7.1 / 10 True Fiction ∫Dailymotion
*
???????????×☆??
DOWNLOAD
????????§????×☆
2019
I'm a bit... baffled. There are definite positives to this film, most of them revolving around performances. Leonardo DiCaprio as washed-up TV actor Rick Dalton is genuinely good, which is more charitable than I usually am toward Leo. The only two times that I’d really been a fan of his acting happen to be his Tarantino work, in Django Unchained and in this, and moments like his trailer freakout (“eight whiskey sours! ”) and frumpily making margaritas at the end revealed a sense of comic timing that I didn’t know Leo had. Brad Pitt’s charisma is still fully intact as stuntman Cliff Booth, and is similarly fun to watch for his persona and dialogue. The two men’s friendship is the backbone of the film, and it’s treated in a caring, heartfelt way, even if it’s more thinly drawn than the relationships between Vincent and Jules in Pulp Fiction or Ordell and Louis in Jackie Brown. The production design evoking Hollywood in 1969 was well crafted, all done in-camera rather than in post, though I will say that some costumes and hairstyles struck me as more contemporary than they were meant to be. At times, I liked the mood of the film... but only when it wasn't boring me. And that’s where the positives end and the problems start, for me. Why is most of Quentin's style gone here? I don't need this to be a clone of his previous films, but there was so little style to Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood. Bland camera movement, stripped-down dialogue, low energy. I understand that it's meant to be more languid and melancholic than his previous output but I've never been bored for long stretches of a Tarantino film before. The moments where his style reappeared were bungled: an abundance of weirdly stilted expository dialogue from Damian Lewis as Steve McQueen, Kurt Russell as the occasional narrator, and the Manson children in their car before the climatic finale was jarring for a film of his?it's so strange to see him mishandle dialogue. Tarantino’s typical freeze-framed annotations, which feel much more at home in his more playful films, stick out as very clunky in this one. And why can't Tarantino control his foot fetish, especially in a scene where it's established through explicit dialogue that the character whose feet he's focusing on is still a minor? This film is Tarantino's attempt to be freewheeling, rather than plotting in the labyrinthine way that he usually does, but he doesn't seem to be able do freewheeling especially well. He needs an editor who challenges him. Never has the absence of his former editor Sally Menke been more noticeable than here. Since her passing after completing Inglourious Basterds in 2009, Tarantino’s subsequent films, edited by her replacement Fred Raskin, have been much less cohesive. Does Tarantino wish for a reality in which the studio system didn't collapse in the late '60s? The film seems to insist on a yearning to go back. If so, why? The majority of his work owes so much to New Hollywood, foreign films and independent cinema that it is strange to me that he'd wish for the old system to not have ended, if those are indeed his feelings. Half the shit he loves came out after this era, so why is it of paramount importance to him, from a cinematic point of view? If we're instead talking more about holding onto '60s society/values/ideals at large and not the state of film specifically, then it's poorly depicted, considering that we only see what's inside the Hollywood bubble here. Why have the Manson murders be prevented by people who weren't the targets? The historical revisionism in Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained amounted to cathartic acts of retribution by characters toward their oppressors, which makes more sense than Rick and Cliff not even knowing who their attackers are. And the notion that the old guard?represented by has-been actors?could've been the saviors of the "idyllic" '60s, even though this particular point in time had already been preceded by Vietnam, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., and so many other "losses of innocence, " that I can't imagine that even Tarantino himself believes that. Why is the Hollywood studio system equated with innocence? To believe that the industry itself was anything approaching innocent is an insanely naïve notion that we should have completely shed by the age of #MeToo. And if it's about the innocence of the content, why should the viewer want this moment in time to be preserved? Who cares about keeping the remnants of the Hays Code in Hollywood films? This is Quentin "Because [Graphic Movie Violence] Is So Much Fun, Jan! " Tarantino we're talking about, right? Why prevent the Manson murders at all? What does that thematically accomplish? If it's to prevent '60s countercultural idealism from dying, that's confusing, considering how the movie continually calls its villains?the Manson children?"hippies. " The strangely quick and early single appearance of Charles Manson in this film undercuts his importance to the events of the finale, granting his cultists more agency than perhaps they really had. Their troubled circumstances are almost entirely glossed over, seemingly to imply that they are the ones fully deserving of retributive violence rather than Manson himself, unlike the comeuppance received by Hitler and his high command in Basterds and the various slaveowners and plantation system at large in Django. Briefly getting to know Pussycat, a young member of the Manson family, is utterly wasted by the finale, partially because she isn't present for it and partially because her comparative depth doesn't seem to be applied to her fellow cultists at the end. Is this intentional? If so, why? Are we meant to just uncritically cheer at their gleefully grisly deaths? Why tease that Cliff may have killed his wife? What is the purpose of inserting that possibility and then not developing it or letting us know if it's true or not? Is it only to set up his capability for violence in the finale? The Bruce Lee and Spahn ranch scenes establish this on their own. For a movie titled after Sergio Leone's films, and Tarantino's favorite film being The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, why skip ahead through what could have been an engaging Spaghetti Western section and instead spend a ton of screen time on much drier American TV Westerns? Why have Sharon Tate do absolutely nothing in the film? Why is her most narratively-relevant beat to welcome Rick into Hollywood high society at the end? Deifying her into an angelic symbol of the spirit of the '60s just dehumanizes the very real victim of a horrific murder spree. All things considered, Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood is my least favorite Q. T. film by a long shot. I haven’t seen The Hateful Eight, Deathproof, or Four Rooms, and right now, I’m just not in a hurry to catch up.
