reading up on him and learning he was a total crackpot who literally had no case nor evidence and was just trying to make a name for himself in the media really ruined the movie for me, which at first watching was a mind blowing experience

back and to the left, back and to the left

Lol...were now further in time from that Seinfeld episode than that episode was from the Kennedy assassination.

jfc

God, I hate that. Why is it always garages? Is it because nobody lives in them and stuff goes too far before it's noticed? Once a garage has one little wrong thing that's noticeable it becomes an enormous time sink. It's as though biggerboat were put in charge of all the world's garages...

One great sports movie is Bang the Drum Slowly.

https://youtu.be/BH6ri4yasfk?si=w_gN3BSsWHfsxEtn

Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk

It’s kinda like bang the drum slowly except the drums a chick

thanks brother feeling is mutual.

agree with pretty much all of this esp the part about needing to just get rid of all the family stuff.

I've done a TON of reading on the assassination and I'm not gonna derail this thread and turn it into a conspiracy theory tangent but there is some very interesting stuff and you can fall down a very deep rabbit hole.

good place to start is the 1976 HSCA (house select committee on assassinations) and then of course there are a million books on it, mark lane and gaeton fonzi have very interesting books on it (list is way too long to include everyone but there are def a ton of crackpots so have to really vet who you're reading).

fwiw tommy lee jones' character was revealed to indeed be a contract agent for the CIA and southerlands character was based on a former army special operations officer named L. Fletcher Prouty and opinions about him obv vary wildly.

one thing that is undebatable is the warren commission was fiction and at the very least the actions of the FBI and CIA following the assassination were incredibly suspicious.

you shouldn't just take as gospel everything you read.
he def had his issues but a bunch of the accusations about him were totally fictitious or extremely exaggerated and made by people with serious motives to discredit him.

at the very least like southerland says in that famous Washington meeting and what remains true to this day garrison is the only person to ever bring anyone to trial for the assassination of JFK and if it's such an obvious case of one lone gunman acting completely on his own why have all the files that were supposed to be declassified continue to be held from the public and protected so fiercely from declassification so many decades after the assassination?

on a totally different note one thing I always found interesting but apparently I'm the only one as I've never seen/read/heard anyone else even mention this but and maybe it's because my knowledge on this subject is lacking and there are tons of other examples of this but it seems to me that so often when someone is so radicalized and politically motivated to the point of carrying out an assassination of a major public figure or just a major act of political violence such as 9/11 or McVeighs OKC bombing etc when captured they don't ever protest their guilt or try and claim they didn't do it they just want to tell everyone why it had to be done and justify their actions.

but from the time oswald was arrested to the time he was so conveniently murdered he maintained his innocence quite adamantly he never once acted like most other people I can remember in history who we know to be absolutely guilty (not talking about other possible assassins who claimed to be framed and who were never conclusively found to have done it).

I'm guessing I must be wrong on this subject otherwise someone else would have brought it up but just seems like all of the debate about the assassination focused on physical evidence (and rightly so) and would have been interesting to get more into his mindset and motives (there has been some very cursory discussions nothing to the level I've seen for other suspected terrorists).

sorry for the wall of text this is a subject that really fascinates me and somehow I still haven't been completely convinced of anything other than there is very little likelihood that oswald acted alone (HSCA came to same conclusion) and at the very least the FBI and CIA acted aggressively after the assassination to hinder the investigation and keep a ton of facts from the public.

lol and all the "RBK is a looney dingbat" faction, you're welcome!

RBK, I don't think you're part of the faction. Years ago, NOVA did a great show on the physics of the assassination, the stuff about Oswald not being able to get off three shots, the gun sounds of a coming from different directions, etc, etc. Nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

A scientist who studied the limo for metals did a presentation in RI a number of years ago. He said there were only the metal from Oswald's but people kept asking the "what about?" Kinds of questions. He had no thoughts on a conspiracy.

If you haven't read it, Don DeLillo's novel Libra is terrific.

Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk

I used to watch it with my dad on TV as a kid and it was clearly absurdist comedy.

The first time I saw it in a theater was on a college campus ~1970, and it was obviously anti-war political satire.

Now I'm back to watching it on TV again, and not only is it absurdist comedy, it's the pinnacle of absurdist comedy. So we can only assume that Groucho is all things to all men, and we all know where that line of thinking leads us.



But still I have to ask the question that I have always asked: How do they get away this ****.

ya actually libra is one of my best friends favorite books I have it on audiobook just haven't made it there quite yet but may just bump it to the top of the queue.

thanks!

Re: Duck Soup

Woody Allen uses it in Hannah and Her Sisters, saying that life is worth living because Duck Soup exists.

Preston Sturges ( he also subverted the censors) has a similar scene in Sullivan's Travels. Sullivan, a director who seeks to make a film with social importance, instead of the light comedies he had been making. He is arrested in put in prison near the end of the film. The men in the prison look worn and beaten down. However, on film night, the men watch a cartoon and laugh hysterically. Sullivan realizes the importance of comedy.

Certainly, Duck Soup is anarchic, but it's also damn funny. I have used his line, Don't leave in a huff, leave in a minute in a huff, a few times. I know a number of people who are too damn serious. They need a dose of comedy in their lives. For me, anyway, I need laughter and value friends who make me laugh. Maybe it's the Irish in me. Groucho's wordplay has been compared to James Joyce's. It's a valid comparison.

Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk

finally watched the unbearable weight of massive talent

trailers made me think it'd be the greatest film ever made

massively let down but was expecting to be

still good and enjoyed, but feel like it was so close to hitting the player/swimming with sharks/being john malkovich/adaptation kind of breakthrough overly meta film within a film kind of thing and just fell flat

saw it was a team who were had lots of writing experience but never before in film which made sense - looking forward to seeing their future stuff

7/10 - enjoyable, has some incredible moments, but just falls flat

Oppenheimer hit Amazon Prime and I watched it lst night.

Uhg! I hated very second of it and thats 3+ hours worth of seconds. Typically I turn crap like this off but I felt obligated to watch due to all of the accolades. To sum it up a very long, very boring, non linear mess.

I love the story of the bomb but this aint it. Fat Man and Little Boy was great, the TV show Manhattan was great, this wasn't any of that. Not sure what this was but for my tastes it certainly wasn't worth the 3 hours I will never get back.

If you haven't read The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes, please do so immediately.

edit: also review Thank God for the Atom Bomb, by Paul Fussell, which I had assigned previously.

Apologies, my tone was unwarranted in that post. I just found it hyperbolic that a relatively minor storytelling detail could ruin the whole movie for someone, especially when there are other important details that very much explain Blunt's character's motivation and personality.

Blunt acts as the moral compass for the audience in this movie. I think you can find male characters who serve a similar purpose - Huey in The Boys for example.

I also think Blunt's character is a representation of the lack of respect women are shown in male-dominated fields. Brolin's character basically choses her as he think's she will be easy to manipulate. So I don't think it's the movie being disrespectful to women, the film is a depiction of how society views and treats women.

At the conclusion of the movie, Blunt's character comes across as the most competent, grounded and rational of the protagonists. But we need to go on a journey to get there, and that's the purpose of the movie. If she's competent, grounded and rational from the start, it's a pretty bad movie, albeit one that perhaps better satisfies the criterial of "realistic".

Really enjoyed this. Seems like it would be a pretty difficult movie to make due to not having intelligible dialogue. Really an interesting idea to make a movie with this type of plot as well.

It's impressive how without any discussions there's still a good amount of character development, and growth as both a team and individuals.

There is a lot you can get from primitive communication if you try.
See this National Geographic video showing how archaic humans may have sounded.

https://youtu.be/9MDF68rM3VM?si=I_F36e3n-kp-g1s2

Lol that was great.

