Comments from goodhomosapien69

I swear, "Stuart" is TOTALLY a troll, and not at all my lack of interest in Kristen Stewart
0 |
May 16, 2012 on The Videogum Why Don’t YOU Caption It? Contest: Kristen Stewart Flipping Off Charlize Theron And Chris Hemsworth
So...when does SHE sleep?? Does this mean that underworld was a documentary?
+2 |
May 15, 2012 on At Home Pranking With Kate Beckinsale
God, I just really want Sofia's mom to shout, "My girl!!!" once. just once.
+5 |
November 7, 2011 on The Walking Dead S02E04: This SHOW Is A Discrete Feminine Product (What?)
guys, this was just a leaked scene from Mean Girls 2
+2 |
August 4, 2010 on The Internet: Still Terrible After All These Years
ugh I've been reading so many forums trying to figure out the loopholes of this movie and I just don't see them. I feel like I must not understand the movie correctly because I don't see it as being riddled with plot holes or annoying rules of logic? WHAT AM I MISSING? Mal was his guilt, and the extent of his regret was such that his mind was totally overbearing (which is why when he entered fischer's dream when fischer was in limbo, Cobb was able to project so much of what the world looked like). And when he died at that level, his subconscious was with it enough to lead him to saito promptly, but since he was in limbo he was kind of still like, "Durrr...saito...who?" and needed to be reminded of where he was. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? Also, with respect to Mal, I did not care about her at all. BUT SHE WAS NEVER IN THE MOVIE. Well, okay. The only time she was in the movie was in flashbacks where she jumped off the tower and felt up knife edges. The thing is, when she jumped off the tower, I felt for Leo- him screaming "Jesus christ!" because he neither wanted to watch a person in general fall to his/her death nor specifically the love of his life seemed all too human. And every other time we encounter the hostile Mal (bad mal, mal mal), she is literally just an annoying manifestation of cobb's guilt- who would expect us to feel for an annoying manifestation of guilt?? Guilt is supposed to make us uncomfortable and stressed, so a negative reaction to her being on screen is actually quite reasonable! I think someone above said it right when they said it was only important for us to feel for leo feeling for Mal, but in no way are we supposed to say, "Look! There's guilt-monster mal! I love her!" The ending being ambiguous did not seem at all pretentious to me- it seemed like Nolan was just giving us our kick to awaken us from the dream-like state of movie watching (*Note, not my idea, something a friend of mine suggested that I kind of liked). If taken as, "Nolan is keeping plot secrets from us!" yes, we might feel insulted and upset, but even some people like open-ended endings (cough, english majors, cough). I just did not get the feeling of unwarranted self-importance that a pretentious ending would have; quite the opposite, I felt as if he was really going with his instincts and trying to stay true to the world he had created. The thing is, I liked inception because it WAS incredibly fun to watch, it didn;'t seem to be preaching any message, just exploring ideas (like rich said, the interesting idea of creating and perceiving). I did not feel for one second that Cobb believed his subconscious reality with Mal in it was more real than the one in which he was chased by faceless corporate bounty hunters, so it didn't seem to me to be an issue of, "WHAT IS REALITY?", which has been done and done and done and...yeah. The most important thing was, I really wanted to know what was going to happen. i wanted to watch, and listen, and partake. I was hooked. If you weren;t, you weren't, and that's no comment on your tastes nor your intellect.
+8 |
July 23, 2010 on The Videogum Movie Club: Inception
New to the VG world, but here's my problem. Questioning the logic of a movie like Inception is, as Gabe pointed out, kind of not the point. Yes, the law in this case is arbitrary because as far as we know with respect to inception and dream-manipulation, there is no reason WHY a kick should only be felt one layer below. Would it be satisfying if Nolan had come right out and had someone say that the energy harvested from a kick is only enough to wake the person in the dream state immediately below? What if he had related it to modern neuroscientific developments concerning things like cell-assemblies, and tried to make it THAT SPECIFIC? I would've been like "Cool" but also, "Who cares?" because I was not upset at all that we were told you only need one kick. That is kind of like being upset in physics class when you are told that you only need F to be equal to MA. Why? Because energy is conserved in this universe (quantum effects aside for now). Why is energy conserved? Do we really know? Can we really say? Is that really the point of doing physics? Basically, I feel that when you are writing fiction you need to institute a set of laws, which, whether or not they reflect the laws of the universe we actually see (which, in quantum land, can totally be more paradoxical and stranger than any work of fiction), are arbitrary in some way or another (because can we really say that even the laws of our universe are NOT arbitrary?). Might as well provide arbitrary laws that are not arbitrarily followed, which I do think he did. Kudos to rich for having an inquisitive mind and not accepting what is thrown at him immediately and without question, but also, upon reflection, his criticisms and skepticism do not seem to warrant a re-write or even an angry letter to Nolan. Sorry I'm not funnier!
+4 |
July 21, 2010 on The Videogum Movie Club: Inception