CO2? These people are lunatics. Didn't anyone ever teach these people that if it wasnt for CO2 that the trees and plant life would die? This is more propaganda but on steroids. Margaret is most likely holding a sexuality transformation camp. Straighten the gays! ??♀?.
The REAL Question for Season 9 is how DO YOU wear glasses with 1 ear.
“Youre all I want” “Go away, Tate” “YOURE ALL I HAVE!” “GO AWAYYYYY!” Incomprehensible screaming. The satan chant reminds me of the Jason chant in Friday The 13th. Would you consider doing a video on the murder of Mary Rogers, a young lady that worked in a tobacco shop in New York City in the 1840's. Edgar Allan Poe wrote a fictional story about it called The Mystery of Marie Roget. I am a total fantasy novel beginner, for real this is my first fantasy book i have ever read. I just recently got into reading books now in my early twenties, I felt like i have to make up for all years I didn´t read during my childhood and teens and when I read, it was always non-fiction. I wanted to pick up a fictional book and I was always into fantasy movies (LOTR obv. ) and games so i spontaneously watched some book reviews and bought the ebook of eye of the world. I really don´t know why I bought it when I did, I never bought a ebook before, never a fantasy book and im not a spontaneous person, but for some reason I just went for it, hell this is my first Reddit post ever too i don´t know what got over me:D. In addition im not a English native speaker but i bought the book in English because it was cheaper and i wanted to improve my English skills anyways (Which turned out to be rather challenging in combination of Jordans writing style and the use of old English). Sorry for the long introduction but i read that a lot of people in this community love to read reviews of people at the beginning of this long journey and i wanted to make it proper so you can understand my point of view. It was only the first book but it was already a journey itself for me. It took me around 3 months to read the book, there were days and weeks where i did not had any motivation to pick up the story (mostly in the middle of the book, for example the chapters about Rand and Mat after they got separated in Shadar Logath and Whitebridge, for some reason it took an effort to me to read, maybe it also reflected the exhaustion of them during the journey to Caemlyn? ). But there were also days where i could not stop reading (after their reunion for example). A lot of people in the internet wrote that WoT is not a good first book to get into fantasy and i partly agree with them as it is not for everyone but I am happy that I chose it and will keep reading! The Beginning of the story was marked by me questioning my choice of picking up the book in English, as its known Robert Jordans detailed writing style can be deal breaker for some people as it was for me too at first. The Kindle app helped me understand some words of the old English but it also slowed down my reading, which was already slow. I could only appreciate Jordans writing style as the story went on. One reason i wanted to pick up a fictional book was to improve my visualization skills and the writing style helped me tremendously. The world building is so immersive, I feel like standing too close to a skyscraper, not being able to comprehend how huge it is and the character building is top notch. I googled some images of the characters and cities to get a better grasp of things and it really helped. I have a lot of questions and uncertainties, which I hope are answered when i keep reading: -Where will the the plot of the next 13 books take place? I fell like we already went from the west of the Two Rivers to the center of Andor in Caemlyn and then already at the Borderland and some of the Blight. There still is a lot left like Tear, Illian, The Spine of the World (and the Aiel waste? ) and a lot more but im asking myself if they will leave the continent at some point? hmm -What are the true intentions of the Aes Sedai and Moraine? What about all those different Ajahs? -What will happen to Egwene and Nynaeve at Tor Valon? I feel like especially Nynaeve will have a bigger role as the story goes on. -What is the storiy behind Lan and Moraines? how did Lan became a warder and became bound to Moraine? -For some reason i have a ill feeling about Egwenes future, if she is not meant for Rand what will happen to her? -What was that at the end with Rand wielding the one power? It was such a confusing fight and im not sure if I should take it metaphorical or idk, but then we learn that he actually helped at Tarwins gap:o And the fight with the Dark One and the