I keep posting links this all over the place, so from now on I'll just use this thread. We have 2 new Fun Pics up. One for Spy Kids 3-D the other for Gigli. Choose your poison.
http://movienavigator.org/giglifun.htm
http://movienavigator.org/slyspy.htm
havn't u already made one of these.
No. I've just done different threads for different things. Let em die. I'll just use this one from now on.
ok but if u do one more about this goddamn site i'm deleting it.
wait, maybe i'm behind the ball here, but you dont like PTA?
Quote from: mutinycoI thought it was an interesting juxtaposition by playing Auto Focus before Paul Thomas Anderson's latest. This film was what PTA's Boogie Nights aspired to be, but failed. The difference is that the former was made by a mature man in his mid-50s, who actually experienced the world portrayed on film, while the latter was the work of a young hotshot with a geeky fascination for porn.
Prior to Punch-Drunk Love, I'd never liked anything PTA had done. I've always felt that his movies were unfinished -- a jumble of interesting ideas and great visuals that never really gelled. I enjoyed Punch Drunk Love. However, my complaints remain. Only this effort was 95 minutes, not 3 1/2 hours like Magnolia.
Fortunately, the visuals and gentle, though skewed tone, kept me content, despite my objections. It's fun to watch, but doesn't hold together with further thought. It's basically plotless. An empty shell, like most of PTA's work. It's an idea for a story, but not a finished story. It blows away like a cloud sculpture. Perhaps, that was the point.
Paul Thomas Anderson's talent isn't in question. One day he will make a great film. I don't think he has yet. He needs to mature. He's been making features with accolades since his early 20's -- not nearly enough time for him to have matured as a person before attaining such responsibility. His films are formally and technically ambitious, but I don't feel like they ever add up to a whole lot.
Quote from: themodernage02wait, maybe i'm behind the ball here, but you dont like PTA?
we already had that argument with him over several pages, right here (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=43408&highlight).
and here's what i had to say about it..
Quote from: PQuote from: mutinycoI actually thought what I said about PTA was a compliment. I was underrating him. Thom Yorke said the best compliment he received with regard to OK Computer was that it was an excellent album, but not the best thing Radiohead will ever make.
that's not the same as what u said.
what u said meant "paul's movies so far hav been less than great"
what the thom yorke critic meant, from what u wrote, "ok computer is ekzellent, and future works will be more than excellent, i love u thom".
either ur a bad writer, or u don't know what u mean.
Oh my god...thinking Auto Focus is good is one thing but thinking PTA is bad is quite another my friend.
In all seriousness...call me cynical, but I'm surprised you weren't banned just for disliking PTA, really though.
Go P!
thanks P. yeah, like i said, i guess i was behind the ball on that one. (most likely because i dont read any threads that are called "Whoops" or "Ummm...", or "Hey".) wow, i didnt realize anyone who was here was anything other than a PTA freak. eeeenteresting.
Here we go again. I don't dislike PTA. I met him. He's cool. I just think that for all the talk about how the 1970s produced great films -- many of which have inspired him -- nobody's really gotten it yet. It used to be that what made those films so good was what they were saying. The height of artistry was to combine personal integrity with social observation and commentary. I don't see the latter in his films. I think he starts going in that direction sometimes, but ultimately pulls toward his characters' emotions instead. I don't find that as interesting. Most directors are lucky to have one masterpiece in their careers. He'll definitely have one, probably more. I still feel like his films are made for people in their 20s, whereas '70s films were more mature. I don't know. Just my opinion. Like I said before somewhere else, misquoting Janet Maslin, just because a film was made by a great filmmaker doesn't necessarily mean he's made a great film.
Quote from: mutinycoI met him.
wait, i just want to point out this statement for all the other PTA freaks on this board who have not met him and would probably die to do so.
