godthedog

in the last week or so, i've accumulated: punch-drunk love the quiet american 25th hour the godfather collection fargo the ultimate ric flair collection

hey, laura kightlinger and sarah silverman do not suck.

it wasn't the hair-and-makeup look, it was the ridiculous overacting: the voice, the mannerisms, the body language. in the 70s, pacino was michael corleone, and everything was internalized and toned down. perfect example is the scene in part I when he's talking to carlo: "only don't tell me you're innocent. because it insults my intelligence, and makes me very angry." the way he plays it is supremely restrained, and that kind of restraint defined michael corleone as a character throughout the first two movies. pacino shows none of that restraint in part III: it's pacino playing pacino. that's what i meant by "does not look like he's playing the same person in any way." and as i said before, i wasn't arguing for it as one of the worst movies ever, but it's still a piece of shit and i hate it.

it was a total bastardization of the first two films. there was absolutely NO continuity of connie's character from the first 2 to the 3rd; michael's change of heart felt completely forced; and don't get me started on how pacino degenerated from being a master of subtlety into a total ham, he does not look like he's playing the same person in any way. everything fascinating about him from the first two movies was gone. speaking of lacking subtlety, there's the initial confrontation scene between pacino and diane keaton, where everybody says exactly what's on their minds with elevated dialogue and loud voices. it's clunky, failed melodrama and it's painful to watch. the whole look of the movie was all off: it didn't look like a 'godfather' film, it looked like any other film shot in 1990. why was everything so bright and crisp and boring? where were the dark browns? where were the shadows around everyone's eyes? and there's also the presence of sofia coppola. to shit on a series of movies known for such great ensemble acting with someone who was that horrible is unforgivable.

you speak blasphemy. i wish you away into the cornfield.

you've led a very sheltered life. i think the most painful movie experience i've ever had was watching 'the godfather part III'. i'm not going to try to argue for that as the worst movie ever, but there is no single movie i hate more than that blasphemous piece of shit. and 'bringing out the dead' was cool.

i was a huge fan back in the day, but looking back on it, the show was very hit-or-miss. some of their stuff was hysterical, but they relied way too much on recurring characters (often long after the joke stopped being funny), & i'll sometimes watch entire episodes now without laughing once. 'the state' and 'upright citizens brigade' smoke this show.

small talk. i abhor it.

dude, i know it's your schtick and all, but something like every third post you've had in this thread has been some variation of "NO!" we get it already.

I have never heard anyone EVER call Dylan one of the greatest singers of all-time...EVER. As for his songwriting abilities, his use of the English language is about as close to poetry set to music you will get in the last 50 years. Add to the fact that he was protesting the Vietnam War long before any other popular artist. Also add that he did not directly affect Sgt. Pepper. He directly affected the Beatles during the recording of Help! and Rubber Soul. Brian Wilson was so affected by Rubber Soul, and to a lesser extent Revolver, that he created Pet Sounds, which in turn, influenced Sgt. Pepper. but he has been called the greatest singer/songwriter. that doesn't mean best singer and best songwriter, it's a separate category unto itself. about dylan's singing abilities: technically he was not a good singer, but he was an amazing performer. he could take a bad voice and a so-so guitar-playing skill, and somehow put them together into something that sounded beautiful. and it wasn't the songwriting that did all the work. his royal albert hall version of "it's all over now, baby blue" is just heartbreaking. he could captivate his whole audience into silence with just his guitar, his voice & his harmonica, through the entirety of songs that would go on for ten minutes, without getting boring. there's not a whole lot of people who can claim to be able to do that.

kurt should take a cue from his hero and start learning those little ways of softening the bumps while still making them look painful. he should also learn that whole "fewer bumps that mean more" concept.

i'm happy that kobashi was number 1. i have no rational argument for this, as i haven't even seen a single match of his since 1998. but i still like it.

^ i am so spanking it to that post after my mom goes to bed tonight.

radiohead - "street spirit (fade out)" the who - "magic bus" bjork - "pagan poetry" rolling stones - "turd on the run" rolling stones - "sister morphine"

why is Paul McCartney not number 2 then? Touche. I REALLY don't get all of the Beatle's love that floats around. Everyone creams their pants over them, but they just strike me as the first boyband. And, stolen from the thread about Dylan's influence, Bob Dylan got the Beatles to start smoking pot, directly influencing their music, rendering him more important. Without Dylan, the Beatles wouldn't have become what they became. And Tori Amos? What the fuck? Writing bad poetry and warbling at a piano is consideration for being important now? Where's Graham Parsons? Where's Elton John? the comment i made about dylan getting them to smoke pot was a joke. i mean, if that actually held up as an argument, then the guy who got bob dylan to smoke would be the most important ever; because he didn't just get dylan to start smoking pot, he also indirectly got the beatles to start smoking it. and everyone creams over the beatles because although dylan may have done it first, they did it better. on just about any "greatest rock/pop albums" list you can find, there's almost never less than three beatles albums in the top ten, and that's not a coincidence; nor is it just a circular case of "oh, the beatles are the greatest group ever, so we have to give them the most spots". solid arguments can be made for 'sgt pepper', 'revolver', 'rubber soul', the white album & 'abbey road'. dylan never had the patience to really sit down & hone an album down to perfection, his muse just didn't work like that (i've heard stories that for much of 'blonde on blonde', he'd show up in the studio with a fresh song & record it as quickly as possible with the band, then the band would take a break while he wrote the next song, & the process would continue). as a result, dylan's cannon is filled to the brim with important albums ('another side...', 'highway 61', 'john wesley harding', lots of others), but isn't consistent enough to have as many "ten greatest records EVER" albums. i'd put 'blood on the tracks' up there, but in my opinion there's too many better albums out there to fit more of his stuff in.

