DominicCobb

37. Did Tarkin survive or didn't he????? I'm serious they should have explained that that.

The Rules of the Game (1939) 10/10 - Very clever and often quite funny. Very well made and quite ahead of its time, in many respects.

Suspicion (1941) 9/10 - Very good Hitchcock. It baffles me that I still haven't taken the time to watch all of his films.

Grand Illusion (1937) 10/10 - Exceptional. Too much to applaud.

I get that TOS always had social commentary and all that good stuff, but the reason I feel in love with it was the characters, the worlds, the adventure, and the action. The Abrams movie had all of that, and it looks like STID will too. So I'm happy.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) 10/10 - Finally got a chance to watch this Blu-ray Christmas gift of mine, and, you know what? Still awesome. With all the criticism going around, I keep expecting myself to like it less each time I re-watch, but quite the opposite happens. Still my favorite this year.

True Romance (1993) 9/10 - Don't know why I've never seen this before. Very cool film.

Django (1966) 7/10 - You probably know where this marathon is headed. Decided to watch this film. Honestly pretty good (especially the title credits/song, music, cinematography, action), but really just a second rate Fistful of Dollars. I really did like it, though.

Inglourious Basterds (2009) 10/10 - Somehow I love this movie more each time I see it. It's pretty much perfect.

Pulp Fiction (1994) 10/10 - Do I really need to explain? Simply a brilliant film. In my top ten, for sure.

Reservoir Dogs (1992) 10/10 - Re-watching this film is always very interesting. And awesome. There's a lot to love here.

Django Unchained (2012) 10/10 - I saw this last night and was overjoyed to find this film was everything I could have hoped for. It's easily my fourth favorite Tarantino film, and far above all his others. Damn good film. Amazing film. Hell of a lot of fun too. I'm still floored. Highly recommended. 

Doubt it. Too intelligent of writing. Besides, I didn't think FS was even aware of the Fan Edit sub forum. (?)

Actually this tends to be a pet peeve of mine. I think the names are fine as is. 

Pics or it isn't happening.

Seriously though, awesome idea.

The Lion in Winter (1968) 9/10 - Powerhouse performances with a great production and script. I feel like good straight plays always make for great dialogue driven films.

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) 9/10 - ...as is further evidenced by this film. Simply incredible performances. Amazing dialogue. Who could have thought real estate could be this interesting?

Solaris (1972) 8.5/10 - Very interesting film. Much better than the Clooney/Soderbergh version. Some of the narrative issues are still there, though. And I get what Tarkovsky was trying to do with the deliberate pace, but sometimes things go on for far too long. Still, great production.

Oklahoma! (1955) 6.5/10 - Far too stupid a film to be this long. Well made, though.

Les Miserables (2012) 9.5/10 - I went into this knowing next to nothing about it. And I thought it was amazing. Incredible performances, production, cinematography, music, etc. Great story. I'm not a fan of musicals, but this was top-notch. I think the fact that the music was recorded live on set helped immensely. Musical films tend to feel extremely fake to me (see above). But this just felt like they were using a different narrative technique, one very lyrical I might add. It didn't feel like a "musical." It felt like a film. And a great one at that. I saw it with my aunt, who is a big fan of the show. She had mixed feelings. But if you haven't seen the show, I would highly recommend this film. Certainly one of the best this year. 

^Smart man

TV's Frink said:

I don't agree with a lot of what zombie said in this thread previously, but that's an excellent post.  We do have an obsession with guns in this country, and it's a very dangerous and stupid obsession.

Quoted for truth. 

Too bad no one probably know what that post was anymore.

Sandy was an inside job!

Yeah, sounds awesome! I think ESB doesn't need the scenes at all, while ROTJ and ANH could, arguably, benefit from them. ROTJ more so, so it's great that comes first! This could be a big step in, maybe, doing that ROTJ Collaboration (finally). 

