zombie84

Sounds like you need a Sega Dreamcast.

Also--surprising no one has mentioned this yet--what do people think of the PS4 announcement? Not a fan of the controller re-design from the looks of it, but otherwise pretty excited. Don't give a shit about the Vita connectivity and other gimmicks like uploading game footage but the internal specs seem pretty good. I think it will be very, very interesting how Microsoft responds to all this, since they will have the benefit of being last out of the gate. IMO it's always a mistake to buy on launch day--let alone launch year--but this is a system I am looking to watch and see for a purchase, hopefully picks up faster than PS3 (which I was going to buy last year but then held off knowing PS4 would be out so soon). I haven't bought a console when it was still current since 1996--I have the benefit of friends who are big into current-gen gaming--but I want to own this so I hope they don't drop the ball.

SilverWook said:

How could anyone find Maud Adams forgettable? ;)

QOS is best viewed as an epilogue to CR. It would be difficult coming into it cold without seeing CR first.

I did, LOL. I wasn't impressed by QOS, not because I didn't understand the significance of anything but because it seemed more like a sequel in the Bourne series and was, well, a bit uninteresting. I thought maybe it was because I hadn't seen the first film, but after seeing CR a couple years later I think I would have been even less impressed had I seen the first film beforehand, not because CR makes it look worse but because CR really didn't need an epilogue or follow-up, I was a bit underwelmed. CR is a pretty good film but after all the hype and hearing people tell me I needed to see it I just found myself thinking "this is the film I'm hearing so much about?" I found it above-average, but that's it, I have no desire to ever see it again even though it was a good viewing experience. I think at the time, not quite knowing what to expect, it surprised and impressed people a lot because it was a film for adults and not a corny comic book spy movie, but if it didn't have the Bond name on it people would have seen it, enjoyed it and then more or less forgotten about it, just like they do with most adult thrillers.

I bought the cheapest used computer I could find--a 2001-era Dell--just so I could run Windows 95 games without problems. It just seemed easier to me. It's a Dell computer from 2001, cost me $20. I know it sounds a bit extreme to buy a whole computer to run vintage games--although no one bats an eye at dropping $70 on an NES--but honestly for $20 it's worth the money, and I'm sure you could find one for free as long as you were willing to go pick it up, I was just lazy and actually found a $20 bill on the sidewalk that week so it seemed fair. It's hooked up to my modern LED monitor and the tower itself is pretty small so it doesn't actually intrude on space. It also runs DOS games without problems. And of course the floppy disc drive if you have pre-CD-ROM games like Police Quest.

Is it possible to install a dual OS and actually run your modern computer in W95? I never tried that, but if you were really into vintage PC games but don't want to grab a second computer I would look into that. I've played some old games in W95 compatibility mode, but I've never been fully satisfied with the results, there was usually a glitch or two, so I just went on Craigslist last year and bought the second computer. Usually the seller will give the software they had too, since it would be useless to them. I got a copy of Redneck Rampage which I had forgot even existed!

It was still tough and gritty though, it's very, very unfair to compare it to the Brosnan films, it would have been a revolution if QOS was released in 2002. I think the real reason people complained was because the plot was simple and bland, there weren't memorable characters, and the action scenes were way too many in number and uninspired in direction.

I was going to say, growing up with a ton of Italian friends, I'm surprised that there was never an Italian equivalent. Greeks can pull that off too. But Mong-fro works more universally.

Exactly!

Ian Anderson was just a balding guy with long hair. It's not any kind of fro, really.

A Jewfro just comes from the fact that many Jewish people have curly hair that often resembles a small afro. I'm not sure if there is any definition other than you have to be Jewish to have one, I wasn't aware that it extended beyond Jews. My understanding:

Black guy with an afro=afro

White guy with an afro=afro

Jewish guy with an afro=Jewfro

Although the Jewfro is usually much less intense than an Afro. Afro's are more deliberate, and an actual fashion style. Jewfro's are usually just an unintended consequence to having curly hair.

Seeing this thread again almost makes me want to create a OT.com Facebook page that we can all join and check in on each other.

This isn't in direct response to captainsolo's post, but personally, I never got the hoopla about Casablanca. It's an above-average Hollywood movie from the 1940s...buuuut that's kind of it. Best movie ever made? One of the all time classics? Some times it just comes off as so artifical and...Hollywood. It's a pretty good movie, but I never understood what the big deal was. I can understand the big deal about movies like Wizard of Oz and Citizen Kane, but Casablanca, while a well made and enjoyable movie, never struck me as anything too special other than being an old movie that was good. Just like How Green Was My Valley, but no one really elevates that other than being a good old movie, which is really all HGWMV is (I also think it's better made). In the pantheon of classics, Casablanca stands out to me as remarkably average next to its peers.