Quote from: mutinycoI still feel like his films are made for people in their 20s, whereas '70s films were more mature.
what makes u feel that, are u over 30? i think that's a very irrational statement to make, making assumptions about ppl in their 20s, about who he makes his films for, and who was really affected by films in the 70s.
also ur taking it as law that everyone or at least PTA wants to recreate that era, social commentary has its place, and i think it's quite clear the current politically conscious and socially aware members of this generation are not the same as 70s audience. are u saying 20+yr olds in the 70s were more mature than now? or that films in the 70s were made for old ppl? or.. wtf? i mean, do u realise how large those assumptions are and how they destroy ur argument?
Quote from: themodernage02wait, i just want to point out this statement for all the other PTA freaks on this board who have not met him and would probably die to do so.
and with this PTA freak business, who are u talking about? once again sumone's assuming a false identity of the majority of ppl here, u may be talking about sumone like ebeaman who can't control himself (tho it's not his fault), and i'll admit there are many ppl who think too highly of PTA, but they're the minority. this inaccurate labelling has got to stop, shit how imperceptive are u ppl?
well, i was just taking the near 300 threads in his folder where every minutiae of his 4 movies and everything else is discussed, while many of the other folders remain mostly dormant, as a cue that mainly everyone in this board came through their love of PTA. it is an assumption, although i could be wrong.
Actually, no. I think people back then were MUCH more socially conscious. They were. No doubt about it. Today, I find people don't care as much about that stuff. But, personally, I find the act of being socially conscious an act of maturity.
Films like The Godfather or Nashville or A Clockwork Orange or The Deer Hunter are great because they offer both intimate characters AND social observation. People today tend to talk more about the style of those films as opposed to what was actually going on in them. That's dangerous. The reason those directors had balls was because they took on the powers that be. That's exhilarating to me.
My point about his movies being made for younger audiences is true, I think. With a few exceptions, I think the directors of his generation are all in that boat. How many films have featured adult families in them? A few, to be sure, but primarily, the main characters are young. But this is easily attributable to the directors' ages. They're making films about what they know. I also think the studios are in large part responsible too. They know the youth market sells better.
I think their films will get better as they become the veterans. Once they don't have anything to prove anymore their work will get better.
so, are u like 50?
Quote from: themodernage02....mainly everyone in this board came through their love of PTA. it is an assumption, although i could be wrong.
I didn't find this board through any particular love for PTA. I love one of his movies and like three of them. That's all.
than you are probably a minority. and i dont mean a minority on this board, like more people love him than not. i mean, you are most likely some sort of dirty mexican or filthy african or some such person. because no rich white person would think that way.
apologies in advance to any irrate dirty mexicans, filthy africans, or any other stinky minorities who fail to see the humor.
apologies in advance to any irrate dirty mexicans, filthy africans, or any other stinky minorities who fail to see the humor.[/quote]
Classic.
Autofocus is great. PTA is brilliant. Comparing Autofocus with Boogie Nights is useless, because they are two totally different movies.
That whole Modernage quote was out of context. Auto Focus never glamourized its characters' actions. I thought Boogie Nights was sentimental about that era. I also felt that Auto Focus followed through to its natural conclusion: disaster. Boogie Nights chose to have (for all intents and purposes) a happier ending where it's a happy family again. The real John Holmes was a scumbag who died of AIDS. I think the 3rd act of BN was incoherent and lacked follow-through..
the end suggested that everything had come full circle for them and was okay for the time being, but given the patterns we were shown earlier, we can assume that everything will go to shit again, because they are still a bunch of dumb-ass co-dependent porn stars. Not that I don't love the characters, but PTA's said it before, he writes the saddest happy endings (or maybe in this case it's the happiest sad ending).
I still never understood why Dirk wasn't arrested for what happened at the coke deal. It certainly wouldn't have been difficult to trace him to it.
Maybe he does get arrested right after the film ends...
but I don't wanna get into that, 'cause I hate when people try to carry on a plot after the last scene. So I'm just saying...
Think it would've happened before the last scene.
