Have you watched any good movies lately?

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by freebeard

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/what-is...ews-18041.html

Toms Guide suggests Prime is a general package of services with a video option that acts as a portal to other paid services. p-a-y-w-a-l-l.

I did get to binge watch The Wire at my son's house. Was it like that? If we're straying off movies that have [shone/shown] in theaters, how about Irving Finkel at the Royal Institution. He read (in cuneiform) that Noah's Ark was a big ol' coracle, so he went out and built one!

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...rk+before+noah

A mash-up of historical revision and maker videos. He's quite the character.

My Ma pays the Prime fees and basically makes it all back with the sheer volume of crap she orders. We get the benefit of Prime video on her account! My Pa uses it sometimes, my Ma basically not at all.

I have never watched The Wire, so I can’t comment.

I’ll hit up Finkel when I’m back in the mood for history. Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History series on WWI has basically satisfied me on history for basically a few years. He’s so good, that he did more on audio than a video doc could ever do (though IIRC it was 16 hours or so, perfect for a truck driver). If we can include podcasts here, his telling of WWI is off-the-charts amazing, I won’t even waste words trying to describe it as words are too cheap.

That said, I think that’s right up my alley, someone curious making something cool.

[redpoint5]

Aw man, just when I was about to forget how Carlin had left us hanging, for what feels like years, with no new content. Oh well, listening to WWI again should suffice. I first came across his podcast sharing 1 earbud with a friend on a train coming back from Machu Picchu. It was then that I discovered Carlin as a master story teller, and Churchill as my favorite recent historic figure.

...and I just now looked and found a "new" episode from January. Woohoo!

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Back when the thread was shiny and new, the competition was between Captain Marvel and Alita:Battle Angel. Have you seen both so you can make a comparison?

Just watched Alita in 3D (Google Daydream) last night. Very entertaining. I tend to agree with IMDB ratings almost exactly, and in this respect I think it was rated appropriately at 7.4. Maybe I'd have given it a 7.6. A movie needs to be around a 7 for me to consider it "good", and usually anything less I would consider "ok", and below 6.5 would be "bad".

While I enjoyed the movie, I kept thinking that I'd rather be reading this story because it was rushed, and needed more time to develop the backstory and characters, but it did a good job with the time allotted. That, and I find imagination to be more rich than CGI for rendering a world.

Everything was predictable, which is fine because a movie doesn't need to be surprising. There was one scene which was absurd to me... if you're recruiting help to fight, and you can single handedly defeat all of the help you're trying to recruit at once, then you don't need to recruit help.

It has a theme I like a lot though, and it reminds me of one of my favorite movies, High Noon. That theme is confronting evil even if you've failed to get anyone else to join you, and even when the probability is defeat. That's the very definition of hero.

Some of the acting and dialogue was weak, but then I think it would be extremely challenging to nail that in CGI.

The movie was miles ahead of Captain Marvel. I don't even remember anything about that movie even though it was just a couple months ago. Girl fell to Earth and there was some fighting. That, and the predictable confrontation setup in the opening scenes of the movie.

Alita is worth watching, and High Noon is worth rewatching.

[All Darc]

About Top Gun new movie (Maverick)

The original actres. Kelly Mcgillis, said it's too old and fat to be on the cast.

Well, that's true... Can you imagine she as she look today as the girl of Maverick ? I honestly can't imagine.
I'm not against people who date older and fat women, and I'm against prejudice against such couples. But the true it's just that : Noone would like to see a movie like that, not a action adventure movie Hollywood style movie.
That would be a thematic for a european movie, maybe even a interesting movie, but Hollywood it's not like that and the actresses who got rich in Hollywood made use of such Hollywood politic when it's favorable to their sex appeal.

Anyway I will not watch, since I can't stand looking to this crap digital homevideo technology of today, like LED screen with a dozen side effects and the crap video compression from streaming or SAT system or even Blu Ray. Cinema theater I don't like to go.
Waiting a decent TV be created and a decent video system without artifacts be created. For the time being I just quit to watch TV and watch films on TV. Video compression artefacts and LCD/LED distortion hurt my eyes for entertainment. I can work with a LCD TV monitor, but I can't stand looking on it for entertainment. At least not in full screen.

[Xist]

Someone posted a picture of an attractive actress and someone asked what happened to her career.

Someone responded "She turned thirty-five."

I would think there would be enough people over thirty-five that would still find them attractive.

Millennials may think that is old, but they don't know anything!

Dang whipper-snappers!

[All Darc]

kelly Mcgillis is 62

[Xist]

I am sure there are eighty-year-olds that would happily watch her, but not in her current form.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Xist

Someone posted a picture of an attractive actress and someone asked what happened to her career.

Someone responded "She turned thirty-five."

I would think there would be enough people over thirty-five that would still find them attractive.

Millennials may think that is old, but they don't know anything!

Dang whipper-snappers!

Julianne Moore held up well over the years. Sigourney Weaver was oldish way back when Ghostbusters was shot, and yet she's been pretty BA over the years.

I've always thought childrearing was backwards, with the most fertile and healthy age to have children during the poorest and least wise time of life. Nature decided it's better to have children while you're still alive and healthy though, so I guess she knows best.

Most of the women I'm around these days are in their early 30s, and they make comments about how girls in their early 20s don't even appreciate their youthful bodies.

BTW- in medical terms, a pregnancy at 35 or over is considered "geriatric". The chance of basically all problems increase by orders of magnitude around that age. There's a reason 25 looks better than 35, and it isn't superficial.

[Xist]

This information is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_maternal_age



I added the red line from data provided on that page.

[All Darc]

Make-up, filters, photography technics... Don't trut Hollywood.

Nature made people stupid and ugly , and if they thought a lot they would not reproduce very much. That's why the fertility pinpoint it's during the most stupid age of most people.

A lot of people who get kids early (accident or early marriage) regrets, but they dar to tell the kids.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I've always thought childrearing was backwards, with the most fertile and healthy age to have children during the poorest and least wise time of life. Nature decided it's better to have children while you're still alive and healthy though, so I guess she knows best.

Most of the women I'm around these days are in their early 30s, and they make comments about how girls in their early 20s don't even appreciate their youthful bodies.

BTW- in medical terms, a pregnancy at 35 or over is considered "geriatric". The chance of basically all problems increase by orders of magnitude around that age. There's a reason 25 looks better than 35, and it isn't superficial.