torture of his mother i really don`t know what i should draw from it but I just have to read further I guess. -What is the Truth of Padan Fain aka. the Peddler? I was very surprised when we got to learn how he was the one following them all along and him being a Darkfriend, I felt like i should have anticipated that. Very curious what information Moraine wants to get out of him. - I really did not see the relationship between Nynaeve and Lan coming, I felt like at first they had a friendly competition and Lan being a father figure for her in the context of their 20 year age gap or so? Was I the only one not see that coming? -Like the above names relation, Perrins transformation also went by pretty quick and not everything about is clear to me. -What happend to Thom? Pretty sure he is alive and i really liked his characters uplifting tone. Also can we please get a reunion of Thom and the queen:d seems like they had somewhat of a past with each other -What is the deal with Logain? Is there maybe a connection between him and Rand? maybe its his biological farther? -What with Rands origin? Who are his parents? What happend to Karin al`Thor? What is the Story of Tam and his journey? Seems like he was Blademaster and was in the Aiel Waste? -I remember at the beginning of the books someone said something of a flying metal ship? I hope im not mistaken but i cant find the passage. Was that a reference to cars? Did one age of time reach modern times and there are vague memories left from it? Favourite Characters: -Lan: Seems like he has almost always everything under control and you can always rely on him and his background story of the golden crane made him so much more awesome. -Elyas: The Teacher of Lan? A former warden? Now lives alone in the wild with his wolves? Im so thrilled to learn more about him. I am from Germany and before I pick up the second book I am not sure if I should stick to the English version or switch to the German one, i don´t know if there are some differences I should know about. After some time i had no problems anymore with the English one but i still felt like it slowed my pace and interfered with my immersion, maybe some of you had similar problems and can help me. In conclusion: I loved it, maybe it´s the start of a life full of fantasy novels who knows? The wheel weaves as the wheel wills I would like to read other books while on my journey through this series, any suggestions? As said this is my first "review" let alone my first Reddit post, i hope it was not too bad and maybe I will try to write one for each book and be better and more ordered as in this one I just randomly wrote down my thoughts. Damn this got longer than i thought lol hope some can bear with me:D.
I remember feeling a weight on my chest and a horrible nightmare and screaming there's a monster on me right when I woke up and See my cat laying my chest staring at me... Even I had problems with the David Bowie scene, that is, until you watch the return. curious to know if rlm would be interested in doing a review for Twin Peaks: The Return. Who checks a checkbox like that.
I thought the suicide scene was more of a callback to Heathers. 
I'm really looking forward to 2020 when Jay and Josh discuss all 7 episodes of 1992's On The Air. How do you whiten your teeth.
I loved Pulp Fiction. The movie has so much potential. The story, the actors, the style, the cinematography, the dialogue, the cinematography, the character development, the performances, the soundtrack, the performances, the cinematography. So I mean for the first time that I thought that maybe the movie was okay. But as the movie went on, I started to notice things that were just distracting. There were so many things that were just distracting from what the movie was trying to do. The script. The way it was written was just so poorly written. The way it was structured, the way its presented, the way it was edited. And I'm not just talking about the dialogue. I'm talking about the way it was delivered. I'm talking about how the dialogue was delivered. The character development. I'm not saying that I didn't like the character, by no means. I loved him. But that's my main problem with the character. He was just a very shallow character. He was like the little brother of the main character. He was just an average joe, but I felt like, okay, if I was just another movie-goer who liked movies and I saw PTA's movies and I saw him, I just couldn't relate to his character. I couldn't relate to his character, because I just couldn't relate to him.
I want to beat that mannequin, that shit's creepy guys.
Votes: 970
True Fiction ∫Dailymotion 
???????????×☆??