And, if not, I'm sure some ROTJ edit will use them (crossing my fingers for Revisited).

darth_ender said:

Akwat Kbrana, I again appreciate this review. It's amazing to read the disparities between the movie critics and general fanbase. Like you said, it seems to be a fad to criticize Jackson (kinda like Lucas bashing!--but I can justify the latter a little more, though not to the extent that I regularly read). The Hobbit should be very different from LOTR, and if the film succeeds at this, even if it is expanding the material, that's great. As long as he's not aiming for the same type of epic, acknowledging what the movie is, then that's fantastic. My heart had been a little broken looking at Rotten Tomatoes, where the critics give it a 65%, but the fans give it an 81%. And considering how I respect the opinions of so many here, I feel pretty confident that I will enjoy it :)

As much as some naysayers like to think it's the new Phantom Menace, stuff like this proves it's not.

Critic's response is roughly the same, but while a significant number of the audience hated TPM, a significant number of the audience love AUJ.

Hey... I'm a 'Murican and I'm smart (if that's what we're calling believing in evolution these days).

As much as I want to agree with you, zombie, I can't. You can't really say that every person who believes in religion is an idiot. 

Here's why: I ask you "which are better, men or women?" You, presumably, say "they are equal." Someone in, say the Middle-East (using this as an example, not stereotyping) says, "men are better." You call them an idiot. But why are they an idiot? You say all people are equal. They say men are more equal than women. You find this preposterous. They find what you say preposterous. Both of you are arguing values you've learned since a very young age. If you grew up in the Middle-East, can you honestly say that you would think men and women are equal? I don't think you could. You would have no reason to. "But they are equal!" you say, "There is no reason why one person is inherently better than another." I agree. But that's just the morality we grew up with. I tend to think it's the right morality. Why shouldn't they be equal? Well, some Middle-Easterns think differently. You think there idiots, and their beliefs have no foundation. But they see that men and women are different, physically, and they have been treated differently for centuries; so these people have no reason to suddenly think that women are equal.

Same goes for religion. Sure, there's no tangible evidence to back up the existence of a deity, but people who are religious rely on faith, on what they, and the generations before them have been taught. Sure, they've heard the arguments of naysayers, but they have no reason to believe what they've learned is false, and what their ancients scriptures said happened, never did. 

Yes, there are a lot of religious people who are dumb. But it's not always because they believe in creationism. When it is, it's people blindly religious (and some people too religious [but that's a topic for another time]). People who believe in a god because, well, everyone else does. Those people are idiots, and they've never truly considered the issue. But people who were brought up to believe in a divine power through faith do so not because they are stupid, but because that is, and always has been, part of the foundation of their beliefs.

By the way, sorry to anyone I might have offended by comparing religious people to sexists.

As for religion in government, we live in 'Murica, you're an idiot if you think religion should play any role. 

Yes, thankfully, they have failed. By all accounts, I shouldn't even know the original OT even exists (I was born in '95). But, luckily, I do (as demonstrated in the OP). 

The great thing is more well known people have become more vocal in their disdain for the SE (Simon Pegg, etc.) One can only hope Disney does a proper release. Or 20th Century Fox. It would make sense for them to try to bank on the originals while they still have them.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition) 10/10 - Without a doubt the greatest fantasy film of all time. Absolutely incredible from start to finish. This is just one of those films where you wonder, "how did they get everything so right?" Because everything in this film is exceptional.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (Extended Edition) 9.5/10 - Being the middle film, this was always bound to be the weakest. But that's not saying much. This is still an amazing work. My gripes include the fact that there are too many scenes with Treebeard that go on too long, and the fact that the Elves show up at Helm's Deep. I still haven't read the book (I know, awful), so that's not the reason I dislike it. I just feel that that battle should be man's last stand. At least, the rest of the film sets it up for that. And when Haldir dies, it really feels like they're grasping for an emotional death. But it doesn't work, because we don't really know him. This is something that has always annoyed me.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (Extended Edition) 10/10 - My favorite of the three. There's just so much to love. And the end - the end gets me every time. People say, "the ending's 25 minutes! That's too long!" Well not for a 12 hour movie it's not! But seriously, though, I've yet to watch this movie and not cry at the end. Just a brilliant and beautifully made film and trilogy.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (IMAX 3D 24fps) 9/10 - Surprise! I saw the Hobbit! Couldn't have guessed that from the three preceding films, could you? No, I did, midnight premiere, and I LOVED it. It's so good to be back. This movie was never bound to be as good as the OT (LOTR I mean), just by nature of the story. The stakes are lower, it's a lot less serious. But it's still awesome. I have a few legitimate gripes. I get what they were trying to do with the introduction of Radagast, but it was a little jarring, non-the-less. And there was a little bit of an imbalance of action and dialogue in the second half, I thought. There was just a bit too much action, especially in the underground scene against the goblins. As for the format, it was awesome. Totally immersive, and it wasn't even 48fps. And as for the ending, I thought it was just about perfect. I can't imagine seeing more after that in the same film. In this way I think the trilogy decision was the best choice. Especially because that means I still have two more journeys to look forward to. 

