en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/481065 Comments by Eric_Kendall http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/10/08/top-25-greatest-halloween-films-24-the-uninvited-1944/#IDComment103026613 Robert Wise’s “The Haunting” has its moments, but the endless, insufferable voiceover narration really detracts. Fri, 8 Oct 2010 18:00:29 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/10/08/top-25-greatest-halloween-films-24-the-uninvited-1944/#IDComment103026613 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/10/07/top-25-greatest-halloween-films-25-the-blair-witch-project-1999/#IDComment102908368 I definitely agree that “The Shining” should not make the list. The film is overlong and paced far too slowly and erratically to be really effective as a horror film. It has its moments, to be sure. But there are too many long stretches where nothing very interesting happens. Fri, 8 Oct 2010 00:27:17 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/10/07/top-25-greatest-halloween-films-25-the-blair-witch-project-1999/#IDComment102908368 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2010/09/08/death-of-the-movie-star-john-cusack-why-say-anything/#IDComment97673712 Like Pizzagrrl and mrm_in_wmc, I was astonished that there was no mention in the article of Rob Reiner’s “The Sure Thing” (1985), which is perhaps John Cusack’s greatest film. That film, along with “Better Off Dead,” released in that same year, represent the pinnacle of Cusack’s career for me. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to me that he’s appeared in much of anything worth seeing since “Grosse Point Blank” and “Con-Air” in 1997. Mr. Schlichter, I think you’ve treated Cusack’s early teen comedies overly harshly here. But you’re quite right that he’s become insufferable in the last decade as a political activist and politically-minded dramatic actor. Wed, 8 Sep 2010 20:25:56 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2010/09/08/death-of-the-movie-star-john-cusack-why-say-anything/#IDComment97673712 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95844365 Don't forget Creepshow, Death Wish II, Eating Raoul, and The Evil Dead! Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:19:51 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95844365 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95765323 The Incredibles and Spider-Man 2 were both 2004. But 2002 was still a really good year: 28 Days Later, The Bourne Identity, Catch Me If You Can, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Panic Room, Reign of Fire, Resident Evil, The Ring, Road to Perdition, Signs, Spider-Man, and We Were Soldiers. Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:37:21 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95765323 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95764833 Don't forget The Birds! And The Raven--Vincent Price, Boris Karloff, and Peter Lorre! Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:31:02 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95764833 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95763857 The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai, All of Me, Beverly Hills Cop, Ghostbusters, Gremlins, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Once Upon A Time in America, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Romancing the Stone, Sixteen Candles, and The Terminator. Plus add A Christmas Carol with George C. Scott on TV. Yes, 1984 was a great year for movies! Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:21:33 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95763857 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95726870 Not necessarily. For example, the director’s cut of James Cameron’s “Aliens” is definitely superior to the original release version. Yet Cameron was compelled by the studio to make edits to the film for its theatrical run in order to conform to the shorter running time that the studio arbitrarily demanded. Still, directors’ cuts are quite often simply about making more money, as you say. Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:44:27 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95726870 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95718248 By the way Cam , that's Mr. Koboyashi. Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:10:38 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95718248 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95717966 "Director’s cuts are boring non-events" I think that's probably a little too harsh. Still, I've seen enough directors' cuts myself to know that they're not necessarily any better than the original theatrical release. Some certainly are, but overall, directors' cuts are a real mixed bag. Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:07:52 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ccannon/2010/08/28/maybe-1994-wasnt-the-best-movie-year-ever/#IDComment95717966 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/02/216698/#IDComment32957760 The big surge of anti-Iraq war films we saw a few years back now has played out, and we certainly won’t be seeing anything like it in the foreseeable future. But, of course, we will continue to see a steady stream of all kinds of movies with left-wing political bias in the years to come, whether that bias is explicit or implicit. I’m not disagreeing with what Mr. Nolte wrote. I was simply pointing out that, in addition to the overt, deliberate politicking being done by filmmakers today, there were also more subtle factors at work which also promote left-wing bias. Thu, 3 Sep 2009 01:25:22 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/02/216698/#IDComment32957760 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/02/216698/#IDComment32937771 I think the explanations I’ve offered suffice—a combination of explicit politicking and a subtle left-wing political bias that shapes creative and financial decision-making on both a conscious and unconscious level. You have to realize that almost certainly none of the people involved in those magnificent flops started off with the idea that they would lose money on an epic level. That’s not something they “knew” at all. Rather, that is something that only became apparent in retrospect. In fact, at the time they probably thought they were going to cash in on a tide of anti-Bush animus. Oops! You have to bear in mind, too, that the lead time for a film project is often years long. By the time the first of those 10 movies came out and flopped, the remainder were all in the process of production already. And the rest, as they say, is history. Wed, 2 Sep 2009 23:09:20 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/02/216698/#IDComment32937771 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/02/216698/#IDComment32936447 I don't disagree with you at all. See my reply to Lon above--I think it addresses your point, as well. Wed, 2 Sep 2009 22:49:45 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/02/216698/#IDComment32936447 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/02/216698/#IDComment32935957 You’re