|
FrankeeFrankFrank posted:Is Thin Red Line the war movie? I think I liked that... never heard of the others and have no wish to. Badlands is a cool movie and unlike Tree of Life has a very coherent narrative driving the meditation on life aspects on the film, so you can enjoy it on both levels. You should give it a shot. I like Tree of Life a lot and I don't think familiarity with Malik's work is in any way a prerequisite, though it does give you a better idea of what to expect. Tree of Life really treads a fine line, and personally I found the dino segments worthless despite loving the rest of the film, so I can see why others might feel that way about the film as a whole.
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
FrankeeFrankFrank posted:You know what is a good movie, The Godfather. That is a great story told in an interesting and entertaining way. When someone gets shot in the head I don't have to think about what the director is trying to represent by this. But I'm sure if right in the middle of The Godfather if there was a space scene that last about 10 minutes and then a dinosaur stepped on a another dinosaur and then RIPPED IT'S loving DAGO, GUINEA, WOP, GREASEBALL neck out, and I realized this signified Micheal's turning to the dark side of the family business it would have been much better. Using the topic of The Godfather as a pretense to throw out a bunch of all-caps racial slurs: not cool posting, bro.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:Badlands is a cool movie and unlike Tree of Life has a very coherent narrative driving the meditation on life aspects on the film, so you can enjoy it on both levels. You should give it a shot. I like Tree of Life a lot and I don't think familiarity with Malik's work is in any way a prerequisite, though it does give you a better idea of what to expect. Tree of Life really treads a fine line, and personally I found the dino segments worthless despite loving the rest of the film, so I can see why others might feel that way about the film as a whole. See, I love the dino segment and think the entire beach coda is worthless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
The Tree of Life is "symphonic" cinema - you wouldn't listen to classical trying to detect a cohesive story, even though there are motifs and themes within the music that works on a visceral level. Now I understand why Malick's films are known for going through such an intense editing process since one shot would change the flow. I really enjoyed the film. For the record, I've never dropped acid, but I really like films that stretch this far in cinematic form. It really requires a lot of patience and work from the viewer, which isn't something most films ask for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
FrankeeFrankFrank posted:OK... fair enough... I would need to be on drugs. I don't mean to be narrow minded either. I mean I want to understand why it is "good". That's the opposite of narrow minded isn't it? I'd like to think I'm not narrow minded at all, but the truth is I'm probably not as wide minded as I'd like to be. That's probably true. The basic concept of Tree Of Life is that every person on this planet has a massive catalogue of experiences that mean everything to us and nothing to the universe. It's an exploration of one tiny percentage of one life, demonstrating that even such a relatively vast scope only tells so much, and that's only one person. What shapes you? What are your formative experiences? Malick, I think, is suggesting that contentment in life has to do with understanding and accepting this imbalance and relishing your own experiences. No art or product is greater than your own life. It's also probably wrong to enter Tree Of Life with some expectation of a story because it's more of a meditation on the above themes. Malick is asking you to experience, and through these experiences empathize. It's probably one of the greatest humanist films I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 08:54
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Using the topic of The Godfather as a pretense to throw out a bunch of all-caps racial slurs: not cool posting, bro. You saw right through my plan... I was looking for a way..., any way possible... to post as many racial slurs as possible hoping to offend someone. When I came across the "General Movie Questions" thread I knew if I played my cards just right I would have a chance... so I asked a question about the movie "Tree of Life", knowing someone would have loved that movie and would try to help me understand it. They did... and my trap was sprung. This gave me the perfect opportunity to call a CGI dinosaur a bunch of Italian racial slurs. Take that Italian CGI dinosaurs!  For my next thinly veiled racial insult tirade I hope to insult "Asian cartoon characters" by asking about Disney's Fantasia and then comparing it to "Schindler's List". And I have never been accused of cool posting. FrankeeFrankFrank fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Feb 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
FrankeeFrankFrank posted:And I have never been accused of cool posting. No kidding. No one's accusing you of premeditating anything, but your posting really is terrible. Your initial post sparked some interesting discussion, why would you lower the level of discourse like this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