But even upon its original release, even critics who gave it 4 stars complained that it lost its way in the second half.
To get back to something mutinyco said earlier, you haven't like a lot of PTA's work because he does not go into social commentary with his examination of human emotions? So a movie that is only about human emotions and relations is meritless to you? Thats a pretty generic comment if I ever heard one. And since you went off into a stream of naming films from the 70s of social observance, I disagree that The Godfather has anything of social observance in it and Altman's best work, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, could also be seen as without any direct social observance. As Altman told PTA once, "keep the focus on the characters."
~rougerum
If you're suggesting either of those films were without social observations, then you've never seen either of those films. Am I talking Oliver Stone messages? No. I'm talking about putting your story within a social setting.
I'm talking about The Godfather spanning multiple decades. Tracing how this country was founded by immigrants. The way organized crime built the country and how it mirrored mainstream politics. How crime was involved in everything from Cuba to Hollywood. Think of the rub out in Part I with the Statue of Liberty standing tall in the background.
McCabe & Mrs. Miller was inherently social. It was a massive revisionist slap in the face of Westerns to the point that many don't even consider it one. Take Altman's DVD commentary where he argued with the costume designer who wanted a more "traditional" look. The film is about individuality and myth. It's about how corporations demolish small entrepreneurs and how this fed into the American dream.
Neither film has a happy ending. As for Boogie Nights, yeah, Dirk should've gotten arrested. He could've gone back to Jack's hoping for a reconciliation, only to have the cops bust him there. Then he gets strip searched in prison and THAT's how we see his johnson (not the Raging Bull rip off). The cops could joke like: "Wow, you're gonna be popular in here!"
I'm tired. Going to sleep.
no offense to you, or gt or anyone else who likes to do this, but a lot of times, people are reading into the movies more than was intentionally put there by the filmmakers. so, if these films have some grand message behind the layers of entertainment, it may be in part, your imagination.
oh but that raging bull "rip-off" was one great scene, doncha think?
I haven't done that at all. Everything I've said is plainly observable from the films. Have you ever listened to commentary tracks of various great directors? Have you ever listened to their reasoning? Listen to Coppola's commentary on The Conversation. Even the building being torn down outside a window in one shot was intentional -- done to symbolize the various layers being torn away or something to that effect...
See, mutinyco, your interpretation is what brought out social observance from those films. Doesn't matter if I agree with you, but many people have found social observance with a movie like Punch-Drunk Love. Ideas and points that are as valuable as yours. It doesn't matter if you didn't, but you should at least see things can be found by someone doing an interpretation. I asked you whether a film was with any merit if just about human emotions anyways. You never answered. The idea that you think a film needs to have social observance 1.) is wrong because it is in all the eyes of the viewer and 2.) is stupid because some films are very much about inner emotions and should not be judged on that level.
~rougerum
Sure some films are about inner emotions. Some are good. Generally speaking, I just don't find that interesting or informative in any major way. Human emotions are rather illogical and everybody exists within physical environments. PDL has no intentional social observances -- AS PTA HIMSELF SAID WHEN I SAW HIM. He flat out said he's not interested in saying things with his films, he just gets an idea and goes with it.
Even a 1970s film like Five Easy Pieces, which is inherently a character study, puts a couple of bits of social satire in when Bobby picks up the hitchhikers. It's called adding another layer to your film. Why do you think 28 Days Later is doing so well? I know you hated it, but you're in the minority. It wasn't the horror aspects that had people talking, but the social commentary.
haha nice way to arbitrarily refer to 28 Days in an attempt to lavish more attention in another direction. ur just running from the hole ur digging by jumping from random reference/argument to sumthin else, hey u should talk about gays next that'll really change the subject..
so, are u like 57?
warmer/colder..
nyc,
Why can't another layer of emotion or thought be put into a film that is still on an emotional level? Does that layer always have to be one of social commentary to be interesting? See, I have no problem with either but you are trying to run your thought on film by saying only one accomplishes a major thing while the other generally doesn't. To make a statement, I've found more magnficent films that add layers about human emotion more so than social commentary. Human emotions lie more in the ambiguilty than social commentary and with social commentary and movies, trying to keep that commentary sane and interesting is harder to manage.
