IngmarRosengaard

Matt is 100% correct. Pigs stay at home and watch Fox News. Harold and Kumar go to White Castle and The Passion of the Christ were quite popular, as well. Valley of the Dolls and The Bible are also two bestsellers. Oh the irony: uppers, downers, Jesus and white castle. Oy Vey.

It seems that the S16 TV shows get the most horrid transfer to DVD. Grain everywhere.

By far, the best shot film of the year. The story, however, is insultingly hocked to consumers as a horror film when, in fact, what little story there is lacks integrity in both structure and logic. A shallow film that even the truffling pig would turn away from.

In The Notebook, the old woman is Cassavetes' wife, Gina Rowlands. It is true that she did not want the film released with the alternate footage included, but she had no problem with the theatrical version, because, right or wrong, John made the call on it.

Coppola is more the formalist than Polanski, the dreamer. I suppose that Coppola's submissions of Apocalypse Now, The Conversation, The Godfather, parts I and II. He is the only filmmaker to twice take the Palme d'Or. His films are, at times, on the level with Kurosawa, but he will never aspire to the true greatness of Renoir, of Bergman. Polanski was a suprisingly bold young man who made three classic films all in a short period, and lost it. The oscars were a sympathy vote. I loved the film, but I question this onslaught of Holocaust films. I am disgusted by profiteering from the Jewish dead, whether it be by Jew or Gentile. I am not opposed to works of a historical vein that deal with these aspects of the United States Second World War against the Nazi's, but to churn it out again and again, one begins to miss the point, and we are rewarded with a snuff film. I digress. Coppola over Polanski.

Some time ago, I began a thread asking about the specifics of the EYEMO. I've since then purchased one, and I can't beleive how nice the results are. I am a bit dissatisfied with the noise factor, so I too use it for silent shots, then cut it in with room tone. It works great for establishing shots or whatever you can think of. I love S16, but I will never use it again since i've got a taste of 35mm on the cheap. If you can get a way to muzzle the sound and shoot short ends, S16 is totally useless. Well, not totally, but great. With the cost of a blowup, its just cost effective to shoot this way, and, if you can get the camera, then the stock for even 50% of the normal price, you're going to save more than the budget for most S16 films. My last picture was a $61,000 blowup, and, looking at this now, that's $61,000 someone can use to pay the crew, who will work harder if they get something, even 5 or 7 dollars an hour. Money to shoot more, or just expand the concept of a film. We could have made Pi for the price of that damn blowup. Anyway, I have to find some way to get the thing quiet. Any suggestions?

Oh my god, I had no idea. I spoke with him also off and on for a while. Why couldn't Michael Bay go in his place?

We all know that the "right wing conspiracy" is nonsense. There are good and bad, regardless of politics.

Jason, Your post is nonsense.

Probably for the best. Alas, this has fallen into pointlessness.

So the MPAA is the modern equivalent of the Catholic Leauge? Then it is hopeless to even discuss this. If the "Good Book" is what we use to rate films, we truly are lost.

If the American status quo is authoritarian majoritarianism serving religion, then the United States is a theocracy. Freedom of religion is then a moot point, enjoyed by the minority.