^Same here!

Comments from anyone who's seeing it in 48 would be appreciated.

1. STID

2. Elysium 

3. Pacific Rim

I'll probably check out Ender's Game and Oblivion and After Earth if they get good reviews.

I'll also most certainly be seeing Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, and Thor: The Dark World; if you consider those sci-fi.

Chances are I will also see Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith - 3D and maybe Attack of the Clones - 3D if I'm feeling particularly crazy. Because those are definitely sci-fi films. Not science fantasy.

I always thought Leo would've made a good Anakin.

When I think about it, Coruscant is really the only PT planet that would be worth going back to. Actually, Naboo might be an interesting place to revisit. And Kamino, if they ever wanted to explain that mess properly (which I don't think they should bother with). 

Other than that though, not really. Not much value to any of the other planets in the PT.

I agree that we need some new worlds, or EU worlds that have not yet been seen on film.

I'm hoping Tarkin finally shows up again after evading the Death Star explosion.

But, if we were to stay off topic, wouldn't that be on topic in this particular thread? 

Bingowings said:

It's a special edition.

Thankfully nice George Lucas (Harmy) in his kindness has preserved Seb Shaw in his original context.

He could start out being the old guy Luke (and we) just met but spiritually regenerate so to speak into the young man Padme knew.

Either way a full body replace would be much more respectful to Seb Shaw's memory than decapitating the poor guy and glueing Hayden's head on complete with creepy sex looks.

The real problem with the current Hayden in the SE is it makes no sense.

How does Vader learn to do this, why does he look young when the others look old?

It makes no narrative sense so it becomes a sticking plaster vainly attempting to stitch the two trilogies together.

I just wanted an explanation for Force ghosts that made some sense without being in your face.

Lucas was right not to make every Jedi vanish and appear as a ghost because Vader is clearly confused while playing footsy with Ben's bath robe.

I don't buy the Qui-Gon thing.

It comes out of nowhere very fast.

So it makes sense that Anakin is subconsciously doing that which he declared he hoped to do one day back in the PT.

He loves Padme and he loves his son (he doesn't know about Leia).

He keeps her alive after death and keeps Yoda and Ben alive to train and protect his child.

Consciously his Vader persona is so deep in the Dark side he can't see what his subconscious good self is doing.

It makes more sense to me that Anakin is mentally ill rather than out and out evil.

You can imagine a redemption for a man who murders children due to mental health issues rather than one who does it to further his career or political ambitions.

Good explanation.

I was curious simply because most people 'round these parts get sick with the thought that Hayden might be in ROTJ.

I personally don't think Anakin should have a ghost at all; though if he did, I don't think Seb Shaw would make much sense - well, I'm not going to get into that, I ranted enough on the ROTJ collaborative page.

Anyway, interesting interpretation, and not one that I would mind seeing in an edit.

Pretty good layout for ROTJ you got there Bingo. Almost the same as mine.

One question, if you have Anakin and Padme as ghosts, surely that wouldn't mean that you would keep Sebastian Shaw?