Take a movie like Persona, which adds layers upon layers of things about human emotions. The major mistakes in that film is that in its examination of two people, it has minor moments relating to the horrors of war. It wasn't necessary and even though war is horrible, it took the movie right out of its personal world.
~rougerum
I don't understand why everybody wants mutinyco to explain himself... this happens a lot on these boards.
See, no matter how many times he says it, I'm not going to agree with mutinyco. And no matter how many times I say it, mutinyco is not going to agree with me.
If he thought the difference between just 'good' and 'all-time great' in Boogie Nights would have been to end with Dirk in prison... you know... I dunno. Maybe he's just got a problem with big, swingin' dicks. Him saying that doesn't really support his argument about maturity or the 70s or whatever the fuck everybody is talking about. But I'm getting away from my point.
In the end, sometimes members from both sides of the issue say "good point" and drop it, but MOSTLY these things drag out for 7 pages and nobody really feels any better about anything.
So, I guess what I mean is... carry on. *pulls up a chair*
57? Hardly. Try taking 30 years off that. And I don't know what hole you're talking about, but my reference to 28 Days Later was right on the ball. This film is pointing the direction for the future. Watch as social observations start finding their way back into movies. It was really the corporate '80s that did away with that. Spielberg's been all over it lately. So is Michael Moore. What do you think Gangs of New York was trying to be?
When Ridley Scott made Black Hawk Down, which I consider dreadful, he commented that he was only interested in the primary action and nothing else. His logic was that the foreground was so interesting that he didn't need a middle or background. Well, to continue with his metaphor, if you shoot a movie and visually only focus on your foreground and have nothing happening anywhere else, you're going to have a shallow image.
Remember, people live within physical environments. If all you're interested in are characters' immediate emotions you're going to have a shallow film as far as I'm concerned. Emotion is simply one layer. That's what Hollywood films do. Just because you're approaching your material in a more artistically creative manner, if all you're doing is focussing on emotion there's not a huge difference.
And as for Persona, the movie is only 85 minutes. If you're making a 3-hour film with multiple characters spanning time, then you'd damn well better offer me something more hefty in conclusion than emotions and a ripoff of another movie. (You could never separate Nashville from its politics...) Remember, every time somebody blatantly steals something from another film it's another lost opportunity for creative originality. Base your ideas on life observations or literature or whatever -- not other movies. Other people's movies should only serve an example of what's already been done. Movies are simply a medium for communicating ideas.
Quote from: mutinyco57? Hardly. Try taking 30 years off that.
so you'r 27 for sure, am i dead on!? This is fun! :P :P
Thanks
Nope. Not 27. But I'm not saying anything more than that.
My interviews with Evan Rachel Wood and Nikki Reed for Thirteen are up. If you wanna see pictures of two hot girls check it out. Just remember, they're only 15!
http://movienavigator.org/thirteenpress.htm
*Note -- it might take a while to load if you're on a phone line.
I gave you a link to two beautiful girls and you're asking ME how old I am...
Is that a fire in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
Look at the girls. Forget about my age. Somewhere in the 20s.
No, I'm not. Though I certainly wouldn't mind to be that age again.
Quote from: mutinycoNo, I'm not. Though I certainly wouldn't mind to be that age again.
ahh, so
again would denote that ur older, but not as old as 27. so im guessin 25.
to explain-
he expresses remorse over wanting to be 21 again, but being 22 and 23 isnt all that different than 21, so he has to be old enough to where he would miss being 21. therefore, im guessin 25 b/c he said he wasnt 27.
ooor, maybe he's like 29. yea, that might be right.
