Pepper Scootey Productions

I think Step Brothers was a little bit more funny!

Wow I totally see that. Perfect match. Unlike Topher Grace as Eddie Brock. Man, I was so angry at Sam Raimi for that one.

I don't plan on going anywhere. I have been on movieweb's forums for 3+ years now. I can't remember what my old account was haha. So I had to make a new one a few months ago.
IMO
D9 was the best of the year, then Inglorious Bastards, then Up. Hmmmm
Star Trek was also ridiculously good.
9 was excrutiatingly disappointing. :\

That's what I liked abotu I, Robot. Sent chills down my spine when the main Sonny is standing at the top of the hill looking down at his oppressed fellow robots at the end. And when he draws the sketch saying it's Will Smith, but it's actually him. I don't know. I typically have a good disposition towards movies displaying a sense of unique "one-ness" as some say in a given character. I liked that a lot about Christopher.
And if we want to be on a first name basis, my name is Kevin :)

That review made me disappoint on the movie.
I'm planning to watch it this weekend and because of that review, I might choose another movie to watch.

bg110 typically doesn't know what he's talking about when he posts in these forums. I mean.. he said that in the last decade there have been NO significant new faces in film business.

he just likes to think he's a "non-conformist" and since everyone loves D9 his ego is threatened by it.

I didn't really see any Mel Brooks style comedy... maybe I'm wrong, but please describe any given scene in the film where there was Mel Brooks comedy.
The film only integrates two different genres: mockumentary and science fiction. Just because a couple of jokes are tossed around doesn't mean that the genre switches for that one second of humor. Same goes for horror. Scare tactics are a common part of science fiction. I mean.. at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, when the ark is opened some would say that what happens to the Nazi's as a result was horrific, but that did not make Raiders a horror film, even for that one scene.
This absolutely is a message movie. You cannot even argue that. It was made with the direct underlying theme of racial prejudice in the past of humanity.
It was developed in such a way that it reflects almost exact events in history, only with a sci-fi spin on it. That isn't even a matter of opinion. It's fact. Neill Blomkamp wrote the story to reflect that.

The film is a constant battle between character and spectacle. Spectacle being the CGI and character being Wikus and his supporting characters. Yes, the film is loaded with CGI, but unlike other films it supports the main character. Wikus has TONS of character development behind him. He is constructed to be a pathetic, low-life coward. He is made to be pushed around, and then push around those who are weaker than him. He is made to be disliked during the first and second acts of the film. The CGI was spectacular in my opinion. In some scenes the aliens looked more real than the people did. And I don't think that the CGI took away from much, like it normally does.

1. You don't NEED to have a long life story about a character to know him. You know him through what he does. The entire exposition for Wikus takes place during the first act. His promotion, his wife, people talking about him, him talking about himself and what he does.

3. Good filmmaking is actually giving an audience what they know. Typically audiences don't go for some extraordinary, experimental film. Solely because they don't know it. And they don't know if they're gonna like it. A lot of filmmakers take one scene, or shot created by their inspiration and reinvent it. That is filmmaking. Taking something that exists, and making it your own. Taking a thought or idea, and putting it in a tangible medium.

5. I saw plenty of dramatic weight. And how can the film switch from action, to action, to action? If it's action it's action. You didn't think that "flaw" through very well, did you?

6. There is rational reason within the world created by the film. He is the first cross-breed of Human and Prawn. The scientists know one thing, examination. They cannot examine the effects of mutation while all of his organs are inside of him. They must harvest each organ and examine them individually to understand the structure and biology of the aliens better.

8. It is not the South African government policing everything. The South African government is not mentioned one time in the film. The authority in the film is MNU (Multi-National United). A fictional weapons manufacturing company and investor in the Johannesburg area. Think United Nations mixed with Lockheed Martin. This is a fictional world, similar to our world, but still fictional. Perhaps in this world the U.S. is not as intervening as it is in the real world.

9. Seeing as how MNU is the world's second largest weapons manufacturer and dealer... I'm pretty sure they have a lot of interest in the alien weaponry. They want to know how to get past the biological locks on the weapons. The weapons are more powerful and advanced than any man-made weapons, so how could a weapons dealer NOT want to know everything about them.

Did you only watch the film one time? And at that, did you not even pay attention to most of it? I saw the film three times, wrote an 8 page paper on it, and actually did enjoy watching it.
I don't know, man. I think you're the ignorant one.

Actually, the cost of equipment to make a live action 3D film is drastically going down in price. Expect most movies to be made in 3D within the next 5 years.
I'm on the fence about the pros and cons of using 3D in a quality film. From a filmmaker's perspective, I have a desire to make things remain the way they are. Things are great now. BUT the idea of even making film is to present a 2D image to a bunch of audience members and make them immersed in what they see as if it is 3D. It is supposed to be life-like to the audience. Now, WITHOUT all of the stupid gag stunts in 3D with stuff coming out of the screen, 3D does has potential to improve the artistic quality of film. If you can actually add the third dimension to your film, then it is much easier to immerse the audience. And any filming technique that exist now would be revisited and made to be benefitted by 3D.
Just telling it like it is. I'm still on the fence about it though. I think I like the challenge of making your 2D film seem 3D.

