Movie Thread

[Guest]

Am I the only one who thought Twilight Princess was ass?

I mean its no Faces of Evil.

[VoiceOfReasonPast]

When it came out it wasn't exactly universally beloved. I thought it was okay.

I think this was right during that time were the newest Zelda was always considered the worst.

[Kugelfisch]

Am I the only one who thought Twilight Princess was ass?

I mean its no Faces of Evil.

Yeah, but then again nothing quite is.

[Moe Bitches]

Acting like it's Zelda's Adventure bad.

[Tony Schiavone]

So fucking tired of everyone hero worshipping journalists. They do jack shit, and the only popular ones are lefties like Woodward and Bernstein who literally had someone leak classified info to them. They don't investigate shit. Jim Acosta is a journalist.

This is why Tomorrow Never Dies--though flawed--continues to age well.

[Guest]

There's no news... like bad news!

[Moe Bitches]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/04/22/ente ... index.html

Round of applause everybody.

[Kugelfisch]

First black (live action) (Disney) (prince) (that isn't Aladdin because he's technically not a prince anyway), everybody!
Bless their hearts. You know they wanted to proclaim the first black man character ever but couldn't because it'd be just a tad too silly.

[Cucktease]

Brosnan, looking unbelievably elderly, did a live commentary of GoldenEye.



Zack Snyder did one for BvS earlier. Maybe this will catch on.

[rabidtictac]

I like commentaries on movies, but I prefer it when the people doing the commentary were not involved intimately in the production. Or rather, I like it when there's 2 commentaries: One by the folks who made the film, and another of people analyzing the film. The folks who made the film can talk about the craft aspect. Because I know some people want to hear about how films are made. But I don't.

Since films are art, I don't really want the artist to explain the work to me as they see it. Because 1) they are not a reliable narrator, 2) art exists independently of the artist after its creation, and 3) the art may be more profound than the artist. I think George Lucas really proved the first and last point. Often, the artist either does not understand their own work or they are not willing to be honest about their work. Again, George Lucas. A film critic can tell you more about New Hope than Lucas can. When Lucas gives commentary on his old movies, he sounds like he's reading from fucking Wikipedia.

As useless as film critics are, they are at least a semi-impartial observer. You can agree or disagree with what they have to say. Since they're not the creator, they don't own the film any more than a viewer does. They give you a lot to think about, but you can still walk away with your own opinions.