I find it funny that you expect people to know who directed a movie.
Forgive this moment of pretentiousness, but in this day and age of IMDB and BoxOfficeMojo, there is no reason not to know who has directed a movie.
Dude, who cares? Only cineastes track directors for anything but Oscarworthy films. I sort my personal film collection by director, but I don't use director sort on my HTPC when I have friends over.
I find it funny that you expect people to know who directed a movie.
Forgive this moment of pretentiousness, but in this day and age of IMDB and BoxOfficeMojo, there is no reason not to know who has directed a movie.
The easy access to that information doesn't promote it's real value, it only reduces the cost. If the value is 0 or very near 0 to a person, having the cost reduced to 0 or very near 0 doesn't make a meaningful difference.
The Five Year Engagement was funny. It didn't get great reviews, but you really can't go wrong with Jason Segel.
Also, I am fully willing to admit that last night while I was writing, my wife put on the Katy Perry documentary... and it was good. I define "good" for a documentary by whether they can tell a compelling non-fiction story to people who don't give two shits about the subject matter, and that's what happened. It was a really interesting look behind the scenes of a tour, lots of old footage of a person before they were famous, and an angle about super religious parents (they are traveling preachers) and how they handle a daughter who got famous for singing about kissing a member of the same sex.
Katy Perry is awesome. I saw the documentary the other day, too. I ignored her when she was first famous because I pretty much ignore all pop music. But then I saw the Last Friday Night music video and "discovered" her awesomeness. If I had been a pop star, I would've been a lot like her, especially the crazy girly outfits.
I watched the second half of The Amazing Spider Man. On a flight. With no sound. While very tired. It seemed like the most redundant movie ever.
It is largely redundant, but its a much better adaptation of the Spider-Man comics than the Sam Raimi movies were if only from a casting perspective, which makes it much better in my eyes.
Looper is a perfect movie for the first 2/3rds, but in that last 3rd it kind of falls apart. I think it takes too dramatic of a change from how the movie is setup to more of sell a message with the film. I understood it and the character change(s), but that's sort of where my suspension of disbelief snapped and I couldn't get back into the movie.
its a much better adaptation of the Spider-Man comics than the Sam Raimi movies
But it's a much worse movie.
Not even. Amazing Spider-Man was so much better because Tobey "Milquetoast" Macguire was a horrible Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield was better as both Peter Parker and the friendly neighbourhood web crawler.
its a much better adaptation of the Spider-Man comics than the Sam Raimi movies
But it's a much worse movie.
Not even. Amazing Spider-Man was so much better because Tobey "Milquetoast" Macguire was a horrible Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield was better as both Peter Parker and the friendly neighbourhood web crawler.
Also, Martin Sheen.
The Amazing Spider-Man had an awful score, laughable drama, terrible writing, and Martin Sheen. Andrew Garfield played a better Spider-Man, sure, but I don't think that just because this movie represented the character better than Raimi's version means it's a better movie. Because it ain't.
Is this the first Wes Anderson picture you've ever seen?
its a much better adaptation of the Spider-Man comics than the Sam Raimi movies
But it's a much worse movie.
Not even. Amazing Spider-Man was so much better because Tobey "Milquetoast" Macguire was a horrible Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield was better as both Peter Parker and the friendly neighbourhood web crawler.
Also, Martin Sheen.
The Amazing Spider-Man had an awful score, laughable drama, terrible writing, and Martin Sheen. Andrew Garfield played a better Spider-Man, sure, but I don't think that just because this movie represented the character better than Raimi's version means it's a better movie. Because it ain't.
Found an interesting interpretation of the timeline stuff in Looper. I don't know if you could call this 100% correct, but it's hard to find an explanation that is for time travel movies. This one at least mostly makes sense to me, especially thematically. Thoughts?
From "Justin" in the comments of Cinema Blend (edited for clarity):
"The best argument I've heard is that there are 2 timelines running in a loop.
Timeline A: Young Joe kills his older self, sack on head. Cid has no influence from Joe, so he becomes the Rainmaker due to the terrible relationship with his mother that never heals. Young Joe then grows up, lives in China, marries, etc. You see this in the film. Old Joe then sets himself free as he's being sent back in time, and he goes back of his own accord. Start Timeline B.
Timeline B: You know the rest. Young Joe doesn't kill his older self. The movie unfolds -- until the end, when instead, Young Joe doesn't kill himself. Instead, Old Joe kills Sarah. Cid grows up to become the Rainmaker out of bitterness and loss. Young Joe grows old, not caring what happens anymore. He gets teleported back in time by the Rainmaker, sack on head, gets killed by his younger self. Start Timeline A again.
The key is the end of the movie. Young Joe has a premonition about the loop, as though it's happened before. Thus, he makes a decision to change his fate, and kills himself. He thus changes the timelines, changing the end of Timeline B, and so Timeline A no longer exists. Cid grows up to presumably control his power and be a good person, under the protection of his mother who he now accepts.
The only remaining issue is Old Joe's memory changes. That can be explained with the merging timeline theory. As the Joe from Timeline A starts to change things in Timeline B, his memory begins to shape with this timeline, as the universe begins connecting him to Timeline B's Joe. Thus, the merging memory."
Comments
Also, I am fully willing to admit that last night while I was writing, my wife put on the Katy Perry documentary... and it was good. I define "good" for a documentary by whether they can tell a compelling non-fiction story to people who don't give two shits about the subject matter, and that's what happened. It was a really interesting look behind the scenes of a tour, lots of old footage of a person before they were famous, and an angle about super religious parents (they are traveling preachers) and how they handle a daughter who got famous for singing about kissing a member of the same sex.
At any rate, I'm SO glad that movies like this come along at all. Just a really cool ride.
Also, Martin Sheen.
Cussing awesome movie.
EDIT: How about favorite live-action Wes Anderson film?
"The best argument I've heard is that there are 2 timelines running in a loop.
Timeline A:
Young Joe kills his older self, sack on head. Cid has no influence from Joe, so he becomes the Rainmaker due to the terrible relationship with his mother that never heals. Young Joe then grows up, lives in China, marries, etc. You see this in the film. Old Joe then sets himself free as he's being sent back in time, and he goes back of his own accord. Start Timeline B.
Timeline B:
You know the rest. Young Joe doesn't kill his older self. The movie unfolds -- until the end, when instead, Young Joe doesn't kill himself. Instead, Old Joe kills Sarah. Cid grows up to become the Rainmaker out of bitterness and loss. Young Joe grows old, not caring what happens anymore. He gets teleported back in time by the Rainmaker, sack on head, gets killed by his younger self. Start Timeline A again.
The key is the end of the movie. Young Joe has a premonition about the loop, as though it's happened before. Thus, he makes a decision to change his fate, and kills himself. He thus changes the timelines, changing the end of Timeline B, and so Timeline A no longer exists. Cid grows up to presumably control his power and be a good person, under the protection of his mother who he now accepts.
The only remaining issue is Old Joe's memory changes. That can be explained with the merging timeline theory. As the Joe from Timeline A starts to change things in Timeline B, his memory begins to shape with this timeline, as the universe begins connecting him to Timeline B's Joe. Thus, the merging memory."