dismissive of The Lost World: Jurassic Park. It’s my personal favourite.
I could write a whole novel explaining everything that’s wrong with it, but that would turn this into the popular opinions thread.
Feel free to DM me, then.
Seriously, I don’t get why everyone is so dismissive of The Lost World: Jurassic Park. It’s my personal favourite.
it just often feels a bit sterile because the world isn’t fleshed out enough.
You’ve just described every Denis Villeneuve movie.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park is my personal favourite and I still don’t understand to this very day why it has so many detractors.
Maria Viktorovna
She kinda looks like Amy Adams.
The film Guardians of the Galaxy 3 is a fantastic ending to a heart warming trilogy. It’s a must see and a masterpiece. Thanks James Gunn for all the fun and heart.
I saw the first two GOTG movies and neither did anything for me, so I don’t feel any desire to watch this one.
I despise them.
The reviews?
Villeneuve’s version was like “look how badass she is”.
Unless you wanted Kynes to realise the folly of humans trying to control the environment while addressing the audience in a long monologue, or to have a couple minutes of the godawful voiceover narration that plagues the 1984 film, I really don’t see how Kynes’ book death would have worked on film. I also don’t see why it makes a different whether Kynes is a man or a woman.
Dune part one simply doesn’t have the runtime to delve in depth into Kynes’ dream of a terraformed Arrakis, it only touches on it, meaning a conclusion to movie Kynes’ story where she accepts humans cannot control nature would not have been narratively justified or satisfying. Villeneuve’s version deals with the aspect of Kynes which IS a big staple of her character in the film, her commitment to the Emperor and seeming refusal to pick a side. In her last moments she denounces the Emperor and embraces the Fremen part of herself entirely, which makes far more sense for this version. And yes it is the one of the most badass ways to go out. That’s no bad thing in my eyes.
I’ve posted countless times before that I thoroughly hate every single aspect of gender-swapped Kynes and nothing will change my mind on it.
I do have an idea for Kynes’s book death adapted to screen. Have it be this very surreal, trippy, dreamlike sequence.
Mike Stoklasa’s transition to a more professional review format is the reason I believe a Plinkett review of TROS will never happen. Besides RLM has thrived since they started branching out.
I thought Chalamet was pretty good at playing Paul, but I felt the character should have been written a bit more naive at the beginning. It was always my understanding that, yes, while Paul grew up the heir of a royal family and was trained for such, he was still a kid.
As soon as he reaches Arrakis, when House Atreides goes down in flames, and culminating when he and his mother are in the tent and he’s exposed to the spice, is when he becomes more “edgy” and serious.
Maybe it’s just me though. I’d have to read the books again, it’s been a while.
Actually that’s the whole point according Herbert himself. Paul is essentially this super-human who’s had the best education, both intelectual and martial, that his noble status can afford, is pretty much a human supercomputer, has the best possible genes of any human being, gains the genetic memory powers of the Bene Gesserit and he still fucks up.
For example, Chalamet’s entire performance, his hair, and his stupid “Iron Man” moment.
Chalamet IMO embodies Paul Atreides. In the books Paul is described as thin, wiry youth of shorter-than-average height with an aloof demeanor. As for the hair, there’s no mention of him having such fabulous locks, just an assumption from both movie adaptations.
I hate being ignored.
I hope Part Two lives up to my high expectations for it! I’ve read the book, and if Part Two is as faithful to the book as Part One, it’s gonna be quite a masterpiece.
Gender-swapped Kynes still irritates the shit out of me.
Honestly if the word “Jihad” isn’t uttered it will only confirm Denis Villeneuve is a coward.
Wow. Somebody’s bitter.
And for the record, if all it takes for you to call a director cowardly is the use of a controversial post-9/11 word in a movie about giant worms and hallucinogenic spice, maybe you should go on Twitter instead.
Why would I be bitter? I’m just irritated.
I very rarely express my opinions on Twitter. I’m happy to just follow certain topics and accounts.
Gender-swapped Kynes was great and had a better death than the character in the book.
Strongly disagree.
Kyne’s death in the book was perhaps my favourite part of the book, having an imaginary conversation with his father and realizing the folly of humans trying to control the environment.
Villeneuve’s version was like “look how badass she is”.