i don't see any evidence for this. every guitar player not in a punk band points to hendrix as an influence, but i can't think of anyone significant who's said "i wouldn't write songs today if it weren't for paul simon." and three albums of greatness were more than enough to cement his status. 'electric ladyland' by itself contains more mind-blowing guitar work & experimentation than most could muster in a career. to say "without any precedent for what they were writing" means "nobody had ever done any of this before." the "i'm going to write moody, acoustic, lyrical songs that actually have something to say" direction was already being explored by dylan. dylan was making music intended to be taken seriously when the beatles were still writing harmless pop songs and filming 'a hard day's night'. "you've got to hide your love away," "nowhere man" and "norwegian wood" are the absolute KEY songs for the change in lennon's direction (and it could be argued that lennon's change in direction is what spurred mccartney's own change in direction); & dylan was clearly doing this kind of stuff before any of those were recorded. the "let's make pop music into a valuable art form" thing that 'sgt pepper' is so often credited with? dylan was already doing that. the "let's change with every album & evolve as artists" thing? dylan was already doing that; by the time the beatles had *started* their major evolution with 'rubber soul', dylan had already changed directions twice: going personal/confessional/funny for 'another side of bob dylan' & gone electric for 'bringing it all back home'. 'rubber soul' is a much better album than either of them, but that's beside the point. the point is that lennon did NOT set the precedent. dylan himself may not have set the precedent, but he sure as hell did it before the beatles did. point taken on the 'pet sounds' argument.

it seems odd to me that a christian movie meant "to inspire" would end with christ's death, and not with the resurrection. i keep thinking it will go like: "hey look, he got betrayed. hey look, he's being mistreated by the soldiers. hey look, his own people want him crucified. hey look, he has to carry his own cross. hey look, he's being crucified. hey look, the movie's over. well shit, that was a downer." from what i've read & seen, this seems to be an exercise in making us understand jesus's pain, rather than some kind of affirmation about how to live one's life. and i think 'the last temptation of christ' already did an admirable job of making us understand his pain. but this is just going on the press & the trailer, so i'm not going to set any judgments in stone about it yet. i will say that i am liking the buzz this movie's getting; when i heard the concept for this i immediately thought it would be too esoteric & no one would want to see it, but it's making people talk, and could turn into a big moneymaker. i hope it does make money (not just because i'm a sick little shit who likes the idea of mel gibson making money off of jesus's crucifixion), because this seems to have been an intensely personal project that was specifically made not to pander to people.

I'm in the minority, but I prefer the Ed Sullivan Beatles, to the Sgt. Pepper Beatles. ... wow.

i think the argument for lennon at the top for most people (and i think most people probably would put lennon at the top of their list) goes something like this: beatles=most important group ever lennon=most talented member of said group, judging from his songwriting contributions & his solo work therefore, lennon=most important person the "oh, people just think he's so great because he's dead" argument does NOT apply to lennon, because: a) he didn't die while he was still peaking, which is essential to the myth of any dead rock star's greatness (see cobain, morrison, hendrix, joplin); if people were only praising him so highly because he's dead, then the people previously mentioned would be praised more highly. the man faded away, he didn't burn out. b) his greatness was already grounded before he was dead. people were singing the praises of "norwegian wood," "strawberry fields forever" and 'sgt pepper' long before he got shot. but there's still problems with the "lennon=most important person" argument, because, although 'plastic ono band' soundly blows away any other solo beatle's work, it's really hard to gauge his importance within the beatles. the beatles' key contributions were their innovations & their songwriting. i don't think it can be argued that lennon was the most innovative of the group, paul came up with just as many new ideas as he did. it's also very debatable that lennon was the better songwriter; for every "julia" or "happiness is a warm gun," there's an "eleanor rigby" or "hey jude." in the end, i think it's more fair to give the #1 nod to dylan, because although he wasn't quite as innovative & his albums aren't as consistently mind-blowing as the beatles, he certainly rivals them in importance & everything he did can pretty much be attritubed to him and him alone. it would be much easier if we were dealing with 100 most important artists in general, & not 100 most important individuals (although it would probably make for a much more boring list). hendrix should easily crack the top ten, probably the top five. putting paul simon above him is blasphemous. i like the inclusion of rick rubin. don't you talk about tito like that. you need to lay off the lofty claims. a statement like this, that what the beatles were doing had NO precedent, is not only almost impossible to prove, it's also just wrong; they weren't making music in a vacuum, & to assume they just fell from the sky without any influence is ridiculous. dylan was the precedent for a lot of what lennon was writing & playing after 64, 'pet sounds' was the precedent for 'sgt pepper', etc.

i used to think this was the greatest match ever... back when i was nine. i got the opportunity to watch it again last summer, and oh my god is it boring and stupid. the stupid "injured leg" thing at the beginning that doesn't go anywhere, the restholds that went on and on (and on, and on)...smartly planned out to look like a good epic match to the layman, but it does not hold up at all.

'translation' will easily be the indie darling that becomes the dark horse in the oscar nominations, i spotted it once the buzz had arrived. the only one to only approach it in popular buzz was 'american splendor', & that one's just too weird for academy tastes. of course, this movie won't actually win anything, except maybe the "best screenplay" consolation prize the dark horses often get, or a "best actor" trophy for murray. and way to go on scarlett being nominated in two different categories. that girl rules the world. and my heart.

her lips in that avatar look kind of scary. like some big, puffy, castrating vagina.

And here it is. ah yes. good stuff, i remember that topic. by far the funniest thing about it was the picture that got posted at the beginning of every reply. i'm still laughing about it as we speak.

how can he show boobies without posting more? and this is the second-worst thread ever.

university of georgia. former home of bill goldberg. i know how jealous that makes all of you, but please try to control yourselves.