Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

AlmostAGhost

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1382

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Posts posted by AlmostAGhost

  6. Posted

    4 hours ago, grudlian. said:

    Oh shit! I only watched the first episode so far.

    This makes me want to have an episode with Paul, June and Jason competing against each other. 

    I just binged the new eps the last few days. Paul's ep is GREAT! I hope it leads to more celebs just jumping in as contestants with the regular folk.

    And yea, June needs to get in there! Maya Rudolph is also a guest judge and she was hilarious. 

  7. Posted

    On 11/22/2019 at 8:57 AM, AlmostAGhost said:

    which I find to be dated and not unenjoyable

    oops got a little grammatically twisted. i meant not enjoyable, if that wasn't clear. (@bleary got it.)

  9. Posted

    To pivot it back to the movie, I don't think Paul and Amy were that hard on Allen, but agree that wasn't the point of the podcast. Still, they were maybe WAY too amazed by the movie, like even expressing wonder that anyone could dislike it. Well, guess what?

    I can recognize the innovation in the scripting (but apparently that was found via editing so...?) and the central relationship (which I hesitate to call love, but that's why it's unique), but I don't particularly enjoy sitting through the film. It's just too misanthropic in its humor, which I find to be dated and not unenjoyable. Humor is subjective though, I guess. And I realize that misanthropy is the point of the character, Alvy maybe is a bit of an anti-hero. To me, it's almost similar to Taxi Driver, where people are connecting to the main character, but I'm like "oh no, you should not be." (And I actually like Taxi Driver a lot, a movie can work with out that.)

    But as Sycasey noted above, Woody Allen has a huge lack of self-awareness as a person... so I'm not super convinced he has it as a writer either, so I find Alvy confusing as presented.

    The ending does save it somewhat, though, I'll add. There is some complicated emotion and feelings presented here which it does maybe get right. I'm rambling I think, I don't know. It is a movie to think about, that's for sure. 

    • Like 2

  11. Posted

    Speaking of being accurate and knowing everything out there -- let's not just mention Moses Farrow while ignoring the work of Ronan Farrow, who is on Dylan's side. Moses may defend Woody, but if I recall, the rest of the family disagrees and cut Moses out. 

    And whether or not Mia/Woody were married, or Soon Yi was his adopted daughter or someone else's, it's not right. I don't believe he married his own daughter, but whatever he did, it's wrong. I agree it's maybe more borderline on the acceptability scale than is often portrayed or discussed; but still... why defend it? I mean, how many movies has Woody Allen made about him being hot for a girl far too young? Here is this story.

    Anyway, yea I don't know if this is the forum for this. Or maybe it is. Not trying to argue, just want to say that the anti-Woody facts aren't that insane to grasp on to.

    • Like 3

  14. Posted

    I voted no, mainly because I think that cinematically, it's not all that remarkable. It is a good enough story and all, but I don't think it brings much to the table as a film. It could be a news article about these characters, and be just as effective. But I saw the Facebook groups poll on this same question, and it was overwhelmingly for the movie, so I dunno what we're missing here.

    (Last check over there, it was 215 for and 15 against. But we're all mediocre about it here? What is this?)

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    Yea I mostly agree with you all. But I basically I put aside my need for things to add up and just was like 'this is so nuts that i love it.' haha.

    also am curious how it will hold up after that first craziness, but for now I love it (and The Witch, Eggers has really impressed on me).

  16. Posted

    9 hours ago, Cam Bert said:

    Was anybody really confused seeing Joe Mantegna show up in court as a DA? Am I alone in this? I thought he was a detective up until that point. I mean maybe I need a lawyer in here to correct me but I'm pretty sure most DAs are far to busy to be showing up at crime scenes before there is even a suspect or before all the evidence has been collected. Not to mention following an investigation through every step of the way with the police and even conducting witness interrogation. Here I thought they sat in their office until a suspect had been arrested and evidence gather. At this point the case would be assigned to them and then they'd begin working on. Who am I to argue with this air tight and thoroughly researched script.

    Oh ya, that's mostly right. A DA definitely would not be at the crime scene or interrogation; generally the point of criminal trials is to answer "did the police do their job correctly?"; while the police answer "who did it?" Thus, the lawyer should and would let the police do their jobs in investigating and interrogating.

    A lawyer may advise at the station sometimes though (with donuts). "Can this go to trial yet?" may be something DAs and police discuss mutually. I never worked in criminal law, but I think that's in their arrangement. They're not entirely independent of each other.

    • Like 2

  17. Posted

    8 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    The only way I see it as a strictly conservative film is in the fact that it’s not overtly anti-conservative.

    I think there is a conservative streak though, stepping back. Conservatism is basically the idea of staying the same, anti-progress, don't move forward. That's Forrest Gump. That's why Bob Dole was quoted in the episode, praising the film as some sort of ideal. As Paul said, the guy never takes any lesson or movement from anything. The status quo as a lovable guy who made something of himself. A better conservative symbol could not be found.

    The movie may not be specifically all that political, but I think that it has had an effect on politics. 

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    So earlier this year at one point in here, I mentioned how I'm definitely doing my best to come at every movie totally fresh, whether I'd seen it before or not. I also mentioned that there was one film on the list that this would be very difficult for me, because I think it's one star trash.

    Well, we finally got to it this week, because that movie is Forrest Gump.

    I still think I came at it fresh because it had been so long, but I still don't like it. My disdain for it is too strong. It is against everything I stand for and like in art.

    (I wrote a lot on Letterboxd about it, probably too much; I won't repeat myself too much here.)

    • Like 2

  21. Posted

    7 minutes ago, tay-loe anne photo said:

    Yeah if you genuinely want to know what's happening then the shadowcast performance is not going to do right by that. The first time I saw it live they had decided the dinner scene was too boring and had the whole audience throw around a beach ball and started making jokes that had nothing to do with the movie lol.

    I did enjoy it enough though that I'm curious to go to one of these sometime! Remind me next year haha

    • Like 3

  25. Posted

    In this case, I do find that the book overwhelms the movie. But I've grown to love the movie a lot on its own.

    I still don't get why they had to make some changes (besides the rules of the code) to make the movie more happy or palatable; the book was hugely popular without those things. So why did the film have to be? *shrug*

    I was stoked Paul & Amy played all those songs -- I'm a huge Woody and Rage fan, and pretty ok with Bruce. Woody basically idolized Joad, and wanted to be him (and in some ways, he absolutely succeeded; he was a myth of the people in his own time). Bruce found it all sad on a human level. But Rage found the rage in Joad (and Bruce) and their interpretation is amazing and inspiring in much the way I think Steinbeck intended.

    I do kind of thing the pod focused slightly too much on unions. To me the story is a step back, on the forces and struggles and dreams of (forced) migration which lead to unionization being necessary. The Joad's story is a descent into an extreme situation, usually contrasted with the poetic beauty and promise of California. The film shifts focus a little bit, but I still think it's pretty successful and hard to deny.

×