Which movie did you watch lastֻ

Much appreciated, but that’s “White God” (got, excellent) not “The White Disease” (looking). :laughing:

You're better off looking for:

Skeleton on Horseback or The White Plague or Bílá nemoc

Those are the names of the movie.

1937?

Yep.

actually found it subtitled on youtube. havent watched it yet tho…

Noice, tnx!

Sorry for the late reply. It’s Ragetti, played by Mackenzie Crook. He’s in “The Detectorists.” He was also Gareth Keenan in the British flavor of “The Office” series.

I adore Cate Blanchett. She can be so beautiful and yet also so ugly (in terms of character persona). Truly an amazing talent. And in that regard, I was surprised at how AWFUL was the movie Blue Jasmine. In one sense, I can see perhaps why she took the role. She really was amazingly convincing, TOTALLY inhabiting the role (thus, Blanchett received the Academy Award for Best Actress ). She really captured the persona of an elitist woman who lost it all due to a deceiving husband. And a realization that in essence, she’s such a shallow person. And despite an opportunity to recover, she falls back on her old ways and sets herself up for failure once more. The movie ended badly… in that there really wasn’t an ending. It just… stopped. You’re left feeling like the writer ran out of time and the producers said “screw it, we’re done.”

Wait… what’s that? It’s a WOODY ALLEN movie? Well, he used to make great flicks. Not this one, IMHO. Maybe in 2013, something was going on. In 2014, another scandal broke about Allen, so maybe… Anyway, while Cate saw and exploited the potential of the role, expecting the editors would orchestrate something good from it, I feel like this movie failed. It simply doesn’t have a coda. An ending. It just… stops. We’re left hanging on what’s going to happen next to Jasmine. I guess we can presume, but it’s just at a point where you feel like there should be some kind of wrap up. I watched it with 3 other people. We ALL felt let down and disgusted. Thus, I don’t recommend Blue Jasmine… unless you just want to focus on the great character performance by Blanchett.

I f’n hate when they do that.

“Oh, but it makes you think!”

“It lets you use your imagination to come up with an ending!”

So just air 2hrs of blackness and let me imagine my own complete movie? That’s how retarded that argument is.

Teen Titans Go! To the Movies.
essentially, Deadpool for kids.
it was on my IQ level.

Okay, both of them are within a fraction of a second of each other, so that’s good.

Unfortunately, they’re like a full 2min (!!) off from the movie on the yootoob. Eg, 03:45 in the .srt is roughly 05:37 in the movie.

I wrote a script which adjusts/shifts times on .srt files ± a certain amount, so I’ll see if I can get it reasonably accurate.

Ondine (2009)

“Fairy tales” my arse. The movie teases fantasy but the only fantasy in this movie occurs in the minds of the characters. And I figured that out early in the film so I couldn’t even enjoy some uncertainty about what was real and what wasn’t. Not the worst movie I’ve seen, I watched till the end. It just falls short of being particularly special.

If you watch your videos in a video player like VLC or MPC, you should be able to adjust the offset of the subtitle timing within the player.

The Great Dictator (1940) - satirical comedy shot at the beginning of WWII, poking fun at Hitler and the Nazis. Charlie Chaplin’s first non-silent film, and he’s great in it, especially when he speaks gibberish that sounds like German. :slight_smile: Chaplin wrote it, directed it, produced it, scored it, and starred in it in multiple roles.

Nah, too much trouble to keep having to do it every time.

Like having CN or PT audio in track 1, and EN in track 2. I’d rather strip and recode vs constantly diddling with it each time.

I work very hard to be lazy.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I think Blue Jasmine is a wonderful movie, and it’s got a 7.3 rating on IMDB, so I guess I’m not the only one who likes it. I agree that it’s difficult not to be impressed with Cate Blanchett’s performance. I can’t imagine her being anything less than convincing and riveting in any performance.

I’m personally most interested in realistic movies, so I like movies where everything isn’t neatly resolved at the end, because most things in life are not neatly resolved in the end. Life is more messy than that for most people.

We’ve had about a hundred years of movies where everything is resolved at the end, and the main character changes for the better. I still find it refreshing to see a movie where that doesn’t happen. If a movie had to show “what happens next” to the main character to be “good,” a good movie would need to be years long.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005) Director’s Cut

Really well-made movie. My biggest gripe with it is that the movie completely fails to examine either Christianity or Islam as motivations and instead makes religion the true villain of the story. I think this article describes the phenomenon well.

I don’t agree with the article writer that the film had to take this approach to gain an audience. If the film had been able to convey the reasoning behind both factions in an accurate and relatable way I think it would have elevated the film. I do think the article accurately describes how the story was molded to modern Hollywood sensibilities.

Bottom line though, the film looks incredible and plays well as the story of Balian (at least the Director’s cut does, haven’t seen the theatrical).

I get your point of view. And many movies that end up with polarized opinions tend to struggle with how a movie has ended. Some people are fine with a very wide loose end, while others want closure.

The thing is, I’ve seen movies with loose ends, where you’re left to make your own presumption as to what would happen next. But it’s usually done with some sort of new plateau or new character phased in. You know how a movie is nothing but a string of scenes weaved together, each with their own intensity levels and positional characteristics. Opening, middle, and ending scenes of acts. When a movie ends, it can be at the beginning of a new act, and provided with a plot device or two woven in appropriately can make for reasonable presumptions. Or it can be at the end of an act, which is a tidy wrap-up. Not much left to the imagination, because for the writer, the story is over. Nothing more to see. “Happily ever after,” etc.

In Blue Jasmine, it ends in the middle of an act. We really don’t know if she’s heading for a breakdown that’ll lead to suicide, or if she’ll masterfully find a way to bounce back and begin another false pretense sham to fool the next man she entices. So, it leaves you hanging pretty far off the story. I would’ve preferred if we’d gotten a cue of where she was going:

1) Her mumbling to herself incoherently meant she’d lost it, and without a psychologist to guide her, she was going to end up a basket case and left to homelessness on the street
2) Her incoherency was a reflection of her total fear of having no plan, no way out of this mess, and knowing she’d end up destitute with no one to turn to, she would make plans to end her life
3) Her quick thinking has her contact another friend or distant family member who could take her in and give her yet one more chance to rewrite her story, and possibly rescue her life from doom once more

Does Free Guy run in your theatre in 3-D? I am wondering.

Looks like a clone movie of The Truman Show (Jim Carrey)

The Truman show is about a real person who finds out he has been living on the set of a TV show based around his own life.

Free Guy is about a non-player-character in a video game becoming self aware and becoming the hero of his own story.

In the Truman show, it turns out the world isn’t real. In Free Man, it turns out the world isn’t real AND the main character isn’t real either.

But if Free Man ends with the main character becoming a real person then I’d say the story starts to lose it’s claim to uniqueness.