cloudchamber posted:I really like Malick, especially the dream like, transcendental nature of his post-1990s films, but I have to agree with Sean Penn when it comes to Tree of Life: That is a great article. Sean Penn was IN the movie and even he doesn't know wtf?. How do you possibly go into a film without "preconceptions"? Preconceptions are what make you want to see a film in the first place. If a film doesn't meet your preconceptions that doesn't necessarily make it "bad"..., it's very possible for a person to be pleasantly surprised. "That was great, but not at all what I was expecting". Why didn't theater management warn me about the Star Wars Prequels or The Happening, and things like that? FrankeeFrankFrank fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Feb 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
Shanty posted:No kidding. I apologize for lowering the level of discourse... but look where I'm posting at. I didn't mean to offend anyone, and if someone is offended but what I obviously meant to be a joke, then I apologize for that as well. I had just watched The Godfather so it was fresh in my mind. The day before I had attempted to watch "Tree of Life". It struck me that "Tree of Life" was a "terrible" movie, and that The Godfather is amazing. (just my opinion of course). Now I ran across this thread and "ToL wtf?" jumps into my head, so I ask the question "wtf?". I learn that ToL is more a "work of art" than a "movie". Again these are my own definitions. A film can be a work of art AND a good movie, ala The Godfather, and some films can be great works of art but horrible movies, ala ToL. Again all my opinions and definitions. I can appreciate ToL as a work of art now that I understand it in that way. But as a "movie", a visual means of story telling as entertainment, I think ToL fails miserably. But again that's just me... I don't mean to piss anyone off, I just wanted a better understanding of it and now I have that. So when comparing The Godfather and ToL... ToL takes alot of interpretation and you need to think this is what the artist was trying to represent. That can be art but it isn't entertaining, (again to me). I didn't have to think about what the director meant when Sonny got shot 500 times at the toll both. Maybe my posting is more about the "art" of posting and less about the actual post itself. FrankeeFrankFrank fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Feb 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
FrankeeFrankFrank posted:I didn't have to think about what the director meant when Sonny got shot 500 times at the toll both. Sure you did. Everything that happens in a movie is the director saying, "here's something I'm showing you, think about what it means." A pie to the face is the director wanting you to think about how funny it is; Sonny getting shot is the director wanting you to think about the shocking nature, emotional response, and plot repercussions of the act; and the space sequences in The Tree of Life are the director wanting you to think about the broad, universal themes he's conveying. Movies are simply a series of sequences presented for you to interpret. It's just a matter of how willing you are to invest mental resources into them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
cloudchamber posted:I really like Malick, especially the dream like, transcendental nature of his post-1990s films, but I have to agree with Sean Penn when it comes to Tree of Life: penismightier posted:See, I love the dino segment and think the entire beach coda is worthless. I also really enjoyed the film for most of it, the universe/dino/music part dropped my jaw it was loving amazing. And the story of the kids was interesting for a while but then I began getting creepy vibes from one of the boys and wasn't sure if that was part of the movie or if I was imagining things. And yeah the whole beach part was a big miss for me, I assume they're meeting in 'heaven' or something but missed the part where Sean Penn died to get there. I loved the first half, maybe 2/3rds but by the end I couldn't recommend the entire film to anyone, despite it being mostly great. Hey I also love the Godfather, but want to know a funny thing? That movie is probably considered One Of The Best films ever by a lot of people including me, but when Coppola made it he was pretty much stooping down and just filming the most popular trashy novel of the time, he sold out to get some cash for his company... I think so George Lucas could film Apocalypse Now ahahah but then The Godfather went on to receive critical acclaim and for some reason Lucas went and made Star Wars instead
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
art of spoonbending posted:Hey I also love the Godfather, but want to know a funny thing? That movie is probably considered One Of The Best films ever by a lot of people including me, but when Coppola made it he was pretty much stooping down and just filming the most popular trashy novel of the time, he sold out to get some cash for his company... I think so George Lucas could film Apocalypse Now ahahah but then The Godfather went on to receive critical acclaim and for some reason Lucas went and made Star Wars instead
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
