Not to mention the guys who made it were basically ripping off/paying homage to Hal Hartley's whole aesthetic (they didn't make much of a secret of it, considering they hired many of his regulars to be in the show).

Dina has that effect on men of a certain age.

Yeah, I don't think there was much original until the late '80s. Don't Just Sit There was one of the earlier ones I remember, along with Out of Control.

Damn, I just inadvertently read Bronson Pinchot's 2009 Random Roles with AV Club and…he does not have nice things to say about the way Denzel acts on set.

I'm not necessarily saying Washington is a prick like Willis, but I do think if you're a veteran movie star and a director yourself, you might like working with someone who gets what you do rather than working with a new filmmaker who may or may not be out of his depth every time out. He just might not be as ambitious…

It had its moments, and probably could have been something special if they'd taken a little more time with the writing.

Winding Refn was supposed to make one with Gosling, I know that.

Jurassic Park was written later though. Crichton ripped himself off.

That's what makes me wonder if it isn't something like his quote that keeps him out of more interesting projects. He really might not be that interested in working with a Scorsese unless Scorsese can meet his quote. He does theater all the time, so it isn't like he's not getting to flex his artistic muscles. He might…

That's an interesting rumor. I'd always kind of figured Denzel just does what he wants. There's other factors to consider, like Denzel demanding around $20M a picture, not to mention how few dramas in general are made these days. I'm guessing if you want to make a movie with a $20M actor (who also likely has some…

Very true. In both cases, they're men who really only know how to do one thing, which is commit violence and kill people or fuck them up very badly. I think in Cronenberg's film it's more clear that Cronenberg finds violence ugly and not to be viewed as entertainment. I think Scott finds it cathartic—but for some…

I would definitely agree Tony is more consistent. His movies weren't quite as ambitious—he was NEVER going for Oscar gold like Ridley so often is, especially recently—but his films were so engaging and fast paced you didn't once stop to think that maybe this wasn't exactly the most intellectual movie you've ever seen.…

I guess I never thought of it as heroic or not heroic, I just thought of it as a "man on a mission" type movie. In this case, the mission was to save the one and only thing that gave his life meaning, and a completely innocent girl who had been betrayed by her own father. I think Creasy looked at it as his own…

I love this movie. It's very indulgent, but it's really Scott's first movie where he said "fuck it" and did everything he wanted. The crazy use of subtitles, ADD editing style, Linda Ronstadt's "Blue Bayou" continually popping up, etc. I have to disagree with the writer of the piece. If someone kidnapped my daughter…

Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers seems to be the same way, and they also give their workers off (most) holidays.

Trump also isn't nearly religious enough (or at all really).

Dumb and Dumber To made me realize how sad it is when filmmakers fail to understand the basic elements that made their own early work so great.

You may be right, I never noticed that aspect of it. They also seemed to want to add a lot of heart in their movies, maybe to differentiate themselves from their imitators, which is admirable, but probably shouldn't eclipse the actual jokes, which it kinda did and never worked.

Yeah he looked like a practically different person by the time the show started. I remember him being absolutely massive in Cold Mountain, which was a couple of years before Earl.
Also, would a celebrity really do something like Sea Org? I would think they'd keep them clear of that.

Moving right along from Boy Meets World to…SEA ORG, WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH THAT SHIT?