DOWNLOAD
????????§????×☆
2019
Writed by Braden Croft tomatometers 7,5 of 10 Review True Fiction is a movie starring Sara Garcia, John Cassini, and Julian Black Antelope. Avery Malone, a wannabe writer and lonely librarian, gets her big break when she's hand-selected to assist her hero, reclusive author, Caleb 1H 34Min&ref(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZjQ3YWQ0NzAtMmNkZS00YWRjLWI4MjgtY2ZlMDE4MTg2OGZhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjEzMjc4MTg@._V1_UY113_CR0,0,76,113_AL_.jpg)
Did they still link apocalypse with 1985 Ramirez seem like he maybe link to Michael Lanedon.That's a very well padded suit. Theory: Xavier is a “method Actor” Maybeeee he left himself that message to himself for this reason. My favorite moment of all time is when Tate is trying to revive violet in season one after she over doses on pills. Then when he has to tell her the truth about how she is dead. I really do think that the 1st season of ‘True Detective drew influence from the style of ‘Twin Peaks. That is a compliment as the first season was amazing to watch with the terrific characters and twisting story. Its like David Lynch couldve written it, but he didnt yet Cary Fukunaga and his team gave off the feel without ripping off the show.
I'm a bit... baffled. There are definite positives to this film, most of them revolving around performances. Leonardo DiCaprio as washed-up TV actor Rick Dalton is genuinely good, which is more charitable than I usually am toward Leo. The only two times that I’d really been a fan of his acting happen to be his Tarantino work, in Django Unchained and in this, and moments like his trailer freakout (“eight whiskey sours! ”) and frumpily making margaritas at the end revealed a sense of comic timing that I didn’t know Leo had. Brad Pitt’s charisma is still fully intact as stuntman Cliff Booth, and is similarly fun to watch for his persona and dialogue. The two men’s friendship is the backbone of the film, and it’s treated in a caring, heartfelt way, even if it’s more thinly drawn than the relationships between Vincent and Jules in Pulp Fiction or Ordell and Louis in Jackie Brown. The production design evoking Hollywood in 1969 was well crafted, all done in-camera rather than in post, though I will say that some costumes and hairstyles struck me as more contemporary than they were meant to be. At times, I liked the mood of the film... but only when it wasn't boring me. And that’s where the positives end and the problems start, for me. Why is most of Quentin's style gone here? I don't need this to be a clone of his previous films, but there was so little style to Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood. Bland camera movement, stripped-down dialogue, low energy. I understand that it's meant to be more languid and melancholic than his previous output but I've never been bored for long stretches of a Tarantino film before. The moments where his style reappeared were bungled: an abundance of weirdly stilted expository dialogue from Damian Lewis as Steve McQueen, Kurt Russell as the occasional narrator, and the Manson children in their car before the climatic finale was jarring for a film of his?it's so strange to see him mishandle dialogue. Tarantino’s typical freeze-framed annotations, which feel much more at home in his more playful films, stick out as very clunky in this one. And why can't Tarantino control his foot fetish, especially in a scene where it's established through explicit dialogue that the character whose feet he's focusing on is still a minor? This film is Tarantino's attempt to be freewheeling, rather than plotting in the labyrinthine way that he usually does, but he doesn't seem to be able do freewheeling especially well. He needs an editor who challenges him. Never has the absence of his former editor Sally Menke been more noticeable than here. Since her passing after completing Inglourious Basterds in 2009, Tarantino’s subsequent films, edited by her replacement Fred Raskin, have been much less cohesive. Does Tarantino wish for a reality in which the studio system didn't collapse in the late '60s? The film seems to insist on a yearning to go back. If so, why? The majority of his work owes so much to New Hollywood, foreign films and independent cinema that it is strange to me that he'd wish for the old system to not have ended, if those are indeed his feelings. Half the shit he loves came out after this era, so why is it of paramount importance to him, from a cinematic point of view? If we're instead talking more about holding onto '60s society/values/ideals at large and not the state of film specifically, then it's poorly depicted, considering that we only see what's inside the Hollywood bubble here. Why have the Manson murders be prevented by people who weren't the targets? The historical revisionism in Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained amounted to cathartic acts of retribution by characters toward their oppressors, which makes more sense than Rick and Cliff not even knowing who their attackers are. And the notion that the old guard?represented by has-been actors?could've been the saviors of the "idyllic" '60s, even though this particular point in time had already been preceded by Vietnam, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., and