right—there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with “Inglorious Basterds” being about Nazis. But the criticism being made isn’t really about Tarantino’s movie specifically. The point is that this movie is emblematic of a larger problem with Hollywood and the body of work it produces, i.e. the predominance of bad guys that are politically “safe,” which is to say, bad guys that those on the political left will not find offensive. That larger problem is the real target of the criticism, not “Inglorious Basterds” so much. Wed, 2 Sep 2009 22:42:17 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/02/216698/#IDComment32935957 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/02/216698/#IDComment32935359 MovieBob—I don’t think it’s very likely that Tarantino started out with the idea of simply making a movie set in World War II-era France, only to settle on an antagonist after the choice of time period and location had been made. The movie is set in World War II-era France only because he wanted to make a movie about fighting Nazis. Wed, 2 Sep 2009 22:33:33 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/02/216698/#IDComment32935359 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/02/216698/#IDComment32933194 I agree that there is a decidedly left-wing political agenda at work in Hollywood, and you’ve made a very persuasive case for that proposition here, Mr. Nolte. At the same time, however, Mr. Gutfeld isn’t entirely wrong either. I’m sure that if given the choice, Hollywood filmmakers would choose to make money rather than not make money. So why are Hollywood films today the way they are? A conscious wish to make explicit political statements is part of the reason, certainly. But there’s more to it than that. I also think that, to some extent, Hollywood’s all-pervasive leftism probably colors their expectations of what will make money and what will not, whether consciously or not. And that leads me to a related point—the bias is, I think, often unconscious. That is to say, this all-pervasive left-wing worldview has become so internalized that I suspect it colors creative and financial decision-making at every level, even in cases where an explicit political statement is not really what the filmmaker had in mind. Wed, 2 Sep 2009 21:59:22 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/02/216698/#IDComment32933194 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ckozlowski/2009/08/14/review-‘district-9’-brilliant-and-stupid/#IDComment30808335 "I'm aware of Lincoln's passion for civil rights but he still had to win the election." Precisely the point I was driving at in my own heavy-handed, overbearing way—on this point we appear to be agreed. As to the deal to get Fremont to drop out, I’m only aware to two elements: 1) the promise of a new command for Fremont in the Union army with the rank of major general; and 2) the dismissal of Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, an old political enemy of Fremont’s. After Fremont quit the race, Lincoln held up his end of the bargain by dismissing Blair. On the other hand, I don’t know that Fremont ever actually received the new command he was promised. Maybe not—by all appearances, his prior service as a Union general from 1861-63 was not impressive. As for a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, Lincoln had an endorsement for such an amendment incorporated into the party platform at the Baltimore convention in June. That being the case, I don’t see how it would figure into the deal worked out behind the scenes with Fremont in late August-early September. Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:32:11 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ckozlowski/2009/08/14/review-‘district-9’-brilliant-and-stupid/#IDComment30808335 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ckozlowski/2009/08/14/review-‘district-9’-brilliant-and-stupid/#IDComment30798692 It should also be pointed out that Lincoln was by no means opposed to the idea of granting full rights to freed slaves. But being the practical, pragmatic politician that he was, he didn’t push for it fast enough or with sufficient enthusiasm to suit the Radicals, as it would turn out. The fact is, Lincoln was operating under some considerable political constraints, and he did the best he could under those very difficult circumstances. And so I think that your intimation that Lincoln was some kind of “sell-out” is hardly reasonable or fair. Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:07:13 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ckozlowski/2009/08/14/review-‘district-9’-brilliant-and-stupid/#IDComment30798692 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ckozlowski/2009/08/14/review-‘district-9’-brilliant-and-stupid/#IDComment30798602 I’m sorry Mr. Talionis, but your FUN FACT OF THE DAY is somewhat misleading. In fact, Lincoln’s supporters completely dominated the 1864 National Union Convention, which was held on June 7-8 in Baltimore, Maryland, and he was renominated with 484 of the 506 votes cast. The National Union Party was a newly-formed alliance of pro-Lincoln Republicans and loyal northern War Democrats, by the way. As for Vice-President Hannibal Hammlin, the convention failed to renominate him because Lincoln refused to endorse him. Instead, Lincoln largely threw the choice of the vice-presidential candidate to the convention delegates. Now, there was some vocal opposition to Lincoln’s renomination, especially early on in the process. In fact, a small alternative convention was held by disaffected Republican Radicals on May 31 in Cleveland. Styling themselves the Radical Democracy Party, they selected John C. Fremont to run for the presidency. However, Fremont ultimately abandoned his campaign in September after cutting a deal with Lincoln. In the end, Lincoln prevailed in 1864 as the de-facto Republican standard bearer because his various opponents within the party were never able to agree on an alternative candidate. Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:06:04 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ckozlowski/2009/08/14/review-‘district-9’-brilliant-and-stupid/#IDComment30798602 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mmcgruther/2009/07/18/thatll-be-10-ameros-sirmigo/#IDComment27644202 Is the establishment of a North American Union, along with an accompanying unified currency, the answer? The creation of such a body may seem entirely plausible—even inevitable—to Mr. McGruther, but I don’t see it. On the contrary, I would say that the odds of a North American Union ever coming to pass are vanishingly small—something very closely approximating zero, I believe. In fact, I have to say that, up until this point, I’ve not been aware of the concept of a North American Union being discussed seriously anywhere except among whacked-out conspiracy theorists who are rabidly opposed to the idea. And so, for that reason alone, the question Mr. McGruther poses is purely academic. Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:59:33 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mmcgruther/2009/07/18/thatll-be-10-ameros-sirmigo/#IDComment27644202