Nick Alexander

Member
  • Content count

    2,060
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nick Alexander

  • Rank
    White Knight

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.nickalexander.com
  • ICQ
    0
  • Skype
    nick.alexander1
  • Twitter
    NickAlexCath

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Connecticut
  • Interests
    Worship Podcast, partial capos, parody songs, great movies

Recent Profile Visitors

999 profile views
  1. The movie's ad campaign doomed it. Nobody wants to see a movie that looks like a PR stunt from that most obnoxious of corporations. Nobody wants to see a movie that appears to glorify the commercialized excesses of all that fast food restaurant franchises represent. It appeared that the movie was to attempt to turn the tide on the restaurant chain since the damage inflicted on them from the one-two-punch of Supersize Me and Fast-Food Nation. Add to that the rise of Trump (not that I want to get political), and it appears to embrace commercialism and capitalism, at a time when this nation is divided upon these concepts. But it's still an EXCELLENT movie. It's done in a way that does not hide his flaws, but still brings about an insightful study of a man who stumbles into a goldmine, in the second half of his life. He loves the idea, he runs with it, and he even makes it better... but this is because a successful idea oftentimes attracts others who also have successful ideas. And the moment he stumbled upon how he could circumvent the contract he made with the brothers, there was no stopping him. It's also insightful in giving us a glimpse of what life was like before the dominance of fast food chains, what we gave up (the good and the bad).
  2. Finally saw it. And I am eternally grateful for the naysayers. Because I came in with lowered expectations, and we **loved** it. It should go without saying that I, too, love movie musicals, but I found Umbrellas of Cherbourg utterly unwatchable. (Sorry Evan). Turned it off in the first ten minutes. We still have the Young Girls at Rochefort in our DVR, from when it played on TCM. Will watch soon. But, yeah, I really thought the movie was daring in how it attempted to resurrect older movie styles, and share that with the audience in the same way with how it referenced Jazz. Nonetheless, I suppose expectations have everything to do with how a movie is referenced. I thought it even better than the hyper-edited Moulin Rouge! with long, extended, smooth steadicam shots that Astaire wouldv'e been envious of.
  3. I really enjoyed this movie. It's a great story. And I don't even like McDonalds.
  4. Overhyped.
  5. Finally catching up with this. It's on Netflix. So far, only watched half of it, up to the beginning of the Last Supper (will watch this on Friday). Peter, I would like that spreadsheet, if you have it. Anyway, I never saw this film, nor the miniseries. So it's kinda hard to put myself in the position of disliking it for rehashing previously done material (didn't David Lynch do the same thing, save for the fact that Mulholland Drive never aired? And since I seem to be the only person on the planet who hates MD, oh well). I think SoG works in small segments. I think they do a marvelous job a story at a time; they really over-directed the whole thing. But it gets a little hard to watch after awhile.
  6. Amazing Grace Black Robe The Agony and the Ecstacy
  7. Christmas was made for the 1940s. My favorites: The Man Who Came to Dinner (1942) Holiday Inn (1942) It's A Wonderful Life (1946) Miracle on 34th Street (1947) The Cheaters (1946) It Happened on Fifth Avenue (1948) Remember the Night (1940) The Shop Around the Corner (1940) Christmas In Connecticut (1944) 1941 (1979)
  8. Wow. I really connected with this movie. It's currently my favorite of the films I've seen for Best Pic (5/8).
  9. If you are honestly associating Godawa's perspective with that of Dr. Ted Baehr, then you are honestly committing a logical fallacy. You are free to have a logically incoherent perspective, though. You know what, I'll stop. I'm sorry.
  10. My conversation is looking at one aspect of an Oscar-nominated film (both pic and adapted screenplay), that may or may not have been the filmmaker's (or original author's) intent, but highlights a value that those right-of-center-on-life-issues (whether or not they are conservative or liberal) find captivating. I'm currently reading "Creativity, Inc." written by one of the executives at Pixar. And in it, he shares the story-writing process of some of their proudest achievements, and how different they all were from their earliest incarnations (including this year's Inside Out). And in the process, he shares that sometimes the story takes a life of its own, and it's the screenwriter's job to find it, no matter where it leads. I can take him at his word that this could be the case for ROOM. That ROOM was crafted so to exhibit no agenda whatsoever, as a lot of the story seems to have be about the psychological aftermath over such an ordeal, and how a little boy responds when his entire conception of the universe is upended. That is an interesting story, and one I'd gladly pay to see. But nonetheless, that doesn't negate Godawa's impressions, nor yours. A story of this nature can touch upon multiple points, and it is simply not honest to diminish the perspective of one who sees in this story aspects of the culture war. That doesn't mean you are a dishonest person, just using dishonest logic. And that logic being, that associating of Godawa's use of prose with that of an organization that would have frowned on Godawa's own R-rated movie.