so many other "losses of innocence, " that I can't imagine that even Tarantino himself believes that. Why is the Hollywood studio system equated with innocence? To believe that the industry itself was anything approaching innocent is an insanely naïve notion that we should have completely shed by the age of #MeToo. And if it's about the innocence of the content, why should the viewer want this moment in time to be preserved? Who cares about keeping the remnants of the Hays Code in Hollywood films? This is Quentin "Because [Graphic Movie Violence] Is So Much Fun, Jan! " Tarantino we're talking about, right? Why prevent the Manson murders at all? What does that thematically accomplish? If it's to prevent '60s countercultural idealism from dying, that's confusing, considering how the movie continually calls its villains?the Manson children?"hippies. " The strangely quick and early single appearance of Charles Manson in this film undercuts his importance to the events of the finale, granting his cultists more agency than perhaps they really had. Their troubled circumstances are almost entirely glossed over, seemingly to imply that they are the ones fully deserving of retributive violence rather than Manson himself, unlike the comeuppance received by Hitler and his high command in Basterds and the various slaveowners and plantation system at large in Django. Briefly getting to know Pussycat, a young member of the Manson family, is utterly wasted by the finale, partially because she isn't present for it and partially because her comparative depth doesn't seem to be applied to her fellow cultists at the end. Is this intentional? If so, why? Are we meant to just uncritically cheer at their gleefully grisly deaths? Why tease that Cliff may have killed his wife? What is the purpose of inserting that possibility and then not developing it or letting us know if it's true or not? Is it only to set up his capability for violence in the finale? The Bruce Lee and Spahn ranch scenes establish this on their own. For a movie titled after Sergio Leone's films, and Tarantino's favorite film being The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, why skip ahead through what could have been an engaging Spaghetti Western section and instead spend a ton of screen time on much drier American TV Westerns? Why have Sharon Tate do absolutely nothing in the film? Why is her most narratively-relevant beat to welcome Rick into Hollywood high society at the end? Deifying her into an angelic symbol of the spirit of the '60s just dehumanizes the very real victim of a horrific murder spree. All things considered, Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood is my least favorite Q. T. film by a long shot. I haven’t seen The Hateful Eight, Deathproof, or Four Rooms, and right now, I’m just not in a hurry to catch up.
CO2? These people are lunatics. Didn't anyone ever teach these people that if it wasnt for CO2 that the trees and plant life would die? This is more propaganda but on steroids. Margaret is most likely holding a sexuality transformation camp. Straighten the gays! ??♀?.
The REAL Question for Season 9 is how DO YOU wear glasses with 1 ear.“Youre all I want” “Go away, Tate” “YOURE ALL I HAVE!” “GO AWAYYYYY!” Incomprehensible screaming. The satan chant reminds me of the Jason chant in Friday The 13th. Would you consider doing a video on the murder of Mary Rogers, a young lady that worked in a tobacco shop in New York City in the 1840's. Edgar Allan Poe wrote a fictional story about it called The Mystery of Marie Roget. I am a total fantasy novel beginner, for real this is my first fantasy book i have ever read. I just recently got into reading books now in my early twenties, I felt like i have to make up for all years I didn´t read during my childhood and teens and when I read, it was always non-fiction. I wanted to pick up a fictional book and I was always into fantasy movies (LOTR obv. ) and games so i spontaneously watched some book reviews and bought the ebook of eye of the world. I really don´t know why I bought it when I did, I never bought a ebook before, never a fantasy book and im not a spontaneous person, but for some reason I just went for it, hell this is my first Reddit post ever too i don´t know what got over me:D. In addition im not a English native speaker but i bought the book in English because it was cheaper and i wanted to improve my English skills anyways (Which turned out to be rather challenging in combination of Jordans writing style and the use of old English). Sorry for the long introduction but i read that a lot of people in this community love to read reviews of people at the beginning of this long journey and i wanted to make it proper so you can understand my point of view. It was only the first book but it was already a journey itself for me. It took me around 3 months to read the book, there were days and weeks where i did not had any motivation to pick up the story (mostly in the middle of the book, for example the chapters about Rand and Mat after they got separated in Shadar Logath and Whitebridge, for some reason it took an effort to me to read, maybe it also reflected the exhaustion of them during the journey to Caemlyn? ). But there were also days where i could not stop reading (after their