I know Spike Jonze won't screw this up. He has never failed me in the past.
He's from the same town as me! Same with Frank Miller. I always thought that was cool.

I did like Pan's Labyrinth haha, but I like a lot of American films much better than foreign ones. This week I decided to spend a couple of days watching several movies I had never heard of before, let alone never seen before. I watched:

-Love the Hard Way
A really good film. It was really sad. Adrien Brody did an excellent job acting beyond dialogue, which at times was a little dry. The girl was gorgeous and I had never seen or heard of her before.

-Crooked Hearts
Also very sad. Vincent D'Onofrio always plays a good a-hole character. Peter Berg was pretty good.

-Cop Land
A little on the cliche side. A lot of character actors playing the same characters they always do. Sylvester Stallone, Harvey Keitel, Peter Berg, Robert DeNiro, Jeaneane(sp?) Garofalo, Ray Liotta. Lots of good actors. Sylvester Stallone actually surprised me with an above par acting job. I think he won best actor at the Stockholm Film Awards for this role.

-The Cell (I had heard of this before, but was always too creeped out to watch it)
Again, Vincent D'Onofrio playing an a-hole. I didn't want to punch Jennifer Lopez in this movie, and I always am keen to typically comedic actors in serious roles (Will Ferrel, Adam Sandler); Vince Vaughn did a great job.

Another one I watched was Toy Soldiers, with Sean Astin. I always loved this movie. A boys' prep school is taken over by Columbian terrorists. It's great.

Another one I watched was Absolute Power with Clint Eastwook, Gene Hackman, and Ed Harris. Richard Jenkins had a nice small role too.

The only reason that your decade lists were so long is because you threw a slew of actors/directors who you saw got their start in their respective decades, regardless of actual critical acclaim IN the decades which they are enlisted.
For example, Orson Welles' name was worth NOTHING in the 30's and 40's. He did not gain critial acclaim until the 70's. 30-40 years after making the best films of his career was when his name was bigger than ever. He had more time than say... Guillermo Del Torro did to make a name for himself. Yes the situation as to why his name was not big at the time was unfortunate, but it was the case.
20 years from now, people who are becoming big now will be at the status of those who were big 20 years ago. And the bulk of audiences now are not still talking about actors and directors from previous decades. They are talking about new faces who are big NOW and getting their start NOW.

I cannot help but completely agree with ClarkParker. I think Magnolia is a masterpiece of perfectly strung together storylines. PT Anderson is, IMO, one of the most underrated directors in hollywood, and Magnolia DOES NOT get more credit than it deserves. You hardly hear about Magnolia. It barely gets any credit, but it should. More than that piece of crap American Beauty. American Beauty was annoying to watch. The only thing I got out of it was thinking Anette Benning was a MILF.

I think that No Country For Old Men is overrated, and should have lost to There Will Be Blood.
The Oscars is all politics. Everything is very biased. The Academy did the same thing for the Coen brothers as they did for Scorcese the year before. Scorcese had made many great, very recognized films in the past and he had been ignored, or at least shot down by the the Academy when it came to winning much. Same thing with the Coen brothers. So they decide to throw them a bone and give them the best picture and best director spots to make up for their years of losses. Which is total bullcrap. The past is the past, if you screwed them over then, that's it. But don't take away from actually deserving directors and films to make amends. Paul Thomas Anderson and There Will Be Blood deserved it.

I think Seagal's atrocious acting skills and his squinty eyes will either make this film really bad, or really funny. But I feel like I won't be able to take it seriously if he is in it. He really sucks. And all of his movies are the same thing. Half Past Dead, Today You Die, Marked for Death, etc.

I am still looking forward to this film, though. I like Robert Rodriguez very much, I think he is great inspiration for someone trying to get into what he does. Just a jack of all trades in the film industry.
And Danny Trejo is always a pleasure on screen.

Magnolia. Really just watching anything by Paul Thomas Anderson. He is, in my opinion, one of the most underrated directors/writers working today.

I agree with that point as well. And I forgot to mention Clint Mansell, damnit.
But yes, you have a very good point. I'm sure almost all of the listed actors and directors were'nt all that big the year or few years within the decade that they started professionally doing what they do/did. It takes time and decadeS to make a prominent name for yourself.

No necessarily a Stiller movie, but Empire of the Sun.

There is significant decline. You left out Hanz Zimmer, Ennio Morricone, Harry Gregson-Williams, James Horner, and Klaus Badelt in the composer department!
I think Guillermo Del Torro is good enough to make up for the lack of new, significant faces in Hollywood.
And please remove Sara Jessica Parker and Julianne Moore from the 90's list. I think I'm going to throw up all over both of those men.

A Christmas Story, hands down. I watch it almost every time it airs on TNT during the A Christmas Story marathon on Christmas day.

I am most excited for Where the Wild Things Are. Spike Jonze is just plain amazing at what he does. He was born and raised in the same town as me!

I think the movie was pretty good. I saw it last week. A lot of people are speculating over it because it was filmed in digital rather than film. I think it was very well made, but the cgi was pretty bad. A lot of the blood spurts and what not looked awful. Props to the costume design team, though. I thought everyone was looking snazzy as hell!