FrankeeFrankFrank posted:I didn't have to think about what the director meant when Sonny got shot 500 times at the toll both. It sounds like you want a movie to just kind of happen in front of you and require no intellectual investment at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
art of spoonbending posted:I also really enjoyed the film for most of it, the universe/dino/music part dropped my jaw it was loving amazing. And the story of the kids was interesting for a while but then I began getting creepy vibes from one of the boys and wasn't sure if that was part of the movie or if I was imagining things. And yeah the whole beach part was a big miss for me, I assume they're meeting in 'heaven' or something but missed the part where Sean Penn died to get there. I loved the first half, maybe 2/3rds but by the end I couldn't recommend the entire film to anyone, despite it being mostly great. Then he lost his mind making Apocalypse Now
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
caiman posted:Sure you did. Everything that happens in a movie is the director saying, "here's something I'm showing you, think about what it means." A pie to the face is the director wanting you to think about how funny it is; Sonny getting shot is the director wanting you to think about the shocking nature, emotional response, and plot repercussions of the act; and the space sequences in The Tree of Life are the director wanting you to think about the broad, universal themes he's conveying. Movies are simply a series of sequences presented for you to interpret. It's just a matter of how willing you are to invest mental resources into them. OK... but a dead gangster, is a dead gangster and it leads to more dead gangsters. A dinosaur stepping on a dinosaur and not eating it is ??? "compassion in a cruel world"??? or it could be a million different things. The Godfather is a "painting" of a moment in history. There are people in this painting that we have feelings for, that we can relate to, that we understand to a point, and therefore understand there actions within this "painting". Tree of Life is an ink blot test.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
FrankeeFrankFrank posted:Tree of Life is an ink blot test. It sounds like you have a very narrow definition of what films are supposed to be, that being "entertainment." I'm not going to put you down for it, but do realize that people on this forum tend to have a much broader definition. Out of curiosity, how old you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
FrankeeFrankFrank posted:OK... but a dead gangster, is a dead gangster and it leads to more dead gangsters. A dinosaur stepping on a dinosaur and not eating it is ??? "compassion in a cruel world"??? or it could be a million different things. Ambiguity, emotional depth, universal concepts wrapped around beautiful images... these are things that interest and entertain me. If they're not you, that's fine. But recognize that it's not a failing of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It sounds like you want a movie to just kind of happen in front of you and require no intellectual investment at all. I'm not against thinking at all. I love mystery movies etc., but they usually have logical steps, some sort of conclusion, a moral, a story that something can be learned from. Maybe I just like "order". A dictionary can be a great tool, but if it isn't in alphabetical order it is pretty much worthless. I know I have a very high level of expectation for all movies. There are very few movies I admit to liking at all. I have a friend who writes and directs and he actually views it as some kind of challenge to recommend to me a movie that I will actually admit to liking. Therefore I get to rip his movies apart for him before, during and after, and he knows I am an honest and harsh critic. He does some weird things too... but I get those because I know him well. Anyway... I'm not trying to hate on anyone else's opinions... I'm just trying to learn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
FrankeeFrankFrank posted:I'm not against thinking at all. I love mystery movies etc., but they usually have logical steps, some sort of conclusion, a moral, a story that something can be learned from. A dictionary that doesn't have words in order isn't a good tool, but it isn't worthless to someone who wants to see what random words might fall under his gaze. I think there is just a question of sensibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
The comparison is ridiculous in any case. A dictionary is a tool used for the categorization, definition and looking up of words and their meanings. It is factual and - relatively - objective. A film is a source of entertainment, reflection and inspiration, and is extremely subjective. I know you bring it up as it relates to order, but I don't think that's the case. There are plenty of 'mainstream' films that play with the narrative structure, such as Memento and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:It sounds like you have a very narrow definition of what films are supposed to be, that being "entertainment." I'm not going to put you down for it, but do realize that people on this forum tend to have a much broader definition. Out of curiosity, how old you? I'm 40. "Films" can be anything. "Movies" imply entertainment to me. Not saying that is right or wrong at all. I know posting in a "movie" thread I'm asking for opposition from "movie people". I'm sure alot of you eat breath and die movies... and