Subscribe: Comments on: Download Film Junk Podcast for March 12th, 2007
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
jurassic park  match point  movie years  movie  movies  opinion  point  rating system  rating  spielberg  stars  thing  woody allen 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Download Film Junk Podcast for March 12th, 2007

Comments on: Download Film Junk Podcast for March 12th, 2007

Blog and Podcast

Last Build Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 12:55:00 +0000


By: thesnowleopard

Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:21:38 +0000

On a lighter note... ...will Jay sing in every podcast? It's kinda funny and unbearable at the same time!

By: Henrik

Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:28:31 +0000

Greg, what I said was my friggin' opinion. Let me rephrase: "In my opinion it definitely disproves your statement that Woody Allen hasn’t done a good movie in 20 years". Goon, how are those 'three words' comebacks any less arrogant that anything I ever wrote? I know this isn't a competition in likeability, but seriously...

By: Goon

Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:24:45 +0000

"the only thing I find he brings is production value." three words: Jaws you're dumb.

By: Greg

Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:03:34 +0000

I did not like Match Point. I have not enjoyed a Woody Allen movie the way I used to in about 20 years. Just because other people or you liked Match Point doesn't mean my opinion is wrong. It's my friggin' opinion. If you liked the doesn't mean my statement is disproved. That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

By: Matt

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:17:14 +0000

If I remember correctly, Lt. Dan invested all of the money from Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. in Apple stock. I remember a line, something to the effect of Forrest saying 'he invested in some sort of fruit company' (shows Apple logo). I don't follow the continuity for the second movie, if the riches came from Apple, what does it matter that Bubba Gump goes out of business. Those this sound right?

By: Henrik

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:08:02 +0000

I recommend a rating of 6 stars, which is my favourite. It still has the same options that you currently have with the 4 star rating (the half-way point etc.) but what I really like about is that you can give an awesome movie 5/6 and it will still be a very high rating. Then you can preserve the 6/6 for those 2 or 3 movies a year that comes around and really deserves it. It's ultimately a non-issue I guess, because the grades mean less than the actual thoughts being offered on the movies.

By: Henrik

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:03:05 +0000

Well, the Willow/Jurassic Park thing I added because I figured you'd just point out that Spielberg makes better movies than Howard, and use their fantasy movies as an obvious example. As for Steven Spielberg bringing something to the table, the only thing I find he brings is production value. Which just comes with the budgets he is granted. That, and being able to shoot a movie faster than almost anybody. I will just say what I have always said and is my genuine conviction, he is the best craftsman working in hollywood, but he is no artist.

By: Sean

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:36:34 +0000

Any rating system has its limitations, but by keeping it to 4 stars I feel that we are able to deliver the spectrum of ratings on a somewhat regular basis. I find that people who rate out of 10 almost never give a rating below 5, when in fact 5 should be the average score. According to our rating system, I guess 2 stars seems like the average, but I usually issue it when something is just below average. I suppose if we went with 5 stars it would be more obvious what the median is (3 stars) but then that would be an easy score to fall back on. For me I find that if I'm on the fence with something, at least this way I am forced to choose either 2.5 or a 2, which is the difference between a thumbs up or down in my opinion. As for 300, I thought I justified giving it a 3 out of 4. I liked it. It was a solid 3, but I still had some issues with it. Regarding Talkshoe, we haven't given up on it. I just didn't have time to put up a post about it ahead of time, so we figured no one would know to show up.

By: Jay C.

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:18:38 +0000

In reference to our ratings: I've always felt a four star rating system is hard to work with. But in this case, my 2 out of 4 stands. Maybe upon a second viewing it will go up or down. As for Ron Howard and Zak Snyder's versatility being compared to Steven Spielberg...versatility in genre doesn't mean that you have to throw away a sense of cohesive style. A Spielberg film is a Spielberg film, and he will always bring a visual flair to the table. There's always something to offer, whether it be a dramatic piece or a science fiction film. As for which is harder to make, Willow or Jurassic Park, i'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

By: Henrik

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:44:25 +0000

No talkshoe this week? Did you quit it, or was it just impractical this week? Greg, are you sure you watched Match Point? It's not necessarily a comedy, but it's an excellent, excellent movie. Definitely disproves your statement that Woody Allen hasn't done a good movie in 20 years. Jay Cheel, let me gets this straight. When Steven Spielberg does movies that have nothing in common, look way different and are completely different (Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, obvious example) it proves the argument that he is an awesome director who is able to do any genre, but when Ron Howard or Zach Snyder does it, it just means that they have no personality as directors? I don't get it. Jurassic Park is a better movie than Willow, but not necessarily harder to make. I do give you credit for being the new Lisa Gerrard though. If anyone still wants to debate wether or not oscar winners influence the movie industry... Seriously. I couldn't agree more with the assessment. You both rate too fucking high. I don't know if it's the rating system that makes you rate movies so high, but you recommend nearly everything. Even after you spend 10 minutes pointing out major flaws you still gives movies 2.5 or 3. I know you only watch movies that there is a good possibility of liking, but seriously... At least point out the excellent things in movies that you are going to give a 3 out of 4 stars. I have to agree with Greg, that Frank Miller is way overrated. I haven't read that much of his stuff, but the only thing that I haven't felt was a piece of shit was some of the Daredevil arc. That includes dark night returns which is a lame, lame book (female Robin? Faceless mutant enemies? Right...). You're better off spending the time reading the killing joke 10 times, or if you're really into the Superman/Batman thing, read World's Finest. You won't have to put up with them fighting in that.