User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.3919 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Just to second Morty's comments, I wouldn't call even some of Henry Fonda's more virtuous heroes "goody two-shoes." As Young Mr Lincoln, he has a real edge in the courtroom scenes. There's nothing sentimental about Tom Joad or the twelfth angry man. In My Darling Clementine, Wyatt Earp is as always the good guy, but Fonda played him with a nothing-left-to-lose hunger.
And (literally) finally, On Golden Pond can induce massive insulin shock, but if there were a way to follow Henry Fonda in that picture without having to take in most of the context, it would repay study. He's bitter and mean and remorseless and eaten-up and you have this awful feeling that he was just hobbling onto the set most days and living his life. Though that's the beauty of acting: you call on what you've lived through to create a believable character.
I haven't seen Barton Fink, so maybe I'll watch that tonight.
I do agree that Fonda's very good in 12 Angry Men, which also has lot of other first rate performances. The Grapes of Wrath is one of those classic Hollywood political ventures where its heart is in the right place, but the overall saintly virtue (and language) imputed to "the people" starts to approach parody after the first reel or two. And you know which side of that issue I'm on, so it's not a matter of the political slant per se I'm objecting to. It's just the overall didactic and sentimental take that grinds me down.
The others you mention are either biopix or westerns, and while I'm not doubting your take on Fonda's performances in them, any biopic from that era is impossible for me to watch, and the westerns are at the end of a pretty long line.
EDIT: When I think about it, the biopics I'm knocking are those of heroes and good guys, not the ones of villains. Lawrence Tierney's Dillinger is a lot of fun, and Warren William's The Match King, based on the life of the Swedish match titan Ivar Krerger, is one of my favorite movies ever. No sloppy sentimentalism in that one!
Allow me to add *another* recommendation for OUaTitW. It's my favorite western, a toss-up (with Unforgiven) for the best western ever and Leone's best as well. It's got a tremendous score from Morricone, a sparse but genuinely witty script, a gorgeous Claudia Cardinale, Henry Fonda AND Jason Robards AND Charles Bronson all giving fantastic performances, one of the greatest title sequences ever shot AND a scene that might just be the greatest introduction of a character ever.
It's also Fonda's favorite role ever, for reasons that should become apparent as you watch it.
AND RayRay hates it, so it's got that going for it, which is nice ...
Modern audiences would almost certainly hate it, what with its archetypal characters, broad yet intensely familiar/personal conflicts, and honest portrayal of real human emotions and all that. Blech! Give me some of that Gus Van Sant/David Fincher nihilism!
He doesn't fear movies, but he does deny them his essence ...
POW!
Well-said.
An ad campaign I never understood. Mikey won't touch normal delicious cereal like Frosted Flakes or Sugar Pops or Cocoa Krispies. So we're supposed to trust his judgment about Life? I don't think so.
David Fincher isn't a nihilist.
All accurate, but which one are you looking for?
Even my mom knew that crap was like cardboard.
Shell Scott
A 1966 story, Prather's Shell Scott series goes back to 1950. Very popular in the '50's to mid-sixties (second to Spillane). Highly recommended.
Put me down for "Miller's Crossing".
Me, too.
I think the story of a serial killer who never gets caught is a story about amorality. I think the story of how the good men slowly destroy their lives while attempting to bring him to justice is a story of the pointlessness of effort.
Look at the way Fincher shoots them. Zodiac is always in the center of the frame, in wide open spaces, with a low camera angle (ie he's tall, powerful, heroic). It's been a while (I can no longer remember character names), but think of the scene where he binds and stabs the young married couple on the beach (at a picnic--the woman dies but the man survives). They're on the ground, he's standing up. The male victim is coded as weak and ineffectual (he's thin, bespectacled, with blond hair and a high-pitched voice).
And then there's Graysmith (Gyllenhaal), the purported hero. He's always tightly shot (in his cramped apartment or cramped desk). No freedom, no strength...no heroism (he's a teetotaler, and there's a scene with him in the bar with Downey where he orders some "girly" drink). My God, they even make his love interest dowdy, and she's played by Chloe Sevigny!
I mean, what goes through your head when you're watching a movie like that? Do you really think, "Ah, that Fincher, he has a wonderful outlook on life, I'd like to see more of it." ? No! His films are disgusting! They have no emotion, no feeling. You* can't relate to anything that anyone does, at any moment, ever.
* Unless you're a cynic who despises life, in which case, you'd be having a field day.
Me, too.
Ditto me. I caught myself watching it the other night until 1 am. For about the 1000 time. I was dragging the next morning but it really was great. I liked it but didn't love it in the theatre but it really grew on me. Same with Hudsucker, thought it was below average when I saw it but really liked it when I saw it on TV.
