Seriously? That seems oddly closer to actual events than the usual Bond fare.
10,000 BC: Civilisation! Quick, smash it!
In The Godfather pt II, the character Pentangeli was created when the original actor who played Clemenza refused to come back for the money they were offering.
IMHO, Coppola should’ve kept the “Clemenza” name and made the new actor his brother or something. As it’s currently done, it’s confusing.
This is so petty I can hardly bring myself up to rant about it, but I thought it deserved at least a mention.
Ehm, I’m not sure what you are saying. You haven’t seen the movie yet?
Well, to begin with, Kathleen’s crusade against megacorporations is rendered rather silly when she is seen in the beginning of the movie striding past independent coffee shops with her Starbucks cup in her hand.
I had often wondered just who Frank Pentageli was and why there was a lack of a back story to explain this. It makes much more sense for this to be Clemenza.
What’s the problem with the submarine part? Exposure? Seasickness? Or did a WW2 era diesel-electric submarine typically make a lot more dives in friendly water than I’m thinking ?
But he had allergies! How could someone with allergies be one’s True Love? :rolleyes:
Grease: If you wanna get a guy, dress like a slut.
Then where was the light coming from in that scene, if not from a wonking big hole in the roof of the cave?
Maybe it was incandescent light from the same technology that gave the Jovitos ancient solar cells to trigger their traps.
I introduced my 11-year-old son to James Bond with this movie, remembering it (I still think correctly) as one of the best of the series. At the end my son said, “For a super-agent, Bond gets captured a lot, doesn’t he?”
I had to admit he had a point.
In Independence Day, people are awfully cheery at the end considering how many millions of people have died in the major cities.
No, I haven’t.
And not just any woman, but an irrationally violent woman who has a disturbing fascination with fire!
Speaking of Pixar movies, remember this character, from Cars? As I recall, that was the only character who had a license plate - in his case, it was obviously just to give him a hippy chin beard. But in the context of the fictional world of the film, I can’t help wondering exactly what purpose a license plate would serve. I mean, what real-world analoges can we find for a government mandate that certain members of society be forced to wear an easily visible identifying serial number? Heck, it’s even a Volkswagon! How much more obvious could they make it?
(Yes, I know I’m over thinking things.)
I once theorized that Cars was sent on a world where all life had been killed by an outbreak of some nanoplaque. The only thing that “survived” was non-living technology including giant AI-run factories. These factories continued to carry out their assigned function to the best of their ability and built things like cars and buildings even though their were no longer any humans around to use them. The cars were intelligent and self-aware but unable to comprehend what their real purpose for existing was - that they had been built for passengers who no longer existed - because the AI’s knew they couldn’t handle that knowledge and so programmed them not to understand it. So the cars formed a society that mimicked human life even though they were unaware of what humans were.
Ah ok. Yes, it’s inspired by that.
Hmm, another thing: Why would they have a eastern European girl playing a native Bolivian?
I have a hell of a lot more right to play speculative psychotherapist on an artist based on their work than you have any right to tell me I can’t; a HELL of a lot more right. That’s a huge part of art criticism, to analyze an artist’s work for clues as the artists perspective and intentions. I have every right in the world to speculate on the psychology of any artist who publishes their work to the world at large.
Wow–
–now THAT might be about the most horrifying thing I’ve ever seen expressed in this forum.
Which is exactly what I’m doing. My biggest problem with Spielberg is his artistic/intellectual dishonesty. (And that’s a big part of why I judge him to be a classic self-loathing anti-semite. And as someone who has experience with classic self-loathing gay homophobes, it’s a basic issue I’m not unfamiliar with.)
*Schindler’s List *is the Holocaust denier’s Holocaust film: a feel-good movie about a group of Jews who come through the war relatively unscathed, and a heroic Aryan father-figure. Saving Private Ryan is the warmonger’s antiwar film, whose basic message is “War really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really sucks–but the more it sucks, the more it’s worth it, and the more Christ-like the soldier is!”
Hence my accusation of artistic dishonesty: Spielberg pretends to sell you one thing, a noble and politically correct thing–and who knows, he may actually believe that’s what he’s selling–but in reality he’s presenting you with its near opposite. Either dishonest, or woefully unaware. Probably the latter, to a great degree; for a Jewish filmmaker, he sure finds it hard to keep Christ out of his films.
Too be fair this is pretty true to reality, unlike the flying car.
I’ve read that partly it was a money issue but the real deal-breaker was that Richard Castellano wanted to write his own lines. Coppola refused to give him this and Castellano refused to do the movie without it. Castellano, incidentally, got the highest salary in the original cast.
Brando, on the other hand, had received $50,000 for making The Godfather but also got five points of the profits - which he then sold back to Paramount for $300,000. The eventual value of those points would have been over $7,000,000 in just the first year. This was part of the reason Brando was bitter against Paramount and refused to appear in the second movie. Brando went back and forth on whether he would appear in the Godfather II flashback scene (for a substantial sum of money) but decided not to at the last minute. This is referenced in the script. Michael responds to something Sonny says by telling him “That’s Pop talking.” In fact, Caan’s line that originally had been written for Brando.
More like, the war was still pretty bad for Jews who got themselves a spot as a slave laborer for a NAZI capitalist who decided that the NAZI Jewish genocide was wrong and used his power as a NAZI capitalist to keep some Jews alive. But yeah, your version sounds more dismissive.
Oh, I see I misread. You were commenting that Crash won the Oscar when you think it should have gone to ESotSM.
Right. SL is not about the Holocaust itself, but about a [strike]man[/strike] NAZI who tried to do something about it.
Uh, that was the way he came in.
Right. Nevermind that there’s a monument dedicated to this guy in Israel, the only people who can appreciate the situation are Holocaust deniers and anti-semites. :rolleyes:
You know, a real anti-Semite is going to hate Schindler’s List, because some Jews live.
No. You, as a non-Jew, cannot call a Jew an antisemite, just as I, a straight man, cannot call a gay man a homophobe. Not if I don’t want to offend gay people.
Except that saying people survived the Holocaust is not Holocaust denial. I’ve known plenty of Holocaust survivors, and you know what? Their stories interest me more that those of the dead. The Jewish narrative of the Holocaust is not: “Many died”; it’s “Many died, but some survived.” Maybe you have to be Jewish to understand this, but you should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that there are some things you don’t understand.
Besides, Oskar Schindler was one of the Righteous of the Nations of the World. He deserved to have a film made in his honor. May there be many more like him.
SPR never pretended to be an anti-war movie, and I’m surprised that anyone would see it as one. The fact that it portrayed warfare relatively honestly doesn’t mean that it took the position that war is wrong. I’m sure Spielberg would be quite willing to state that he is happy the U.S. took part in WW2; I’m sure he’s glad that those boys landed in Normandy - as I am - although of course neither of us wanted any of them to die.
You seem to think that anti-war films are the only legitimate type of war films. I disagree. War is a broad canvass that can take an infinite amount of paintings.
I think you enter his movies with certain preconceptions about what they are supposed to be about, preconceptions that have nothing to do with reality.
Spielberg isn’t perfect. He doesn’t always pick the best scripts, and his casting is sometimes suspect. As for the Christ thing - the man’s American. It’s not his fault he grew up in a certain culture. I’m willing to give him a pass on that.