Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
watch the reader - all you need is the first 15 min - Kate winslet is not hot, nice bum, but her top half is gross - and she doesn't have a pretty face either
@dfetzer: Nuts to our internet-based preconceptions of beauty. Much of what we'd "reject" is probably something many of us would not turn down if offered in person, unless your standards are unrealistic.
Also, the slang term for someone attractive from a distance is "Monet", as people often remarked that Monet's paintings were beautiful from a distance, but were not so beautiful when inspected closer.
Maybe I'm a weirdo, but I don't care who's hot in a movie. Sure, Jessica Alba is hot, but so far the only movie that she stars in that I actually enjoyed was Sin City. I will not subject myself to Craptastic 4 to see her in a skin tight suit. I can Google/ogle that shit when I get home.
@Kaiser-Machead: YES! Cast actresses who can act. I'm really tired of seeing these (admittedly, often beautiful) girls stumbling through roles that they can't handle.
Sadly, the demographic they are often targeting is less concerned with a good movie than with explosions and titties. They are essentially trolling. I loves me some sexiness on the screen, but I won't pay to see a movie with an obviously miscast actress for the sake of sex appeal alone.
@BeautifulAgony: What I don't understand is with 300 million people in the US, how they can't find actresses that are extremely hot and can act very well.
@BeautifulAgony: I guess part of the problem is that movie makers have a hard time believing that they can sell the idea of a guy fawning so much over a girl that, for the most part, may be considered too "ordinary" to the audience, even if the woman is very beautiful. Seems our standards are a bit dichotomous. We generally have no qualms with wanting to have sex with these "ordinary" people, but then we want so much more when it's just an image to look at. Funny how that works.
@Hello Mister Walrus: @Kaiser-Machead: Well, there are some great actresses who are also very sexy, but they probably turn down most of the crappy sex-symbol roles. Also, I think, like you said, Kaiser, we do fuel the fire by fawning over the very sexy ones, in terms of idolizing them. The movies are about fantasy (for the most part) and typically we like to see something that is more than what our own lives are. If that means "unrealistic" expectations of beauty, then I suppose it's to be expected, especially in American culture. And, to be fair, there are plenty of male actors, as well, who are just as bad in this respect.
It's just annoying when an otherwise decent movie is dragged down by a pretty girl (or cute guy) who can't emote to save their lives.
@DeusExMach: But to bring up BeautifulAgony's point, how many movies has she done that are about how hot she is? Technically, maybe one (Havoc, which is absolute shite by the way), though an argument might be made for Princess Diaries (which is a kid/young teen movie). The good hot actresses don't normally take sex symbol roles. The bad hot ones do, because they can't get the good roles.
@Monk E. Rotica: I wouldn't be paying her to talk. Unless it was to all the neighbors and my ex girlfriends about what we did, and lie about how good it was. As for point #2, just dip it in bleach afterwards. Then you're fine.
I remember when I saw Titanic in theaters (shuddup I had my sisters with me), and we got to the scene when Rose came in naked for Jack to sketch, and a little old Puerto Rican dude said "Ah quiero comer el coño". The theater burst out laughing.
@Francisco Olaso Lizano: Oh, I thought that was "panocha(o)". Is it sad I learned more/useful Spanish from the guy who waxed the floors at the supermarket I worked overnights at than in school?
@NotStimulated_GitEmSteveDave: Spanish taught in schools doesn't deal much with the slang that people normally use. It's so academic, people who natively speak Spanish chuckle at our institutionalized school-brewed variety.
@Milton Allemand: Maybe, but she has always been a "clothing optional" actor, so the "search for her [insert derogatory term of choice]" should be short-lived.
@hofodude: It's nothing if you ignore it, nothing if you don't understand what's going on or why. The machinations of the protagonist was not nothing. It basically outlined perfectly why he was doing what he was doing, why the earth looked the way it was, and where all of the people went. You understood how he was behaving differently, and understood that he's been doing that for a very long time. Of course, if you sit with a very cynical mindset watching this type of scifi, you will sit there wanting people to talk, even if it's mindless dreck. That sort of thing is for people with a serious lack of patience and understanding. Of course, like all things, no flavor appeals to everyone.
I'd take a look at some other examples of physical storytelling. But, I gather from this comment that the likes of some more contemporary examples, such as Castaway, would not appeal to you either, since it's just Tom Hanks, walking around, doing stuff...on an island, by himself with a blood-stained ball named Wilson.
While I am happy for Pixar, I doubt this Oscar will seem any more exciting to them than all the others collected over the years. According to the academy the only truly outstanding animated film in the history of animated films was Beauty and the Beast (the only one ever nominated for best picture). Wall-E was picked valedictorian in a class of three. Not saying it is not a great movie -- just saying that it barely hit the radar of the Oscar map.
Pixar finally has some competition for the Oscars in 2010 because 'Coraline' is pretty fucking amazing. Henry Selick is a stop motion animation genius!! I mean, I don't know how the new Pixar movie 'Up!' will be (I will assume it will be great), but Coraline has set the bar high for creative animation and fucked up storytelling via Neil fucking Gaiman.
