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

  2. Posted

    I think there's plenty of movies/literature/stories that are like "oh woe is me, we have to move to the scary big city," but usually it's from the point-of-view of someone who lives in the countryside.  It did feel a little weird to hear it from a family that lives in another big city.  But maybe St. Louis back then was still "frontier" or something, I dunno.

    • Like 2

  6. Posted

    7 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    Is the movie making a statement about the transitory nature of joy?

    In this 50-page essay I will discuss the fatalistic and nihilistic views of Meet Me In St. Louis. Starting with a joke about kicking a cat down the stairs, and a little girl's sociopathic focus on death, the movie gets more and more macabre, despite the light frivolity of the songs.  Next, I will 

    • Like 4

  7. Posted

    1 minute ago, SaraK said:

    I was so confused as to why Grandpa of all people was going to this dance, and everyone was just cool with it. Can you imagine being at that dance as a teen/young adult/whatever their ages were and having this 70 year old man there as well?

    Funny how we had similar confusion over that girl in Sleepaway Camp who asked the owner for a hot date, and one movie is respected and the other is a joke

    • Like 3

  10. Posted

    Yea I pretty much felt the same.  It was enjoyable enough, but I was not into it.  I thought Judy Garland was kind of amazing though.  

    Also, there were cool use of lights and fire throughout

    And weird dark jokes

    You guys looked up Halloween.  Well, I looked up basketball -- Judy Garland's beau kept saying he was playing basketball.  I was like, was it even invented in 1903?

    Turns out, it was invented in like 1891 or so.  It was famously played in peach baskets, without a hole in the bottom, until around 1898.  So I guess him playing basketball was pretty legit, but this dude was sort of on the cutting edge of the sport.

    • Like 5

  18. Posted

    semi-official mini-update

    on today's mini-episode of HDTGM, Paul mentioned Unspooled and that these 3 movies were ones he watched. Probably stands to reason The African Queen is right after the next two already confirmed ones, but I guess it's possible he skipped a week in there since he was just being conversational.

    Ep 22 - Psycho

    Ep 23 - Raiders Of The Lost Ark

    (soon) - The African Queen

    • Like 2

  19. Posted

    17 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    A few questions, prompted heavily by the second paragraph, are you a fan of the fantasy genre in general (either in film or other mediums) and more specifically, are you a fan of the books?  And if so on the latter, were you a fan before the movies came out?  Or is appreciation of the difficult of adaptation you experienced after loving the films?  This is just more for my context.

    I felt like I was rambling a lot in trying to describe Apocalypse Now.  I never took a film class, so it's some times more difficult to articulate why some scenes strike me as "just beautiful" and it just lulls me, with the mood sometimes feeling like it's washing over me.  After the AN thread, I really wished I had waited until after the episode and the thread started to watch it, so I would have thought to take down notes, organize my thoughts, and have specific examples.  Though, admittedly that's a lot for an online discussion.  But, there's something enjoyable about organizing your thoughts.

    Yes, I love fantasy, both in film and books, and have read the books.  I read the books before the movies, but not that much before, just a couple years I think.  Though I had read The Hobbit many years prior.  The thing about Tolkein is the books are more than just a story, more than just a universe, he created a FULL history of everyone and everything in it.  That's one thing the movies do well to convey that I think a lesser version of the film would not even attempt. 

    Oh yea, I mean that's why we're here right?  To figure out and discuss why these films are 'great', to as you say, organize our thoughts.  Your questions are literally the same ones I've asked in at least a few other threads, where I didn't connect the same as others. 

    One reason I prefer these forums over, say, the Facebook group is they do a lot of discussion about films in general over there; I don't care, I just want to discuss these movies in particular.

    • Like 2

  21. Posted

    1 hour ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    what in it do you really respond to and from what angle/evaluation makes you think it should be there?

    For me, I think it nails almost every important part of filmmaking.  It's well-made, obviously, and the effects feel real, I don't feel like I'm watching CGI.  (I do a little more often in the 2nd and 3rd, I admit, but this one is clean to me.)  There is a story in there that isn't ungraspable, and especially in this first one, is fun too.  It may feel basic to some, maybe, but I think it actually is the prototype of fantasy stories, one of the originals.  Above all, I mostly forget I'm watching a movie, and that's my favorite thing in film and TV.  

    I feel like finally making a live action LOTR movie could very easily been crazy cheesy, just a horrible film.  But at every moment, in every actor that ended up there, in every detail, every decision, it delivered.  I mean, just go back and look at Gandalf's hat in this movie.  It's perfection.  Another good example is the way the movie shows and develops the power the ring has on its holders: that's not an easy thing to show on film!  It could have been laughable in someone else's hands. But they figured it out and it works.  I feel like I'm rambling, but yea, these films and stories are IMPRESSIVE.

    • Like 4
×