vadasz
vadasz
vadasz

It depends what you mean by “best work,” I guess. In film, perhaps. But before moving to Hollywood, Kazan was a key figure in ‘30s NYC theater, particularly in the formation of the Group Theater. He was also a founder of the Actor’s Studio. Through these endeavors, Kazan and like-minded artists from Lee Strasburg to

SPOILERS for Buffy S6 (if necessary)

S5 also has Buffy sword fighting on the top of a moving bus!

I usually put 5 first, followed by 2 or 3 depending on how “big heart” or “superb plotting/episode structure “ I’m feeling. But I’ve really gotten way into 6 over the past couple years, so today I’d probably go:

I know a lot of people don’t love Buffy S7, but the scene at the end of “Same Time, Same Place” when Buffy and Willow meditate together is pretty wonderful. After all they’d been through - and put each other through - in S6, that they can sit in silence, hold hands, and help each other heal is a testament to the depth

Yes, for sure. I’ve seen her in big(-ish) theater shows and small club shows, and she owns the hell out of whatever space she’s playing in. Definitely belongs on any of those “must see live” lists.

You could just watch S1 of The Fall. It’s a fantastic story on its own and Dornan is indeed really good in it (as is the entire cast), and it’s only about 6 eps (if I recall), so not a huge time commitment.

No worries. I think it’s one of those things that can seem minor, but is actually an important part of the conversation. While Allen’s never been a massive money maker on a blockbuster level, in terms of bang for buck, his films are pretty much money machines (particularly once they hit Europe - I wouldn’t count Wonder

Not to weigh in on Woody-Allen-yay-or-nay, but just to point out that his movies almost always make money - his budgets are low, and actors often work for scale (or not much more) for the opportunity to work with him. He had a string of 3-4 films in the early ‘00s that lost money, but otherwise, his money making,

I really liked the first one, and my wee kiddo loved it, but it was awfully white for a film set in 2017 London. Does 2 do any better at recognizing, or at least nodding toward, the real world?

Sure, agreed to a certain extent. I know action movies always have battles/fights against faceless hordes. Those kinds of fights usually serve all kinds of functions - to show us what the heroes are up against, to teach the heroes a lesson, separate the heroes, etc. But there are also set pieces - and SW generally

It’s a good point, but mightn’t there be a strange paradox at the heart of it. Seems like the indie-darling directors would be the perfect candidates to reinvest the action with some soul. Lucas was pretty much a ‘70s version of an indie darling when he made the first SW, after all (and he had Marcia!).

I like the movie all right - there are parts I adore. And I don’t mean to be a internet contrarian . . . but that fight scene really falls flat for me. I know I’m alone on this, but to me it’s an example of part of the problems the new trilogy is grappling with. It’s beautiful, and well choreographed, and when it

I don’t know if the cuts are meant to make sense so much as to evoke a certain vibe. I really dig it (which might be in part because I’ve only really recently discovered this band and have been falling in love with them since late last year).

I’m no computer/code expert, so this may be WAY wrong. But it has to do with the verification of bitcoin transactions. To keep the currency sound and intact, there has to be a system of verification that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that each bit coin (or fraction of a bit coin) that’s spent, is spent only once.

Well, against my better judgment . . . it would be nice if everything were simply a case of “right” or “wrong,” but the world doesn’t work that way (as you probably know). I’d recommend you read up on institutional and systemic racism and sexism, both in general and as they work in Hollywood - there is a wealth of

You can’t simply isolate cases where race and gender are involved, as if they are somehow separate from a broader understanding of how race and gender work in Hollywood (well, seemingly you can). It’s not like, with Mo’Nique, all of a sudden the 100+ years of discriminatory behavior in Hollywood just up and go away,

It didn’t, actually. I was simply asking you to reconsider how you classified your comparisons in terms of determining if race/gender might have anything to do with the pay disparity. I’m more than willing to concede that popularity might have something to do with it as well. But given Hollywood’s well-documented

You might be right, I wouldn’t know, actually (I know very little about Mo’Nique). But it’s really secondary to the point I was trying to make about the comparisons. Anyway . . .

Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that such films should or shouldn’t win awards. Just that, at times, Hollywood has been willing to recognize less middle-of-the-road fare than it seems to do these days, and that those shifting definitions of quality are driven by politics. For example, I can’t imagine a film like The