Jump to content

Michael Todd

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Michael Todd's Achievements


Member (5/5)

  1. Michael Todd

    Name That Film

    I don't have my Video Hound guide handy, but if you go to the back of it, it will list movies by categories. So, one could look at Christmas or Holiday movies, and see if any of the names pop out at you.
  2. Regardless of where in the British Empire they are from, Daniel Day-Lewis and Eric Bana have taken American jobs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh5pqt1sM8w
  3. It may be equally snobbish, but there is not a force or person behind Harry Potter; in Narnia, one has Aslan. Also, the thought about artistic talent is good. I will have to play around with it in my mind. Hitler was rejected from art school, and became the leader of a party which was rabidly obsessed with pure race. Voldemort was accepted into his art school, and became the leader of a group which was rabidly obsessed with pure blood.
  4. Peter, why must you throw a wet blanket on my head, while you kick sand on my postmodern philosophical toys? ::bicycle::
  5. I watched The Dawn Treader last night. I'm thinking of watching The Fighter today.
  6. Long ago, I read a book on Postmodernism, which contended that in the United States, we're given false dichotomies, to make it seem like we're making a choice, like Coke or Pepsi, but in reality, both products are virtually the same. Since then, I've noticed how one is often presented a false choice between two nearly identical recording artists, and more commonly, in films, there are often two films released within the same year, often about the same subject. I remember these instances in the late-90s, when I managed a video store, but Dante's Peak and Volcano were released in the same year; likewise, Deep Impact and Armageddon. I have more recent examples which are not coming to the forefront of my mind, but I do see the release of Spielberg's Lincoln and Burton's Lincoln as what I may call the most disparate, yet peculiarly weird example of this false dichotomy. One can choose between a serious film about Lincoln, who will be played by a tall British actor, or one can choose a trivial film about Lincoln, who will be played by a tall British actor.
  7. No offense to Rowling, but magic is never explained to my satisfaction in any of the Harry Potter books. There is no meta-narrative for the existence of magic. Magic exists, and some are able to harness it; whereas others, like Squibs and Muggles are not. There is no rhyme or reason to it. It is not like one can predict whether one will have magical or muggle children by doing Punnett squares. I don't think it is like electricity at all. Electricity exists regardless of whether someone knows how to use it or not; and once discovered, it can be taught to all comers. Electricity is a meritocracy. The magic of Rowling's world must be mastered by the elect who seemingly possessed it before they exited the womb. The magic of Rowling's world is an oligarchy of the elect. Voldemort makes total sense to me. Rowling's world is snobbish, so its villain should be the ultimate snob.
  8. Alright, so, does anyone mind telling me what I am missing about this film. I still do not get what it is about the film that so many find disturbing. I am a political progressive, and I do not agree with Fischer or Engle's views on abortion, but is the politics what people find so disturbing, or is it something else? I thought the film was heavy-handed, and I was not impressed with it as an objective presentation of American Charismatics. It blurs and confuses the distinctions between Pentecostalism and Evangelicals, and though the filmmakers never comment in word, their camera work is evidently biased against Fischer's ministry. I see its value as a piece of anti-Charismatic movement propaganda, on the same level as a movie like Marjoe, but is that what people find so disturbing - children being involved in Pentecostalism? I can't get anyone to give me a clear answer as to why it is so shocking. Also, maybe I am desensitized because I was raised UPC.
  9. Do you really think this title is witty? I've seen exceedingly more creativity in porn parody titles. Also, if one is impressed with this title, just think of the pun they could make if they ever work in an Oedipus spin on the family name.
  10. I'm with Jeffrey. I think it would have been more likely to see Laurence Olivier work with Roger Corman than to see Day-Lewis work with Ritchie.
  11. Michael Todd

    Toy Story 3

    Who knows if this is too off topic, but regarding thoughts about the opening sequence, one of the comparisons that popped into my head, was not Calvin & Hobbes, but some recent ads put out by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which are a blend of Stage Coach Westerns, Lost in Space Sci-Fi, and Pirates of the Caribbean. There is a third ad which features a father and daughter on a strange alien planet, but I can only insert two per post, so for any who are interested, here's the link: http://tiny.cc/jb2or
  12. Regarding the whitewashing issues, it was the first thing to come to my mind when I watched the trailer, "Gyllenhaal playing a Persian? Where is Paul Mooney when you need him?"
  13. So, what's up with the History Channel? That channel seems to plug films from time to time, like Angels and Demons or Kingdom of Heaven, and this past weekend I had the channel on, while it spent three hours promoting this film, with its typical pseudo-history, interspersed with interviews with Crowe and various other cast members. After watching both, I am inclined to say that I liked the History Channel programming better, but neither were very cheery. Alas, I'm a sucker. If it had not been for the History Channel, there is no way I would have spent $10 on a film which got less than 45 percent positive reviews on RT.
  • Create New...