again I don't mean that as a negative thing at all. In fact that's why I come here to ask 'dumb questions' to help educate myself. I was really hoping to get an answer about ToL like... "Well in the end you find out it's all a dream." Or "Yea it's hard to watch but if you make it to the end you learn Sean Penn is Jesus." Jeez give me anything because an hour in I had NOTHING, but a bunch of pretty pictures, some whispers and more and more questions about what I was actually watching. It became maddening to me. caiman posted:Ambiguity, emotional depth, universal concepts wrapped around beautiful images... these are things that interest and entertain me. If they're not you, that's fine. But recognize that it's not a failing of the movie. All those things interest and entertain me as well, but not in the way ToL presented them to me. Ambiguity, it had tons of that for sure... way to much for me. Emotional depth?, (take into the consideration I only watched the first hour), what was the emotional depth? Someone died and they were obviously hurt by this but what I think you are calling depth, I saw as whispered thoughts, blurry passing images to maybe convey confusion. I felt no emotional depth because I couldn't relate to the characters at all, because I was never sure what was happening. The mom got bad news via letter. What is it? The dad got bad news via phone. What is it? OK I'm guessing someone died. What a minute, who is Sean Penn? Are we in the future now? What's that light? Is this supposed to be God's voice? Dinosaurs? wtf? I actually watched it the second time with my girlfriend and we talked out loud over the movie trying to understand it and we were constantly disagreeing on things. Like which brother Sean Penn was and which brother died, and are we now in the future, or is this the beginning of the universe? A loving DINOSAUR!!! For some reason the dinosaur scenes always snap me out of any immersion i may have in the film at all. Oh and just to be completely honest I watched Godfather 2 last night with the same girlfriend, and I had a hell of a time explaining to her Vito, Micheal, Sonny, Frado, and Tom and who they were over the two different time periods and then to make things extra difficult "The Don" also confused her. "So Pacino is the Don?" "Well, yes... but in this time period it's Vito." "And Vito is Brando right?" "Well, yes... but in this time period Vito is DiNero." "And the baby is Micheal?" "No the baby is Frado, but he grows up to be kind of dumb so Micheal eventually becomes the Don... Haven't you seen this before?" "Yes, but it was a long time ago and I always get it confused with Scarface." "Those are two TOTALLY different things." "I know." So maybe The Godfather is too confusing to be good as well. EDIT: Need to add one thing... I DO realize me not liking a movie doesn't make it a bad movie... but the fact Sean Penn, an actor in the movie, doesn't "get it". And the fact cinemas had to warn people ahead of time that there would be no refunds. Those seem to be two pretty strong indications that the movie may not be "good" or at the very least greatly misunderstood. Even the worst of the worst of movies never score 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. So there is someone out there that will like anything. Does majority rule? I guess so, and I'm in the minority apparently according to Rotten Tomatoes, so I have to say that it is a good movie that I just don't understand enough to enjoy. That's cool. Also I love reviews like this... "Glibly put, this challenging time-skipping rumination is the big screen equivalent of watching that "Tree" grow." "If I can prevent just one person from watching this, it'll have been worth suffering through it." Because that is exactly how I feel. FrankeeFrankFrank fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Feb 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
csidle posted:The comparison is ridiculous in any case. A dictionary is a tool used for the categorization, definition and looking up of words and their meanings. It is factual and - relatively - objective. A film is a source of entertainment, reflection and inspiration, and is extremely subjective. I know you bring it up as it relates to order, but I don't think that's the case. There are plenty of 'mainstream' films that play with the narrative structure, such as Memento and so forth. Well as the director of that post I meant the "dictionary" to represent dinosaurs and there kindness that can be found within them when they are not hungry, I never intended it to be taken so literally. If you were a more refined uppity poster such as myself you would have found that post very entertaining. BTW I am totally joking and not fighting at all with anyone. The dictionary thing i meant more as in a "the greatest novel ever written can be found in the dictionary, the words are just out of order" kind of way. I will now try to stop defending my myself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
It seems like your definition of quality comes directly from how well you followed the movie on a purely clinical, cerebral level. Which makes your dictionary analogy make sense. It also explains your differentiation between the terms Film and Movie as if they're two different media, something I find preposterous. Movie = understandable = good, film = confusing = bad. It's no wonder you don't like many movies(films).
