|
A MIRACLE posted:what do people who live there call it? so many syllables The only thing I ever heard was either "San Francisco" or "the city", if you're in one of the outlying areas. But I've never lived closer than maybe 45 minutes away (not counting traffic). The people I knew who lived near Half Moon Bay called it "the city".
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
A MIRACLE posted:what do people who live there call it? so many syllables "ess eff" if anything but San Fran is a dope nickname because literally no one but Midwestern tourists say that. When San Fransicoers say "no one calls it that", they aren't being defensive; they are being dead serious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
gmq posted:I think the main problem with this season is that Frank didn't have a chance to manipulate and cajole people into doing his bidding. Without that the series loses a lot of its charm. Yeah, the plot just didn't go anywhere fun and crazy this season like previous seasons did. So though I much enjoyed previous seasons, I thought Season 3 was boring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Frisco (gently caress all yall) is big enough that I often hear people talk about the Mission or Sausalito or whatever. That's pretty common in almost every large-ish city I've ever lived in, honestly. Even mid-size cities like Louisville have their own named districts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Frisco is a suburb of Dallas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
dongsbot 9000 posted:"ess eff" if anything but San Fran is a dope nickname because literally no one but Midwestern tourists say that. When San Fransicoers say "no one calls it that", they aren't being defensive; they are being dead serious. Yeah, SF is the one I hear the most, but like LA most people usually refer to specific areas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Yeah, the plot just didn't go anywhere fun and crazy this season like previous seasons did. So though I much enjoyed previous seasons, I thought Season 3 was boring. I thought it had potential for Frank to meet his match in the Russian president, and Congress to collectively realize they'd been played hard, but none of that really went anywhere, at least until I gave up around episode 5. Stamper is great as always, but I just couldn't weather the rest of the show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
red19fire posted:I thought it had potential for Frank to meet his match in the Russian president, and Congress to collectively realize they'd been played hard, but none of that really went anywhere, at least until I gave up around episode 5. Stamper is great as always, but I just couldn't weather the rest of the show. Not-Putin was the best part of the season, but that storyline ended with such a whimper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Is that Steven Soderbergh biopic on Che Guevara any good?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:Is that Steven Soderbergh biopic on Che Guevara any good? extremely
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:Is that Steven Soderbergh biopic on Che Guevara any good?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
david_a posted:Yes! Part 1 is more of a guerrilla war movie with some top-tier urban fighting scenes. It's all bright and optimistic about the future. Part 2 is a lot murkier and colder, both literally in the color pallet and the mess that was the supposed South American revolution. i love how it reinforces this by having part one in 2:35:1 and part two in 1:85:1
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
I thought the second season of house of cards was an improvement over the first. No more Rooney Mara, more interesting stuff for robin wright, Kevin spacey hammier than ever. I'll probably finish season 3 eventually, but it's been super boring so far and I haven't gotten back to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:Is that Steven Soderbergh biopic on Che Guevara any good? It's so good, you mentioning it makes me want to watch it again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
wafflesnsegways posted:I thought the second season of house of cards was an improvement over the first. No more Rooney Mara, more interesting stuff for robin wright, Kevin spacey hammier than ever. Kate Mara, i would have actually cared about the character had she been played by Rooney.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Did people hate Showgirls because it was utterly abhorrent? Because while that is true, I found it to be really enjoyable because of how over the top and weird it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Showgirls is loving great
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Skywalker OG posted:Did people hate Showgirls because it was utterly abhorrent? It's a great drunk movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
it's at least as good as Robocop, probly better than Total Recall. i go back and forth on whether i like it or Basic Instinct more