  11. When you brought up MOVIEGUIDE, when it was unwarranted and not part of the conversation. [Quote:Every time one looks up a MOVIEGUIDE review, which influences a lot of people.] And secondly, when you inject "My conservatism" when I haven't even stated which way I politically lean. Nor have I given an opinion of the film. That is what was dishonest, dude.
  12. I would vehemently agree-to-disagree here. Two individuals can be caustic in their wordings, and entail two different branches of conservative thought, but in no way does that entail that they are in a "similar spirit." Again, this is "Guilty by Association." And I think that this sort of discourse is dishonest.
  13. But it also could be an issue that Godawa is passionate about, and where he honestly saw something that very few critics have spoken up about. And while I have not seen the film yet (I have been very cautious about this--in this case, I'm more about letting him have his pulpit) if he is wrong, correct him within the context of the film itself. To say that it's too politically charged, too divisive in the culture wars, strikes me as dishonest. As for Movieguide: it is a form of conservative thought that *not all conservatives subscribe to*. Not all conservatives have aligned themselves w "Dr" Ted Baehr. One can be a conservative and disagree on a whole host of issues. Please note that the U.S. is undergoing an election cycle, and we are seeing this played out in real time, with all sorts of religious persuasions and approaches being just a fraction of the whole movement. (Same with those religious individuals who lean left). One can be pro-life, but also have no problem with cuss-words and violence in movies. As I see it, to relegate all conservative thought as bowing towards the shrine of Baehr is nothing more than "Guilty by Association." I'm happy to needle your response with Groundhog Day, though. I think that my point stands, mainly, that we are all individuals with a point of view, and sometimes those points of view are going to be politically and/or religiously-charged, even divisive. Nobody bats an eye when Ebert went on one of his tangents, because we expected that of him. We knew that was where he was coming from. I was free to disagree with him when I did, but I wouldn't want to censor him because I disagreed with him. I wouldn't want to relegate his thoughts in the same category as a more extreme left-leaning columnist--that wouldn't be fair to him. The bottom line is that Godawa found an interpretation of a film (of which I cannot agree nor disagree with) that you think should be counted as irrelevant because you believe it addressed something far too divisive. Sometimes there's no going around tough subject matter, agree or disagree. If he's wrong, better to approach this within the context of the story itself, and not because he comes to conclusions that a large percentage of individuals may find offensive.
  14. For that matter, why not remove Groundhog Day from the top list of Most Spiritually Significant comedies, then? Because the late Harold Ramis always seemed to be surprised at its inclusion of such a status by myriad religious groups. How DARE we at A&F FORCE such a film into such an interpretation OUTSIDE THE INTENTIONS OF ITS CREATOR. Art is no longer the domain of the creator, once it is released into the world. A lasting work of art can have multiple interpretations by whatever worldview a viewer has with it. All I'm hearing on this board is that one cannot have a conservative-worldview interpretation of a story, no matter what. Sorry. Not buying it. And I don't pay Movieguide any mind--it is not a conservative worldview that counts the number of cuss-words.
  15. It's not alarming for me, but rather refreshing. How often does one see a political slant that is right-of-center? When the late Roger Ebert or A.O. Scott or Pauline Kael or David Edelstein or Lisa Schwarzbaum--all of them left-of-center--all of whom use their movie criticisms to score political ringshots, do we hold them accountable too? And consider with movies like Knocked Up and Juno being criticized by some critics for having its characters making the hard, conservative choice--of which the filmmakers themselves do not proscribe to--is this not equally fair game? (Noting, had they made the easy choice, they would not have a movie). I've not seen Room yet--wait a few months, I'll get it on Redbox--but I'm very intrigued by Godawa's take.