reunion for example). A lot of people in the internet wrote that WoT is not a good first book to get into fantasy and i partly agree with them as it is not for everyone but I am happy that I chose it and will keep reading! The Beginning of the story was marked by me questioning my choice of picking up the book in English, as its known Robert Jordans detailed writing style can be deal breaker for some people as it was for me too at first. The Kindle app helped me understand some words of the old English but it also slowed down my reading, which was already slow. I could only appreciate Jordans writing style as the story went on. One reason i wanted to pick up a fictional book was to improve my visualization skills and the writing style helped me tremendously. The world building is so immersive, I feel like standing too close to a skyscraper, not being able to comprehend how huge it is and the character building is top notch. I googled some images of the characters and cities to get a better grasp of things and it really helped. I have a lot of questions and uncertainties, which I hope are answered when i keep reading: -Where will the the plot of the next 13 books take place? I fell like we already went from the west of the Two Rivers to the center of Andor in Caemlyn and then already at the Borderland and some of the Blight. There still is a lot left like Tear, Illian, The Spine of the World (and the Aiel waste? ) and a lot more but im asking myself if they will leave the continent at some point? hmm -What are the true intentions of the Aes Sedai and Moraine? What about all those different Ajahs? -What will happen to Egwene and Nynaeve at Tor Valon? I feel like especially Nynaeve will have a bigger role as the story goes on. -What is the storiy behind Lan and Moraines? how did Lan became a warder and became bound to Moraine? -For some reason i have a ill feeling about Egwenes future, if she is not meant for Rand what will happen to her? -What was that at the end with Rand wielding the one power? It was such a confusing fight and im not sure if I should take it metaphorical or idk, but then we learn that he actually helped at Tarwins gap:o And the fight with the Dark One and the torture of his mother i really don`t know what i should draw from it but I just have to read further I guess. -What is the Truth of Padan Fain aka. the Peddler? I was very surprised when we got to learn how he was the one following them all along and him being a Darkfriend, I felt like i should have anticipated that. Very curious what information Moraine wants to get out of him. - I really did not see the relationship between Nynaeve and Lan coming, I felt like at first they had a friendly competition and Lan being a father figure for her in the context of their 20 year age gap or so? Was I the only one not see that coming? -Like the above names relation, Perrins transformation also went by pretty quick and not everything about is clear to me. -What happend to Thom? Pretty sure he is alive and i really liked his characters uplifting tone. Also can we please get a reunion of Thom and the queen:d seems like they had somewhat of a past with each other -What is the deal with Logain? Is there maybe a connection between him and Rand? maybe its his biological farther? -What with Rands origin? Who are his parents? What happend to Karin al`Thor? What is the Story of Tam and his journey? Seems like he was Blademaster and was in the Aiel Waste? -I remember at the beginning of the books someone said something of a flying metal ship? I hope im not mistaken but i cant find the passage. Was that a reference to cars? Did one age of time reach modern times and there are vague memories left from it? Favourite Characters: -Lan: Seems like he has almost always everything under control and you can always rely on him and his background story of the golden crane made him so much more awesome. -Elyas: The Teacher of Lan? A former warden? Now lives alone in the wild with his wolves? Im so thrilled to learn more about him. I am from Germany and before I pick up the second book I am not sure if I should stick to the English version or switch to the German one, i don´t know if there are some differences I should know about. After some time i had no problems anymore with the English one but i still felt like it slowed my pace and interfered with my immersion, maybe some of you had similar problems and can help me. In conclusion: I loved it, maybe it´s the start of a life full of fantasy novels who knows? The wheel weaves as the wheel wills I would like to read other books while on my journey through this series, any suggestions? As said this is my first "review" let alone my first Reddit post, i hope it was not too bad and maybe I will try to write one for each book and be better and more ordered as in this one I just randomly wrote down my thoughts. Damn this got longer than i thought lol hope some can bear with me:D.
I remember feeling a weight on my chest and a horrible nightmare and screaming there's a monster on me right when I woke up and See my cat laying my chest staring at me... Even I had problems with the David Bowie scene, that is, until you watch the return. curious to know if rlm would be interested in doing a review for Twin Peaks: The Return. Who checks a checkbox like that.