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it's better than BI but I like it better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Showgirls is loving great Yes. Skywalker OG posted:Did people hate Showgirls because it was utterly abhorrent? I can't remember who it was I was talking about it with on these forums, but one point of misapprehension in particular seems to be that the movie is trying to be erotic and failing. Of course, this is silly. There's really not that much difference between the way sex is depicted in Showgirls and the 'safe sex' scene in The Naked Gun, but nobody makes the observation that just because Priscilla Presley is sexy that the film is failing to communicate this through tone. You can compare Showgirls to just about any 60s sexploitation film and see what it looks like when a film 'fails' to be erotic. The difference is that those old sexploitation films also used comedy, but were just as haphazard in this regard, largely because they were just trying to mitigate feelings of shame that naturally come from engaging in voyeurism. Showgirls is just being effective and honest in communicating how easily exploited sex is, that the act in and of itself can be obviously un-erotic, disgusting, and comic, but we're too used to thinking of it in fantastic, appealing terms. Basically, critics were disappointed that Verhoeven's hyper-real commentary on sex was actually closer to the real thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Those 60's and 70's sex comedies are like the nadir of American filmmaking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Everybody got AIDS and poo poo. How are we supposed to feel about that rape? Kind of a tone-ruiner, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Everybody got AIDS and poo poo. yeah even the film's most ardent defenders admit that that scene's a sore spot. certainly makes the movie harder to recommend and sabotages the fun vibe when watching with friends. but, if i had to mount a defense for it, i'd say it's im keeping with the movie's status as a megabudget exploitation flick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
GORDON posted:The second time some hipster douche tried to correct me when I said it, I started saying it on purpose in their presence as often as I could. I still do. like now. I call it Saint Frank, because this is AMERICA, goddammit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
I was very excited to finally get to see God's Not Dead, but it is loving impossible to sit through. If you can watch that entire film without looking at your phone or doing something else you have an iron constitution. I watched maybe an hour total (which I think is impressive for an unforgivable 112 minute running time), but I was mostly fast forwarding. Worth it all thought to watch Sorbo's strawman in action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Everybody got AIDS and poo poo. My favorite birthday I ever had was gathering a group of friends who had never seen Showgirls before, taking a bunch of acid and then watching the pandemonium break out as Showgirls blew all their goddamn minds. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:How are we supposed to feel about that rape? Kind of a tone-ruiner, IMO. Uncle Boogeyman posted:yeah even the film's most ardent defenders admit that that scene's a sore spot. certainly makes the movie harder to recommend and sabotages the fun vibe when watching with friends. It's cinema of cruelty. At precisely the moment Nomi thinks she's reached the 'top' of the ladder, she learns the extent of the Stardust Casino's depravity. Obviously the rape is shocking, comes out of nowhere, and is weighted with a mean-spirited sadism that even the most catty scenes in the film lacks. But you're leaving out the context. Molly isn't just raped; she goes in place of Nomi. Zack alerts Nomi that Carver is there, Nomi tells Molly. Zack introduces Carver to Nomi, who almost immediately makes an inappropriate advance on Nomi, not even noticing Molly clearly behind her. Nomi introduces Molly, who then splits off with Carver while Zack makes an advance on Nomi. What occurs is a strategic 'pairing off' that could have easily gone another way. It signifies the nadir of an industry predicated on sexual exploitation. Nomi has gained so much only to have gained nothing at all. The men around her can still freely make salacious remarks to her with impunity relative to their wealth and power, and her own wealth and privilege merely means that she is slightly safer from the ultimate imposition of patriarchal oppression. The scene is cruel, but it's ultimately necessary to drive home a point that, again, most actual sexploitation films stop just short of making - These environments of casual objectification, sexual harassment, and de-humanization are not cheeky, flattering, erotic, or refined. They are a vulgar, and systematic displays of patriarchal oppression that are merely 'pimped up' to look more elegant than they actually are. Not knowing how to feel about the scene in the context of Showgirls's rather aloof tone is, in my opinion, a zillion times more preferable to, say, something like the rape scene in Crank, where the event signifies absolutely nothing in terms of the progression of the plot or the character, and is staged for humorous effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
caligulamprey posted:I've got a problem with pussy. that sounds amazing. I'm going to remember that for my next birthday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Is there any way to see a list of stuff that was on your list when it got removed from Netflix? Pretty annoying that I can't find them so I can add them to a wishlist on another site or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
