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.
“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. 
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.
Really?
thanks for reminding me of this. Blue Jasmine was on my watch list for a while and I just never felt compelled to watch it even though it ticks the boxes of something I may really enjoy. Will revisit.
nydude: if you like that one, you might also like this one directed by Paolo Sorrentino, starring Michael Caine, Harvey Keitel, Paul Dano, Jane Fonda, and Rachel Weisz:
it has J. Depp and Polanski’s wife and not much else.
The Terminator (1984)
Rewatched this classic sci-fi action movie. Those future scenes still look great aesthetically imo. On the other hand, it’s a shame Arnold’s makeup was so bad in certain shots.
Anyone ever notice that while executing Sarah Connor’s roommate, Arnold blinks when firing his gun? That’s something that even an experienced human shooter would not do. Woops!
And in contrast, in T2, in the mall scene, Robert Patrick empties a whole clip, drops it, slaps in another, and empties the second clip, all without breaking his gaze or blinking.
*Magazine 
I guess he trained for that specifically. Which makes sense since Arnold has stated that he regretted the blinking in the first movie. I just looked it up and learned that Arnold was supposed to be Kyle Reese but he had put so much thought into how the terminator should act that he ended up switching roles. Very cool!
saw the International Release of the new Dune movie.
ok.
here goes….
Good:
- score. music is overpowering.
- scope. Lawrence of Arabia-like.
- short. well, shorter than LOTR.
Bad: - serious. so super serious. few smiles, no fun.
- stupid. they “beat around the bush” about the savior.
- sand worms. could have left them out. they “dindu nuffin”.
background:
- just like The Godfather movie (and others), i did not read the book.
- saw it on the “small screen”. maybe the “big screen” makes it better.
- posting on BLF means i am cheap. no way i pay theater prices for it.