I thought the suicide scene was more of a callback to Heathers. I'm really looking forward to 2020 when Jay and Josh discuss all 7 episodes of 1992's On The Air. How do you whiten your teeth. I loved Pulp Fiction. The movie has so much potential. The story, the actors, the style, the cinematography, the dialogue, the cinematography, the character development, the performances, the soundtrack, the performances, the cinematography. So I mean for the first time that I thought that maybe the movie was okay. But as the movie went on, I started to notice things that were just distracting. There were so many things that were just distracting from what the movie was trying to do. The script. The way it was written was just so poorly written. The way it was structured, the way its presented, the way it was edited. And I'm not just talking about the dialogue. I'm talking about the way it was delivered. I'm talking about how the dialogue was delivered. The character development. I'm not saying that I didn't like the character, by no means. I loved him. But that's my main problem with the character. He was just a very shallow character. He was like the little brother of the main character. He was just an average joe, but I felt like, okay, if I was just another movie-goer who liked movies and I saw PTA's movies and I saw him, I just couldn't relate to his character. I couldn't relate to his character, because I just couldn't relate to him.I want to beat that mannequin, that shit's creepy guys.
Here is something a bit different than the usual for this sub: let's talk about the physical importance of the theater, or any cultural "place", and the way cinema can also live through acts. In France, it lives through "cinéma associatif" or "cinéma d'art et essai", basically independent cinema living through the work of volunteers and passionate people, and which is a special status for a (more often than not) non-lucrative organization. Let me introduce you to the theater "La Clef" (The Key). It officially closed two years ago, after a long history of cultural and militant activity dating back to the protests of may 68, and was a staple of the neighborhood. Basically, it was bought by a bank and was vacant. But "last year, a group of activists broke into the cinema and reopened it to the public. With a staff of 40 volunteers, the theater now stages free (i. e. “pay whatever you want”) screenings every night at 8pm. The shows are well-attended and patrons crowd the lobby even on weeknights. " (article) These events have allowed the return of cultural activities, screenings, debates, meetings, and the presence of a lively and experimental way of seeing cinema. But this effervescence, organized with the support of local residents, and that of many political and cultural actors, could be interrupted from one day to the next, La Clef Revival being currently " expulsible by court order ". Which is of course, a logical conclusion. Still, the place is well and alive, for now. I had the pleasure of doing an interview with the president of the "association" currently occupying La Clef, in which we delve into why and how is a local theater important, what it was, what it could be, and what cinema could be. Has the revival of La Clef developed as you had hoped in recent months, despite the current threat of expulsion? Yes, and better yet! The particular context of the occupation has determined a collective self-management operation where everyone is both voluntary and willing (and yet often precarious) to make this cinema exist and give it back its "volcanic" activity and its precious heartbeat! We have been able to federate a naturally mobilized artistic (and audiovisual / cinematographic) community and share with it disinterested (but passionate and critical) ideals. Here and now, we live the cinema and experience it rather than simply consume it; it is both wonderful and energizing. We have the "luxury" of transforming our passive cinephilia into active cinephilia in order to build ramparts of images through our daily programming against a stubborn, proud and obstinate owner (the council of a bank) who considers his property as a personal asset. It's a beautiful way of resisting, both absurd and sublime, against speculative and real estate dealings, isn't it? How important to you is the link between the art of cinema and the physical place it occupies (in a certain neighbourhood, in a certain social fabric)? A neighborhood movie theater is like a haunted house. It is a collective memory impacted by its neighborhood, its residents, its spectators, its moviegoers, its speakers and its editorial line of programming. But for the Home Cinema association, which currently occupies the La Clef cinema, it is also memories and highlights that make it live, perhaps, its most beautiful and intense moments, be they emotional or political. I think that there are hardly any local cinemas left, and that's a shame. One of the ambitions of this occupation would be unconsciously, I think, to recreate a neighbourhood cinema, but one that is well established in its time. A particular time that would contradict the fashion for series that we watch at home, a phenomenon that most certainly stems from this increasingly safe policy of "staying at home" for our own good. What does it bring, for example, for a person who has never experienced cinema in this way, to meet the artists behind a work, through a physical and human link that goes beyond the screen? Better apprehend the creative act and how the object of this act, very often, exceeds its author and transforms him into a recipient like us! In this way, we desacralize the author to perceive him rather as a smuggler, an intermediary. Perhaps we should perceive the author as a sleepwalker whose