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
FrankeeFrankFrank posted:Well as the director of that post I meant the "dictionary" to represent dinosaurs and there kindness that can be found within them when they are not hungry, I never intended it to be taken so literally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
csidle posted:I'll say that if you felt it was so boring that you turned it off, I guess it isn't for you. If you've seen the whole thing and still don't understand it, well... Neither did I, completely, but there were parts that resonated with me, and it had a pretty big impact on me. I will very much enjoy returning to the film and interpreting it for myself, and if you were inclined to give it a chance, I would suggest for you to read some interpretations of it before going into it again. That said, it isn't for everyone, so don't hang yourself up on it. I agree with this completely. I know a few people who hated the movie--and I completely understand why someone would--but I personally loved it. There's a quote, and I think it was Stephen King talking about the thick prose in Blood Meridian, that goes "I don't understand all the words to some of my favourite songs either". In my opinion, that works so well with Tree of Life. I know what it's trying to express(and really, I had no problem with a lack of 'story', I thought it had a really interesting story) and I know it's themes even though I'm still not sure what all of the individual scenes represent therein. I know I will enjoy watching it again and enjoying it and getting more insight. FrankeeFrankFrank: The Godfather Parts 1 and 2 are some of my favourite movies, Part 2 may be my favourite. But the things you're menntioning like Sonny being shot not needing to be 'figured out' isn't fair to the movie. You don't need to 'figure out' Brad Pitt playing the organ at church either, it's a thing that happens. What they both express to their respective films are themes and development.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
caiman posted:It seems like your definition of quality comes directly from how well you followed the movie on a purely clinical, cerebral level. Which makes your dictionary analogy make sense. It also explains your differentiation between the terms Film and Movie as if they're two different media, something I find preposterous. Movie = understandable = good, film = confusing = bad. It's no wonder you don't like many movies(films). Well I'm not exactly saying that, or meaning that. Films and movies are the same thing, yes of course. But to me "film" implies something more artistic, "movies" more entertainment. Anyway I don't know why I mentioned that in the first place, or even tried to defend it just now. I have wasted my whole morning trying to understand/defend my dislike for a movie I dislike.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
FrankeeFrankFrank posted:Well I'm not exactly saying that, or meaning that. Films and movies are the same thing, yes of course. But to me "film" implies something more artistic, "movies" more entertainment. Nah, used your morning. I enjoy this kind of discussion. And it beats working.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:"I don't understand all the words to some of my favourite songs either". Dig that quote a lot and I do understand that quote and agree with it. You said You "know what it's trying to express"... I did not and therefore I couldn't even understand it on any level. Did someone die? Why am I looking at space? Why am I looking at water? Dinosaur? wtf? I never got the 'you are supposed to feel small now' "thing". So it was like watching paint dry, just prettier, and didn't add anything to the story because at that point there was no story in my mind. Just "I think someone died."... an hour later I was in the same place, "I think someone died." I'm thinking about selling "Dinosaur? wtf?" T-shirts. Or TREE OF LIFE: I THINK SOMEONE DIED. T-shirts. FrankeeFrankFrank fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Feb 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
caiman posted:Nah, used your morning. I enjoy this kind of discussion. And it beats working. I actually enjoy it also even though you smarty movie people make me feel like the Neanderthal man of moving pictures at times. I'm actually in architecture and music pretty big. At times I get frustrated because in a way i have lost my ability to appreciate a beautiful building or a beautiful beat. I see a building and I immediately break down in my head how it was built and how much it must have cost etc. and I miss it's impact on the skyline. In music i instantly start picking out the individual instruments and have a hard time ever hearing the whole of it. For some reason I can still just sit and watch a good movie and get into it without asking why too much. I'm starting to do it a little as my friend does more and more movies, and sometimes I catch myself saying "How in the hell did they get that shot?" But just entertain me, take me out of reality for a few hours, and don't waste my time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