Of course it is, mensch. If someone refuses to beleive in basic scientific concepts because it conflicts with their religion, they are of no use to a logical people. They fear sexuality and violence because of (your god's name here), not becuase it is against the evolution of society, or there is an ethical problem. When I took graduate philosophy, I can't defend Sarte by saying: because that's the way it is. I have to construct a proof, based on a thesis. I have to come to a conclusion I can back up. I want to preface the next statements by saying that the U.S has my unwavering respect, as they have rescued more lives from communism and fascism and every other disease than any other country in the modern world. Take, for example, the U.S legislation to ban gay marraige. This is not something that happens in a secular society. Also, having god's name in the pledge; or the ten commandments in a courthouse. These are the logical extension of a theocracy. This is not spite on my part: it's common sense. Otherwise, it's like any other country: some scumbags, some really good, kind and compassionate people. So let's refrain from Jingoism in all quarters, not just mine or yours. And to matt: I don't give a damn if the U.S media is liberal or conservative or moderate. The journalist's job is to report the news. People like to go on and on and on about fox news, when it is clear that people like O'reilly give Commentary, not news. If you want news, watch something else. If a journalist does his or her job, they ask the prudent questions, and avoid getting a rise out of the subject by showing respect. It is fine to ask hard questions, but a real journalist is the definition of political secularism. They do not express their views. The newspapers who do not run ads are, IMHO, comitting intellectual terrorism by enforcing a code of silence around a most basic deprevation of a parent's freedom of choice. The NC-17 is unjust, and is a violation of civil liberties, but, since it is not a public body, they can get away with being brownshirts and repeating, over and over as the case may be: this is not requied. So the MPAA are bastards for depriving parents of their right as legal guardian to choose for the child in their care, and the Newspapers (liberal or conservative) are strolling right along the same alley. As far as Michael Powell, he does practice selective enforcement by fining the hell out of howard stern and not touching Oprah for that show she did which makes stern look like Dan Rather. The comment about Cuba was anti-communism, saying that the ideology does not work, and is censorship, so why you (the presumed conservative) have a problem with that is beyond me. And, as we have danced around before getting to the point: religion is the problem. Both with homophobia, stem-cell research, and censorship. This is the truth, and cannot be washed aside. And, as far as we the people on this board only being satisfied if one agrees with our philosophy, that is just nonsense. People are welcome to post whatever they want. And I hope that they do just that.

Just wanted to give you guys a heads up: I watched The Village a few hours ago, and it is the worse film i've seen all year. Save your money. Terrible ending. --- As we have discovered, it is fine to put a rating on the film for the pleasure of the public, but to prevent an accompanied minor from watching a film is immoral and simply fascist.

The young generations are schmucks? What's new. I perfer Descarte over Nietzsche. Next, we'll be calling each other bruce.

Matt, This is not about left/right politics. That solves nothing and only serves to polarize us.

Please refrain from those kinds of comments. It does no good for anyone.

The MPAA is logically flawed, ergo I have no respect for it or its decree. The question is: what do we find acceptable as artists? And, is it right that some newspapers refuse to run ads for NC-17 films? I cannot see what could possibly be wrong with running the ads? Especially when one sees the film in question reviewed in that specific issue. Of course, the papers that refuse to run those ads are the same who hoot about the latest action film in the following manner: "A rocking, action-packed, smokin' ride that will knock your socks off, dude" Need I say more?

Welcome, Matt. We are attempting to find a political system that would theoretically aid the ratings process. It is clear that Marxism doesn't work. Now, onto the parliamentary system.

That depends on what the definition of is is

Thus far, we have established that: No deference should be paid to religious groups, whether minority or majority. Now, onto sex.

University of Stockholm and National Film School of Denmark. I studied in the same program with Lars Von Trier from '79 to '82. He used to sit through lectures with headphones on. ;)

There is little to be gained by roding down this road, so lets forget about it. I hope to have the last word on this by saying that it is like the difference between antibiotics and snake-oil. If there is a scientific method applied to this issue, we find that there is no conclusive proof that depicted violence or sex inspires such acts in the hearts of children or teenagers, so there is no standard other than a moral standard for banning it. The MPAA is a theocracy. Someone please remind me why the Passion won an R, and A Clockwork Orange received an X? I rest my case.

If the MPAA makes use of the test group model, how are we even to know how intelligent these people are? People can be manipulated quite easily. There should definetly be an I.Q test. I think we're alienating the gentiles, but i'm too cool for shul. B)

The odd thing is, if your cousin were to stroll into Borders and pick up a copy, no one would care how old he was. I wholeheartedly agree that the MPAA has no right to make desicisions for parents. It reeks of moral superiority, and I don't like it one bit. If they told me that I could not bring my little brother to a reading of Nabokov's Lolita, I would have a heart attack. Yes, I am, in fact, a Jew. But I still enjoy Lethal Weapon :P