dongsbot 9000 posted:When San Fransicoers say "no one calls it that", they aren't being defensive; they are being dead serious. Plus, my loser cousins from Oakland called it Cali back in the 90s and we laughed at them back then. It stuck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Life Itself, the Roger Ebert documentary, is on Netflix now. It's great and has some hilarious clips of him and Siskel. It's a celebration of his life, but parts of it are pretty painful and made me cry. I really miss that man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Not a perfect fix, but this makes Netflix's web interface slightly less lovely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Not a perfect fix, but this makes Netflix's web interface slightly less lovely. https://vimeo.com/76500637
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Namirsolo posted:Life Itself, the Roger Ebert documentary, is on Netflix now. It's great and has some hilarious clips of him and Siskel. It's a celebration of his life, but parts of it are pretty painful and made me cry. I really miss that man. I found the recollections of his carousing life as an upstart Chicago journalist especially fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
wafflesnsegways posted:I thought the second season of house of cards was an improvement over the first. No more Rooney Mara, more interesting stuff for robin wright, Kevin spacey hammier than ever. My problem with Season 3 is pretty much that it became typical political show (not really a spoiler but ehhh), Frank spent the first two seasons doing evil, manipulative super villain stuff that it was dull to see him dealing with ordinary president issues
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
I just watched Antichrist . drat...what was that all about? Is the final takeaway that humans are evil and nature can bring it out? There are lots of inverted biblical analogies in it, but what does it add up to? Also, it's pretty easy to read as misogynistic, but at the same time thinking it's misogynistic seems too 'easy', like Lars is deliberately courting this sort of response - especially with the hiring of a misogyny consultant. Ah well, time to watch Salo: 120 Days of Sodom next.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Akarshi posted:I just watched Antichrist . drat...what was that all about? Is the final takeaway that humans are evil and nature can bring it out? There are lots of inverted biblical analogies in it, but what does it add up to? Also, it's pretty easy to read as misogynistic, but at the same time thinking it's misogynistic seems too 'easy', like Lars is deliberately courting this sort of response - especially with the hiring of a misogyny consultant. Antichrist is mostly a movie about severe depression. The main character is a woman so her self hatred manifests in extreme misogyny. She is convinced that she is evil to the core. She believes every aspect of herself is irredeemably bad. She is a woman, therefore women are evil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Akarshi posted:I just watched Antichrist . drat...what was that all about? Is the final takeaway that humans are evil and nature can bring it out? There are lots of inverted biblical analogies in it, but what does it add up to? Also, it's pretty easy to read as misogynistic, but at the same time thinking it's misogynistic seems too 'easy', like Lars is deliberately courting this sort of response - especially with the hiring of a misogyny consultant. It's not so much that humans are evil by nature. But, what is 'nature'? According Dafoe's 'Him,' 'nature' is explicitly part of some quasi-new age, therapeutic psychological framework: 'Ah! You're depression is just an irrational but natural response to your feelings of shame and guilt regarding the death of your child! You must confront nature in order to come to terms with this! Then you will be 'free' of your irrational emotions!' Within this framework, 'nature' is this inherently self-contradicting artifice that serves a post-hoc rationalization of what Gainsbourg's 'Her' should be - i.e., sexually submissive, loving to her child, emotionally volatile and requiring the strict attention of paternalistic authority, etc. You see these themes expanded upon (and, I think, in a superior way) in Nymphomaniac and Melancholia. The twist is that 'Her' doesn't need therapy. She really didn't love her child. She really wasn't happy with her marriage. Everything that 'Him' believed was a lie. The horror of it comes from the fact that Von Trier proposes that this construct of 'nature' that 'Him' imposes is no less misogynistic than the one that just assumes that women are naturally diabolical, the antithesis of the divine Adam. This is represented via 'Him' watching the procession of ghostly women fleeing Eden after 'Her' - the Antichrist of the title - sacrifices herself such that their 'sins' are forgiven and their souls are liberated from this patriarchal artifice. It's inverted Christ-imagery that makes Lylith into the Christ figure, assuming a deliberately diabolical form to counter the patriarchal God who is just as diabolical because he has damned scores of innocent women. So... thanks for making me want to watch Antichrist again!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Medullah posted:My problem with Season 3 is pretty much that it became typical political show (not really a spoiler but ehhh), Frank spent the first two seasons doing evil, manipulative super villain stuff that it was dull to see him dealing with ordinary president issues Yeah, exactly. Who wants to watch him actually govern? Plus, there are a million shows and movies about presidents. The earlier seasons about slimy back room congressional politics was a little more novel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:17
|
|