cloudchamber posted:I really like Malick, especially the dream like, transcendental nature of his post-1990s films, but I have to agree with Sean Penn when it comes to Tree of Life: This isn't the first time that's happened to Malick either. Adrien Brody felt similarly shell-gamed with Thin Red Line. He loved the script and loved his part and just didn't see any of it up on the screen. I've seen a couple Malick movies and have come to the conclusion he's just not for me. I understand what he's doing and how he uses the grammar of film-making to essentially write poetry but I don't like it. I don't like his style, I don't like how he says what he wants to say, and I don't like that drat whispered voiceover that's so prevalent in his stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
but if you whisper it it sounds profound
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Monkeyseesaw posted:This isn't the first time that's happened to Malick either. Adrien Brody felt similarly shell-gamed with Thin Red Line. He loved the script and loved his part and just didn't see any of it up on the screen. That whole story is pretty hilarious as Brody thought he had a lead role in the film but after attending the premiere of the film with his parents found out he had nothing more than a tiny bit role with only a few lines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
cloudchamber posted:That whole story is pretty hilarious as Brody thought he had a lead role in the film but after attending the premiere of the film with his parents found out he had nothing more than a tiny bit role with only a few lines. I guess it points to how Malick works that Brody was indeed cast as the lead, with his story forming the main narrative thrust. But Malick just opened it right up until it gets to be a cavalcade of cameos all talking about how great nature is and how bad war is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:I guess it points to how Malick works that Brody was indeed cast as the lead, with his story forming the main narrative thrust. But Malick just opened it right up until it gets to be a cavalcade of cameos all talking about how great nature is and how bad war is. I'm starting to think The Thin Red Line is not the war movie I saw that I kind of like because that doesn't sound like anything I would like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Mickey Rourke was pissed too at being cut entirely, as I recall. Malick pulls that kinda poo poo a lot, and I love him for it, even though I didn't like The Tree of Life and haven't yet seen The Thin Red Line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
All I want is to see all the parts that were cut from The Thin Red Line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Does any footage or images exist from the deleted scene in Annie Hall where Woody plays against the Knicks?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
I recorded The Protector off of IFC (I figure if I record it, I can at least skip the loving commercials), only to discover that it was a horribly, HORRIBLY dubbed version of the movie. But my question is this: many of the scenes STILL had subtitles included, even though it was dubbed into English; more to the point, most of them didn't really match the things that were being said. I mean, the general sentiment was the same, but the words were different and the diction off. Can someone explain why this is? Who the hell thought the movie needed to be dubbed but also keep its subtitles? Is this just one hosed up version of the movie courtesy of the Weinsteins? (I ended up quitting on the movie, by the way. The dubbing was just too horrible.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
edit: Never mind, got my answer with a little more googling. Ignore this post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
morestuff posted:Does any footage or images exist from the deleted scene in Annie Hall where Woody plays against the Knicks? He apparently has all deleted scenes trashed. Any other materials would have been trashed when the "new" MGM in their vault purge in 1994.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 04:31
|
|