You guys have way too much free time...
those chicks are fuckin sweet tho.
This week's editorial can be found at:
http://movienavigator.org/editorial.htm
Quote from: mutinycoWhen I speak to young film enthusiasts there's a general consensus that the best way to make great movies it to just rip off things from other movies.
wow, i hope you're not talking about anybody on this board.
Quote from: mutinycoAs well, I don't think emotions are particularly profound and most great films have had some type of social observation.
i just cant understand how somebodys opinion on society is any better than somebodys opinion on any of lifes other aspects. why are obvious social observations profound?
Quote from: mutinycoWith the release of Intolerable Cruelty, produced by Brian Grazer, Ron Howard's partner, and starring George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones, I'd be surprised if it isn't the Coens' first $100-million picture at the B.O. I think that swing is intentional, part of a strategy, along with the Tom Hanks comedy The Ladykillers, to put them in a better position to make their dream project To the White Sea – a WWII drama that was nixed because of budget concerns.
i hope you're right about this. but remember O Brother Where Art Thou was their biggest financial success at $45 million dollars (US gross), which was followed by Man Who Wasnt There which hardly made a dent at the box office ($7 million). the general public isnt fond of black and white. i cant imagine their reaction to a silent film.
Quote from: mutinycoIt doesn't matter how you get there – it's what you do once you get there.
finally, we agree. :)
I don't think things about life aren't interesting or profound. I just think that in terms of depth, these thing take place in relation to what's going on around them. Any human situation offers opportunities to deal with class, religion, politics, gender -- not even in an overt way. But it should all be there as basic observations. I don't see people doing that. They just focus on emotions or create a quirky world for their action to take place in. Their more interested in psychology, which has yet to become a genuine science. I'm not. It's a question of juxtaposition. Things exist in relation to other things and the contrasts or similarities create observable themes. I'm more interested in what I'm able to observe than how I emotionally feel about something -- I think the former is more reliable.
Quote from: mogwaiQuote from: Pthose chicks are fuckin sweet tho.
P: Like I always say, if there's grass on the field, play ball.
CBRAD: Was there?
P: A little.
fuuuur reeeeeal tho.
Quote from: ©bradQuote from: mogwaiQuote from: Pthose chicks are fuckin sweet tho.
P: Like I always say, if there's grass on the field, play ball.
CBRAD: Was there?
P: A little.
fuuuur reeeeeal tho.
I always thought is was: if there's grass on the field, play ball. If there's no grass... it's artificial turf, play ball anyway.
You guys have way too much time on your hands. Or spend too much time using your hands...
Quote from: mutinycoOr spend too much time using your hands...
...that's the one.
If I got to interview these yummy teens, I'd be such a wolf about it, you have no idea. Or maybe you do...
Quote from: SoNowThenIf I got to interview these yummy teens, I'd be such a wolf about it, you have no idea. Or maybe you do...
see, that's where mutinyco and we differ.. at
his much hyped grand old wise age, the only wolf analogy he relates to is the one clawing at his door/deathbed.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rkm.com.au%2Frkmimages%2FWolfdoor400.jpg&hash=9ff8f63490ee8d7837d6daec4918ca592d6eea9f)
that, my friend, is a hell of a disturbing picture. but cool, nonetheless.
It's them's that laughs that knows better...
If anybody's in NY, you're going to want to read this. Lincoln Center is having a widescreen series and they're showing 2001, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, The Thin Red Line, etc.
http://movienavigator.org/wideload.htm
My American Splendor press is up. I think there's still a spelling arror in the first paragraph, but due to this blackout getting it fixed has been slow. Anyhow, go to:
http://movienavigator.org/splendorpress.htm
Quote from: mutinycoI think there's still a spelling arror in the first paragraph...
Irony is a beautiful thing.
Quote from: mutinycoIf anybody's in NY, you're going to want to read this. Lincoln Center is having a widescreen series and they're showing 2001, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, The Thin Red Line, etc.
http://movienavigator.org/wideload.htm
Holy fuck, if I'm really really lucky, I might actually be in NYC (for the first time!) sometime soon.