Shoot, with the JFK talk i couldn't help thinking about the OKC bombing, there's a lot of questions there too

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

any good sources you can share?
I am not very well informed on this subject always thought McVeigh and Nichols admitted to everything but I always love reading/watching this kindv stuff I know there was some discussion of their affiliations with some white supremacists groups but have yet to fall down this rabbit hole.

elrazor,

no worries no hard feelings or offense taken and to spare this thread any more of my great walls of text probably best for us to just disagree on this point and like I said to biggerboat I agree with you on most of everything you say with regards to their goal for the character and her arc, my beef is just with how they went about it and I think I've written more than enough to explain my thoughts so I'll just end by repeating once again that it didn't ruin the movie for me like I said I've watched it more times than I can keep track of and will undoubtedly watch it a whole bunch more times and maybe at some point I'll be able to just sit back and not yell at the screen during the epic bridge showdown for her to stop being such a cowardly b****.

Carol, directed by Todd Haynes, is based on Patricia Highsmith's novel The Price of Salt that Highsmith published under a pseudonym.

The movie has a great look and really captures NYC in the '50s. The story is about an upper class woman, Carol, played by Cate Blanchett, and her relationship with a younger woman, Therese, played by Mara Rooney, who works in a department store. Carol has had a previous affair with another woman, and Carol's husband, played by Kyle Chandler, knows all about it. The husband, upset by this new affair, tried to seek sole custody of their daughter. As a response, Carol heads West with her new lover, but eventually rejects her to avoid being separated from her daughter. That's the bare bones of the plot.

The look of the film is based on the NYC photographs of Saul Leiter, among others. The film is shot beautifully by Ed Lachman. The cast is terrific. The story, a love story, is compelling. The ending of the film is surprising.

I'm not sure that Todd Haynes gets his due here, but he is one of the finest directors working today, one who takes on difficult subjects. He is the modern day Douglas Sirk, another filmmaker who took on difficult subjects shot in brilliant Technicolor.

If you have Criterion, you should also watch the documentary Loving Highsmith.

Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk

Honestly nothing I can truly recommend other than just google okc bombing and go from there.

Since i lived here when it happened I just remember certain things that was brought up in the news and the trial and one thing that struck me was how much the authorities knew about Mc Veigh and Nichols activities before the attack but never really took action.

I kinda got the impression that it was a sting operation that went bad.

Once that idea got into the public eye, suddenly everything about this was redacted and not much info was given to the public.

Throw in a couple of mysterious deaths of law officers and we still never got closure on john doe #2 and as far as I know no one has released the evidence seen on surveillance cameras in the area, its ripe for conspiracy theories.


Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

very interesting ty.
tho just what I need another rabbit hole to fall down and keep me from sleeping lol.

just got done reading the entire senate intelligence committee report on CIA EIT which was about a million pages and try reading that page by page on your little smart phone screen facepalm.jpeg

speaking of which tho the movie about it called "the report" starring adam driver is fantastic and absolutely faithful to the point of using the actual CIA cables for the dialogue and they're able to make what seems like a very dry unfilmable subject into an almost bourne like thriller without making anything up or doing any of the normal hollywood BS.

the documentary "the forever prisoner" covers much of the same material focusing on abu zubaydah the 1st prisoner lucky enough to get the royal treatment from the CIA and is absolutely fascinating with extremely high production values. it's made by alex gibney so I expected it to be good and it exceeded my expectations. it's available on HBOmax.

I would go so far as to say both films are must watches for any one who wants to consider themselves a thoughtful engaged citizen.

Nice find. I watched this the other night. It is a high quality production and deserves its accolades. The story follows the life of an ambitious, fatherless boy from birth to adulthood in the Netherlands of the 1920s. It is also a puzzling murder mystery which is revealed at the end. The period set designs and costumes are superb. You really get the feel of what life was like at that time and place. It has memorable characters, some are unlikeable and some are honorable. Grade A.