creation has been carried out in a second state and not as a demiurge who has the perfect and selfish mastery of it. No more room for the unexpected, the unpredictable, the essay, the sketch. I really like what Félicien Rops says on this subject: "[a mania] is to believe that the things on which you work the most are the best things. What a mistake! Apart from books on philosophy and meditation, the most beautiful works of art in the world have been "taken away" in speed, in the flight of inspiration. And live the faults above all! The defects in art is Life, it is the vibration, it is you, given, without the cooling and useless retouching and correction at work. ? What is your conception of cinema? I don't have one, or more precisely it's the vision of the films that make it up and my own self-productions that experiment with a conception of cinema that is necessarily unfinished. This is both frustrating and exciting. That doesn't prevent me from having films, directors and genres I like. What drives you to the creative act? Where there is lack, absence, out of scope, void to be filled or injustice (under-representation), but also an overflow to notify or frame in order to better evacuate it. What is your story, where does your attachment to the La Clef cinema comes from, why do you fight to keep it alive? As a cinephile, I've seen some iconic films there for my cinephilia. As a director, I screened most of my self-productions, from short to feature films, from documentary essays to experimental fiction, before working there for 3 years, part-time as a debate moderator, receptionist and co-programmer of a monthly film club ("Les Rendez-vous de la mort joyeuse" with Sébastien Liatard). What role can "cinéma associatif" (independent cinema) play as a complement to mainstream cinema? The role could be decisive and emblematic to encourage the young and lively forces of French cinema: to allow them to really exist! To teach them that they have the right to make mistakes and that mistakes are not fatal, but enriching and promising. To encourage the spirit of discovery and audacity... these are the riches of young people that every society is increasingly depriving itself of through its conservative and comfortable Culture. In a sense, it reminds us of the spirit of the Kino alternative movement, "Doing good with nothing, doing better with little, but doing it now. ", by this importance of having the means to really exist. How important is an emblematic image of counter-culture action to move forward, to federate around oneself, to show the way, in the face of the comfort of the "stay at home" culture? Disturbing and disrupting our lives is the antidote to any projection or deadly identification on our part in the Internet or television reflections of extraordinary, moral or amoral serial characters. We are increasingly prone to mythomania and a life by proxy, by default, which, moreover, is increasingly easy to control. The best of fonts and censorship is ourselves. Let us remember Hölderlin's words: "Madmen, poets and criminals have one and the same mission: to provide society with a minimum of insecurity. " Let us be fools, poets and criminals. I think that our society is in great need of them and, unfortunately, it seems to be increasingly true what Paul Schrader and James Toback said in Jean-Baptiste Thoret's film, We Blew It, which we put up on our billboards at the entrance to the cinema: "The moment a society turns to artists for answers, art becomes great. Art flourished because the public needed it. (…). I think we're seeing a general collapse in artistic and cultural matters. We live in a technocratic, business-oriented era. ? Is it nowadays an act of resistance to live cinema this way? Our occupation is an act of resistance which is, I think, much more a matter of our critical instinct than a ready-made thought to be put into practice. It is also an act of resistance born through a physical reflex that rebels against the bliss of doing nothing, the pedantic and haughty cynicism of saying "that's the way it is". Our victory is the action, the present and the symbolic force of these last proven parameters. I like to defend to the end the films, namely their moral vision, which we tend to praise verbally and in writing only, without adapting their moral precepts to our daily life when the opportunity arises, to test their necessary (even drastic) radicality for a better world. Does the work of art have to make you burst through its spectator into everyday life? Is it like a reminder of immediate reality, of what is possible? Just fight on your own level against anything unjust that hurts others. Films can be good reflexive guides to help us live better, whether we are dealing with moral dilemmas, the decisive choices that characters must make, or scary situations in which it is hard to get back on our feet. They can even become therapeutic fetishes... as much as good books or some popular songs that bring people together! One must transform one's cinephilia as much as the creative act as a bulwark or rampart of images in the face of all the surrounding voracious real estate, media and political speculation. It may be a vain and absurd fight that we are waging, but the paradoxically sublime dimension of it is so far removed from the pride and lack of imagination (and imagination) of our enemies that it becomes formidable. What advice would you give to others to fight in the same way you did at La Clef, to save, to bring cultural places to life? Put your ideals into practice as long as nothing, but really nothing, contradicts or weakens your will or actions. ToI wonder how much money he got paid to have this movie made.
- Writer Top Movies Online
- Info: Watch movies + download for free! Visit:
コメントをかく