I'd kill to see Close Encounters, 2001, Once Upon a Time in the West, or McCabe & Mrs. Miller on the big screen...that would be too fucking good...those are the cream of the crop as far as widescreen goes.
I haven't seen The Thing Red Line or Godard's Pierrot le Fou...that might be a cool way to see them for the first time.
Thanks a lot for the news man, really.
Irony is beautiful. So is widescreen. Harvey Pekar is cool, but not beautiful. Spread the word on all.
Pierrot Le Fou is beautiful. All must see it.
No offense, but that Godard quote is really idiotic. It doesn't mean anything.
Muty, only someone who's as big a 'Berg fan as you would truly not like a brilliant Godard quote.
It was in reference to the talk we all were having about "what is art?", and also ties into my feeling that cinema is like a religion (which Scorsese always talks about too). But most of all that it is almost undefinable, we could never really arrive at an answer, but we know it's powerful as hell, so it becomes an act of faith. Which, imo, is the strongest thing a human being can have. It could destroy us, yes, but it could also be our saving grace.
:mrgreen:
It's a dumb quote. It doesn't mean anything. If you've worked in multiple mediums you'd realize this. I draw, paint, write music, act, write scripts and prose -- in various quantities at various times. At any given time whatever medium I've worked in was the medium I thought would best represent what I was trying to express. It's a totally ignorant statement on Godard's part.
Sadly, it is you who is ignorant my friend.
And as Tarantino said, Godard is college-level thinking about film. I'm not entirely convinced he's ever made a truly full-bodied mature film.
My Life To Live
Hardly. Godard's statement is ignorant. And that must mean you, too, for using it. It's a totally abstracted bullshit quote that offers no observational evidence to back up what's being said. It's one man's opinion blown up to grandiose nonsense.
I will happily accept being clumped into the same category as Godard. That may have been the best compliment anyone has ever given me.
How can one give "evidence" on a subjective opinion-based subject? In film, one man's opinion is all that matters for that film. Cinema is abstract. Ideas are abstract. We must keep asking questions, not supplying answers, because, inevitably, as we grow and change, so will our answers. So only questions remain.
It's a dumb statement because what he said is easily applicable to ANY art form. Movies are more influential than music? Novels? Paintings? I consider myself a filmmaker first and foremost. But this is a genuinely dumb statement. If he were saying something like: "Movies are the most complete artistic medium because they encompass all of the other mediums -- architecture, music, writing..." But he's not. It's gibberish.
If being compared to Godard is your type of compliment, more power to ya. He's the only filmmaker whose made 3 films I've turned off and not finished.
I've always considered him a bit of a fraud. Which isn't to say I haven't enjoyed his work. But he was no Kubrick. Or Fellini. Or Coppola. He doesn't have the ability to create films on the level of Barry Lyndon, La Dolce Vita, or Apocalypse Now. Films that push the medium forward on every level.
I enjoyed Breathless. But on no level did I consider it a masterpiece. It was an amusing diversion.
He's not claiming that movies are "better". The context of the quote was from an interview in which it was discussed that cinema was not taken as seriously as other "arts", which it wasn't in France at the time.
I truly hope that over the span of my career I would get favorably compared to Godard. That would mean I have taken chances and pushed boundaries and loved and lived cinema (and hopefully with a little bit of a sense of humor).
Go see Pierrot, like I said. Maybe you will like it and get into him. It can only be a good thing.
I wrote the fucking article that mentioned Pierrot. Hello? They're playing about 20 movies. I could've picked anything to say.
And the correct answer as to why movies aren't taken as seriously is because THEY COST MONEY. If somebody's invested a huge amount of money in your movie it DAMN WELL BETTER MAKE IT BACK! That means playing to your audience. There's NOTHING wrong with that. As long as you stay true to yourself.