I saw True Lies for the first time since the 1990s I think. One of those films that has been mysteriously, unexplainably absent on DVD and Blu-ray when it was a huge deal at the time it was made and one of the most expensive movies ever. It was funnier than I remembered it, but also more Schwarzengger-y than I remembered it. I guess it's because I never thought of Cameron as making "action" films, T1 and T2 and Aliens seemed to be so much more than that but this one seemed a bit more by the numbers. Really most of True Lies is a domestic drama, so it's pretty much "more than an action film" as well, but the ending is so over the top that it really leaves you with a "Schwarzenegger movie" impression. That's not a bad thing, it was just unexpected. This is definitely one of Arnold's best performances in a movie, and it was as funny as I remembered it. Blowing up that bridge is also one of the most impressive practical stunts I've seen. A good movie, but not really a great one. Worth revisiting. You can tell Cameron was just having fun playing around, but because of that there is a slightly two-dimensional feeling to it, even though the characters and writing and acting are all done very well. I also found it a bit unintentionally racist against Arabs just because it's yet another Hollywood movie where the only middle eastern people are terrorists, but True Lies got enough flak for that when it came out.

My friends watched T1 and T2 this week, one of them had never seen the original and the other hadn't seen T2 since he was very, very young. They both agreed that the first Terminator was better, scarier and more original, which I have been saying for my whole life. I hadn't seen the original in a few years now, and based on my friend seeing it for the first time as an adult and being really impressed by it I decided to see it again and try to look at it fresh (I've been watching it since I was 5, which is arguably far too young to have seen it, but meh). And damn, is that just a weird, original film, one that straddles the line between paradoxical sci-fi storyline, comic book action film, and believable human drama. It's a strange, compelling, over the top film that is actually quite dark and intense in places. First film to ever give me nightmares as a child!

My friend who watched them for the first time summed it up like this: T2 is a better action film, but it comes across as less original because it is like watching the origin of all the action tropes we have come accustomed to; and the special effects don't have the wow factor they originally did. The original, on the other hand, is very bizarre and unique, and very compelling and scary, and unlike any other movie he had seen. This is a very useful way at looking at the two in my opinion. It goes against the common sentiment that had been in place since the 1990s, but I've noticed that as more and more films draw influence on T2--and not the original--that first film really has begun to stand out more and more as the gritty, quirky, masterfully made film that it is. Time magazine did list it on their top ten films of 1984 back in the day!

wait, you co-wrote Slender??

He's also on some of the 1997 TV specials.

I'm still not entirely convinced that the non-Final-Cut colour timing of Blade Runner is off. It's definitely different than the 1992 DC DVD/LD/VHS (same source), but that's with the assumption that that particular video master was accurate in the first place. Have people actually gone back to the 1980s video transfers and seen if those are at least consistent with the 1992 transfer? I'll admit I haven't, but videophiles recently have begun having a habit of automatically assuming the BD is wrong when there is an equal chance the older version was wrong. Probably the best thing to do with Blade Runner is to check the workprint disc. It has some mis-tints, but it's right from an original film print with little to no restoration work.

How old does someone have to be before it becomes plausible to accuse them of becoming senile? Because if he isn't, then I guess Harry is just starved for attention since the internet realized how full of shit his pathetic excuse for a website was around 2001.

Yeah, the Donner Cut isn't perfect, but it made a decent film really good. I really appreciate the "adult"ness of it. The first hour is entirely character driven and actually a bit slow, but in a good way if you connect with the characters. And unlike the Lester cut, the villains have a lot of menace and there is a quite a bit more of a darker tone to the film. Thank god those awful small town Texas scenes were chopped out, and the White House assault is pretty neat now. The only complaint I have is that the climax doesn't have enough action--which is maybe why they re-vamped it for Lester--and the new special effects are probably worse than what they would have actually done in 1980. I didn't think the screen test footage stood out too much. Overall, it's an interesting and mostly effective salvage.

Young Indy was good, but I think it's status as this "legendary TV show that failed" has overshadowed it. Most people haven't seen it, but know that it's this "great, lost series." The production value was amazing for its time, but it's actually only so-so, the latter episodes tended to be better.

Most of them aren't much more violent than the average Michael Bay or Arnold Schwarzenneger film. The special gore effects are part of the spectacle, just like gasoline explosions are part of Arnie's thing. CG gore=bad slasher, just like CG explosions=bad Arnie film. Part of it is the thrill aspect, but also part of it is the special effects aspects, it's fun to see what they come up with, knowing it's all faked. Whenever you deal with horror you are dealing with macabre subject matter though. Stuff like so-called "torture porn" is another matter, because the focus there is on human suffering and not thrills, suspense, special effects (or even character development in many cases).

Probably the best slasher of all time is Nightmare on Elm Street. It has pretty good characters, great visual effects, incredibly gory special effects, genuine horror elements, but also real scares and thrills. That's also why Temple of Doom is my favourite Indy film. There's something about that combination of thrills and darkness that you can't replicate in another genre. In some ways they are a little sadistic, but there is a level of artificiality created by the fantasy aspect that allows it to be real, but not real-real. To me, a film like Munich and films like that are way more unsettling, because it's  realistic in ways that could--and have--happened. Even in the opening scene of Scream, it's all so stylized and unrealistic--even though it is presented in a realistic way--that it still is ultimately a fantasy. People don't go around in Halloween costumes making murderous prank phone calls on babysitters with elaborate set-ups and death displays. Most horror films are just modern day fantasies designed to scare you, or impress you with special effects. Mike Myers, Jason, Freddie, even the killers of Scream, they are practically mythological personas in some ways for the way they embody death and the elaborate, often convoluted scenarios they are born from and kill with. Arnold is the modern variation of Heracles, Freddie the modern variation of Medusa.