@theorieofself: While I do not disagree with you, when you stop to consider that, nearly without exception, every movie is based on the same inciting incident, crisis, climax, denouement design - then we consider that Pixar is limited to animation and has an audience of kids, then their options are somewhat limited.
That said, it is interesting that the one movie that completely does not follow the "lost" formula (A Bug's Life) is also widely considered their worst movie. Hopefully they won't make that mistake again.
@theorieofself: When broken down too far, and examined too closely, all screeplays within a given genre tend to exhibit this sort of formulaic consistency. Actions films typically follow the following formula: Loss of Faith, Down in the Dumps, Called Back to Action, Failure to Overcome, Rallying Speech, Another Try, Against All Odds, Triumph and Reward.
The trick of making formula not feel like formula is by creating engaging characters, good dialogue, believable setting (within the realm of the given genre) and course of action that suits the character development.
This is why formulaic movies, such as anything by Will Ferrell, are popular. They are each the same movie (jerk/loser follows his dream against all odds and gets the girl after learning his lesson).
There is nothing inherently wrong with formula... it works for a reason. Genre is based on formula, such as noir, which is about as formulaic as you can get. But when it's good, it's great. To browbeat it into submission is to essentially call all work formulaic and claim that nothing is original or good. This is the realm of college critical discourse.
I ask you, what movies do you consider good and non-formulaic?
@dan6920: Cars is by far the weakest of the PIXAR canon, and it still won Best Picture. The only other fantastic animated feature to come out alongside Cars was Happy Feet.
02/26/09
In mexico is panocha
In salvadoran is cuca or mico
In honduras is torta
I will add more afrer some research does anyone know how is it in portuguese?
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
I'd hit it. That is all.
02/26/09
In addition I've found that a paper bag works wonders.
02/26/09
Also, the slang term for someone attractive from a distance is "Monet", as people often remarked that Monet's paintings were beautiful from a distance, but were not so beautiful when inspected closer.
02/26/09
Oh those pervs at google got it right, "I want to eat pussy"
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
Or not enough of it..
02/26/09
02/26/09
Sadly, the demographic they are often targeting is less concerned with a good movie than with explosions and titties. They are essentially trolling. I loves me some sexiness on the screen, but I won't pay to see a movie with an obviously miscast actress for the sake of sex appeal alone.
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
It's just annoying when an otherwise decent movie is dragged down by a pretty girl (or cute guy) who can't emote to save their lives.
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
Yes but what would you talk about afterward? At least Kate would have something interesting to say.
Besides, I have no interest going anywhere that Brian Austin Green has been before...WITH HIS PENIS.
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
But yeah, that scene was awesome. I need to make an LOLTitanic for that french girl line.
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
/sarcasm
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/23/09
It's nothing, I meant for the first 30 minutes or so ... just nothing. Seeing a robot walk around and around, cripping sounds.
After that just boring old stuffs, no stunning effects, nothing.
It won Oscar???? My God ...
And I don't understand my friend watch it five f*king times!
What's wrong with people???
02/23/09
02/23/09
I'd take a look at some other examples of physical storytelling. But, I gather from this comment that the likes of some more contemporary examples, such as Castaway, would not appeal to you either, since it's just Tom Hanks, walking around, doing stuff...on an island, by himself with a blood-stained ball named Wilson.
02/23/09
02/23/09
- outstanding contribution to the advancement of the use of sound in motion pictures,
- unique achievement in the creation of a new form of visualized music.
[en.wikipedia.org])
02/23/09
02/23/09
Thats not Wall-E's fault, that's the Academy's for saying that Animated films are lesser than live action.
02/23/09
1. Winning best animated film (in a class of three)?
2. Winning some "special" awards (sorry for snubbing you previously, Fantasia)?
3. Nominated for Best Picture (in a class of all the films made that year)?
Call me crazy, but I would take door number 3.
02/23/09
02/23/09
02/23/09
cute character design does not = good movie i.m.o., but congrats to pixar for milking the formula once again!
02/23/09
That said, it is interesting that the one movie that completely does not follow the "lost" formula (A Bug's Life) is also widely considered their worst movie. Hopefully they won't make that mistake again.
02/23/09
The trick of making formula not feel like formula is by creating engaging characters, good dialogue, believable setting (within the realm of the given genre) and course of action that suits the character development.
This is why formulaic movies, such as anything by Will Ferrell, are popular. They are each the same movie (jerk/loser follows his dream against all odds and gets the girl after learning his lesson).
There is nothing inherently wrong with formula... it works for a reason. Genre is based on formula, such as noir, which is about as formulaic as you can get. But when it's good, it's great. To browbeat it into submission is to essentially call all work formulaic and claim that nothing is original or good. This is the realm of college critical discourse.
I ask you, what movies do you consider good and non-formulaic?
02/23/09
02/23/09
02/23/09
You could even get the guy playing pocket pool in the background to make a special guest appearance in the background.
02/23/09
02/23/09
02/23/09