His answer was goop. He offered an opinion where there's observational evidence toward a simple fact.
Movies are inherently for the populous. Yeah, you can make small budget films where you control everything and make no money. If that's your thing. I prefer filmmakers that have been able to bridge both worlds like those I mentioned before.
Quote from: mutinycoI wrote the fucking article that mentioned Pierrot.
Well, you should go see it then. What a wonderful opportunity, like you said in the article.
Hello? I've seen it, you moron! I've seen lots of his films! I just don't think much of them.
I operate a movie website. I interview filmmakers and talent. I make movies. I ride without training wheels.
Quote from: mutinycoI ride without training wheels.
hey, me too!
Quote from: mutinycoHello?
hello.
Hello.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnftiu.cc%2Fmnftiu.cc%2Fimages%2Fwar.171.gif&hash=60bc567facbee2f80695f62c5c540e98725fb420)
Quote from: mutinycoHello? I've seen it, you moron! I've seen lots of his films! I just don't think much of them.
I operate a movie website. I interview filmmakers and talent. I make movies. I ride without training wheels.
But have you seen it in the theatre in widescreen? Go now! Hurry. Don't wait. Go and see. It's a wonderful film. You should go watch it.
BTW, did anybody else think his post sounded like Max in Rushmore, "I wrote a hit play..."
Quote from: SoNowThenBTW, did anybody else think his post sounded like Max in Rushmore, "I wrote a hit play..."
max? no, maybe a dick but not max.
The point is, I wrote the article. I'm not going to talk about something if I don't know what it is. I don't care much for Godard. Seeing it on a big screen won't change that. I'm not the one asking how to crop my images to 2.35:1 or asking how to imitate DePalma shots. You don't need either. A good imagination and some intuition will solve both problems.
Anyhow, my latest editorial is up. Go to:
http://www.movienavigator.org/editorial.htm
My interview with Sofia Coppola is up. You can find it at:
http://www.movienavigator.org/sofia.htm
I also interviewed the director and star of The Other Side of the Bed. Go to:
http://www.movienavigator.org/otherside.htm
Got a new Weekly Ramble up. Anyone interested can go to:
http://movienavigator.org/editorial.htm
i'm incredibly pissed off i missed 2001 on the big screen. fuck everybody.
I was expecting you to jump on that.
I'm waiting for him to write an editorial on this place and the people he can't stand and the ones below his intelligence but still "pretty cool."
~rougerum
Isn't that redundant? :)
Just messin' with you GT.
muntinyco, that was the wrong thing to say.
EVERYTHING is the wrong thing to say, huh?...
mutinyco, that was the wrong thing to say.
Got a new article up. It's for John Sayles' Casa de los Babys. Go to:
http://movienavigator.org/casa.htm
Okay, I will!
Shanghai Orange that was the right thing to say.
Okay, I will!
New update. We've got an interview with the director of Adrien Brody's new film Dummy and a new Weekly Ramble. Go to:
http://movienavigator.org/dummy.htm
http://movienavigator.org/editorial.htm
Hey, for my exclusive on Live Freaky Die Freaky go to:
http://movienavigator.org/freaky.htm
HERE'S OUR DAILY COVERAGE OF THE NEW YORK FILM FESTIVAL. STARTED TODAY. EXPECT DAILY UPDATES, REVIEWS, AND PICS. ALSO, FOLLOW OUR DAILY SERIAL FICTION "KILL THE LIGHTS!"
http://movienavigator.org/nyff41intro.htm
dogville is playing at the NYFF?!?!?!
Yes, it is.
Half the posts in this thread are from mutinyco.