Yeah, I agree. It was a scene to set the tone, and even though the tone lightened in places, it was still a slasher film in the end. It's like An American Werewolf in London. In places, a very amusing film. But also very scary and violent.

The original Scream is a horror film with a sense of humour, but people went to see it because it was frightening and gory. It has wit and cleverness in it, but it still is a very suspenceful thriller. It scared me and most people who saw it when it was new--it was known as a scary movie. By Scream 3 it became a "silly bit of fun", but the first film was quite dark and brutal in places. It was meant to be a slasher itself that turned the genre on it's head by being self-aware. Same with New Nightmare--a very scary and dark film in places.

asterisk8 said:

Bingowings said:

The opening sequence of Scream is so mean spirited and sadistic (as a film sequence beyond what the characters are doing) that it really spoiled the whole film for me.

Can you elaborate? I'm really puzzled.

 

Lincoln - 7/10 - A nice film, but not a masterpiece. The acting, costuming, set design, and script are all masterful (save Tommy Lee Jones who was just himself, like every role he plays) but it just lacked a certain something I can't quite put my finger on, but I'm blaming Spielberg. I guess I was hoping for something a little more daring, more artistic, and I think I expected Lincoln to seem not quite so heroic and "perfect", for lack of a better word. DDL was amazing, and brought me the closest to Abraham Lincoln the man that I think I'll ever come, but I just have a gut impression that Lincoln was a little rougher around the edges, in private a little less polished, less agreeable and magnanimous and ever-ready with the perfect thing to say or do in every situation. What made Lincoln who he was, and better than his rivals to lead the country at this time, was exactly that lack of polish and culture. This film Lincoln, like all the others, just seems a tad too ideal. We're still looking at what we hope, or need, Lincoln to be, instead of the flawed human being he really was. Still, an excellent film.

Well, it's a young girl being psychologically tortured and then gutted. It's one of the best horror sequences I've seen, and the perfect start to a modern masterpiece--a scene that is equal parts horrific and clever, and that is basically how the first Scream was. It was precursed by Wes Craven's New Nightmare, which operated in a similar vein. "Meta" before there was such a term. Brilliant films. The Scream sequels sucked pretty hard compared to the genius of that first film.

Irvin Kershner turned down directing Empire Strikes Back. Lucas had to twist his arm to get him to do it; they had to have a second meeting where Lucas basically begged him to make the film. It turned out...pretty good, to put it lightly. To make things worse, the film he did right before Empire, Eyes of Laura Mars, sucked. Even Kershner apologized for it. And the rest of his films up until then were fairly obscure. I've seen "Hoodlum Priest," but have you? If the internet was around in 1978 we'd all be crucifying him.

A lot of people are looking for things to nail Abrams on but honestly none of us has any idea how well he will work out. I give him the benefit of the doubt until I see the movie, as he is not a bad director by any means.

a virus or a dying hard drive.

TheBoost said:

bkev said:

I'm starting to seriously consider getting a medical marijuana card. I've been really depressed lately, and for some reason smoking tends to motivate me - in other words, everything feels less hopeless and I remember I have a semblance of direction in my life. The only reservation I have is that I want to go into the field of education, which is technically a government job. Also, I might abuse it. I'd like to think I'm smart enough not to, but that's what I (falsely) said about alcohol.

Marijuana is generally not the best choice, as it tends to increase depression. Starting a depressant that you might likely abuse might be a bad choice.

If you're willing to get a card a go through a dispensary, perhaps you might be better off with something that treats depression.

It depends, some doctors perscribe marijuana as an anti-depressant. This is what a school doctor perscribed to a friend of mine and it was fairly effective. A friend of mine self-medicates this way as well because she says it helps clear her mind and not focus on negative things. Like any medication for psychological issues, it's always case by case. To cure depression you usually have to try more than one drug until you find one right for you.

Re-watched Dog Day Afternoon. Such a great film.  Amazing actors, great filming techniques; it really does feel like a pseudo-documentary. Very groundbreaking for the time, only French Connection had really done that before, at least that effectively. I appreciated the comedy more this time around, as I wasn't fully prepared for that element the first time I saw it, and the sex-change plot point felt less jarring and random now that I knew it was coming. Also cool to see a very, very young Lance Henrikson. Pacino over-acts in one scene, but overall I miss young Pacino--he gave very quiet, introverted performances that were a joy to watch. Ever since Scarface it seems like he is almost parodying the icon of Al Pacino. Same thing happened to DeNiro, with a few exceptions. John Cazale is fantastic, such a shame he only made a handful of films, he could have been a major player if he had kept going, instead of a 1970s supporting character actor. He's the best actor in every film he is in, and that's no small compliment when your entire resume consists of Godfather, Godfather II, Dog Day Afternoon and Deer Hunter.