That's cause it's my official thread to post stuff on. And the NYFF coverage continues below. Today I saw Dogville, tomorrow Mystic River.
http://www.movienavigator.org/nyff41intro.htm
Day 3 is now up. Pics of the Mystic River cast including CLINT EASTWOOD, SEAN PENN, TIM ROBBINS, KEVIN BACON, AND MARCIA GAY HARDEN.
http://www.movienavigator.org/nyff41intro.htm
Today's coverage is up. Tomorrow I'll be hitting the red carpet for the premiere of Mystic River.
http://www.movienavigator.org/nyff41intro.htm
And now it's time for Day 5. We've got pictures from the red carpet premiere of Mystic River with some real Sergio Leone close-ups of Clint. Also, Episode 5 of Kill the Lights.
http://movienavigator.org/nyff41intro.htm
Time for yet another NYFF update along with another episode of KTL. Go to:
http://www.movienavigator.org/nyff41intro.htm
For coverage of day 7 and day 8 hit the links below. They cover the 2 best films I've seen so far this year ELEPHANT and THE FOG OF WAR.
http://movienavigator.org/day7.htm
http://movienavigator.org/day8.htm
Stop talking to yourself.
Thanks. Now I have you to talk to.
For Day 9 go to:
http://movienavigator.org/day9.htm
Second week is complete. Next week I'll have coverage of The Barbarian Invasions and 21 Grams.
http://movienavigator.org/day10.htm
For my interview with Sylvia director Christine Jeffs go to:
http://movienavigator.org/cjeffs.htm
For coverage of day 11 click the link below. Only 2 more days left!
http://www.movienavigator.org/day11.htm
For coverage of day 12 click the link below. Only 1 more days left!
http://www.movienavigator.org/day12.htm (//www.gayporn.com)
hahaha
Is that YOUR site Shangai Orange?
Dude, who the fuck ARE you?
My name is Sandor Szavost...
Okay. Just checking.
Just don't expect me to drink your glass of champagne.
For the REAL day 12 go to:
http://movienavigator.org/day12.htm
More like GAY 12.
CHOP!
And now, without further ado, the final day of the NYFF has been posted. Included is coverage of 21 Grams and Mayor of the Sunset Strip -- as well as the absurd, epic conclusion to Kill the Lights.
http://movienavigator.org/day13.htm
I just posted some original pictures from my illustrator days. You can check 'em out at the link below.
http://movienavigator.org/artstuff.htm
i wish i could draw well.
practice...
Mutiny...
yous a fuckface, but yous talented
I'll take that...
SOME OF YOU WILL BE QUITE HAPPY WITH MY LATEST EDITORIAL...
http://movienavigator.org/editorial.htm
For full coverage of ELEPHANT go to:
http://movienavigator.org/elephant.htm
I've also just posted my interview with Naomi Watts to kick off our 21 Grams coverage...
http://movienavigator.org/21grams.htm
NAOMI! NAOMI!
http://movienavigator.org/naomi.htm
I just posted my interview with 21 Grams screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga (Amores Perros). Go to:
http://movienavigator.org/21grams.htm
Be honest now... were you sporting wood whilst you interviewed Naomi?
I'm not going to dignify that.
My interview with Benicio Del Toro is now up at:
http://movienavigator.org/benicio.htm
Continuing with our 21 Grams coverage is an interview with Melissa Leo whom you might remember from Homicide...
http://movienavigator.org/leo.htm
Quote from: mutinycoContinuing with our 21 Grams coverage is an interview with Melissa Leo whom you might remember from Homicide...
I might.
Quote from: mutinyco[The Matrix Revolutions] ... Inspiration. Really, ... (a great film), ... REALLY ... it was ... money, ... considering ... afterward ...
... I said ... this film seriously [deserves some] recognition. This wasn't a "C" like Reloaded ... [it was A, for So Totally Awesome].
I guess you ain't such a bad guy after all.
Uh...okay...
My interview with director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is now up, completing our coverage of 21 Grams. To see em all go to:
http://movienavigator.org/21grams.htm
So this is probably the final article for MovieNavigator, though I still might occasionally post some photos. It's my take on 2003. Go to:
http://movienavigator.org/2003take.htm