Back to Michael Bay. I hate, hate, hate his movies. I love summer fun movies, but I find his awful. The plots are so full of holes that I can't suspend my sense of disbelief. The action scenes are badly shot and jumpy. His movie have no humor either.
Great cast too. Gabriel Byrne, Albert Finney, Marcia Gay Harden, Jon Polito John Turturro are all great (especially Polito) and a lot of great character actors.
I think the Coen Bros have said that The Big Lebowski is a parody of Chandler (albeit a loving one), and that Miller's Crossing was influenced by Hammett's work, and Blood Simple was their version of a Cain story. The Man Who Wasn't There also feels like a Cain story. In any case, they are clearly huge fans of these authors. Morty, they probably were fans of Shell Scott as well. It would be cool to see what they have to say about the series.
And put me down for Miller's Crossing as well. What stands out to me is the language--so sharp and musical. The actors do a tremendous job with it. The woods assasination scene also references one of the best movies ever, The Conformist.
So in other words...that's what goes through *your* head, and you don't like that Fincher put it there, ergo he's no good?
I think your premise of his outlook on life is very debatable to say the least, but even granting that it were 100% correct, not liking someone's dark outlook and how it permeates his films is grounds for not personally liking his films, not for declaring them "disgusting" and implying that they are no good.
Overstate much?
All of 'em--superb. why Byrne didn't become a superstar after that movie is beyond me. Maybe he was too in character.
Well-crafted doesn't begin to do justice to the dialogue. It's chiselled and honed to perfection--you have to go back to things like The Big Sleep, Double Indemnity, and Out of the Past to find its equal. The added fillip are the neologisms. They are so right for the movie.
Edit: Oh, almost forgot, he has a now famous hatred for Baumbach and Baumbach's mom.
Michael Bay is ####### terrible. Advocating for his work is just an exercise in contrarianism. He hasn't even made a movie as good as The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. (That's a good popcorn flick for ya, and I don't even like the rest of the movies in the franchise. Maybe it's the lack of overt Vin Diesel homoeroticism.)
We're in the minority, but I think that's an excellent movie. It's also just beautifully filmed.
This makes me sad, because White is a cancerous boil I can't fathom agreeing with, but I knew Baumbach in college and he's definitely hateable.
Way back when some people mentioned liking Children of Men. These people are wrong. It is a ####### disgrace.
I was actually surprised it took you this long, Gaelan, as I remembered your opinion on this from another thread.
Wow, I mostly agree with a Gaelan post on movie opinions! (I liked Dark Knight overall, really disliked the last 30-40 minutes.)
And this, right here, is where you get it backwards. Why are those good men destroying their lives in an attempt to bring the Zodiac to justice? Why are they sacrificing their marriages and their jobs and their reputations? Because they believe that the lives of the Zodiac's victims had worth and meaning, and their work signifies their respect for the lost potential of those silent dead. Even when they want to give up and lay down the burden (as in the porch scene with Graysmith and Toschi), they can't do it, because they believe too deeply in these things.
And that's the way it works with almost all of Fincher's movies. The protagonist is buffeted by the winds of fortune, and he considers giving in to despair, and then he rises up in the third act and actively rejects the nihilistic worldview. The narrator in Fight Club denounces Tyler Durden, abandons and attempts to dissolve Project Mayhem, and eventually "kills" Tyler rather than be subsumed into him. Jodie Foster's character in Panic Room saves herself and her daughter by fighting back and being tough and brave, while Forrest Whitaker's character listens to the better angels of his nature and returns to help them, even though it costs him the bonds and his freedom. Benjamin Button accepts the limitations imposed by his condition and lives the best and fullest life possible under the circumstances.
But I guess none of that matters because Chloe Sevigny dressed up in dowdy clothes and makeup in an effort to look like the actual, real person that she was portraying. So Fincher must believe in nothing.
It's a good movie. The problem comes from all the people trying to turn it into a an exemplar of cultural trends and beliefs and all that stupid ########. It's just a movie!
Ah.
And here I thought I didn't like it because it was 45 minutes too long, dragged whenever the Joker wasn't on screen, featured sloppy, lazy screenwriting, murky, choppy action sequences, contained the stultifying presence of a Katie Holmes-like substance and apparently captured Christian Bale perpetually wracked by the world's most agonizingly prolonged bout of constipation ...
That said--
I have two huge problems I have with that analysis:
1) Fincher fetishizes the puzzle aspect of this case. It's completely unambiguous that this is what attracts Graysmith to the murders. If memory serves correct, at one point we see a small scene from the perspective of the random older, married teacher couple who cracks the code. The fact that he features them in a scene, and shows the events of that scene from their point of view (rather than just relaying the information through dialogue) is significant.(EDIT: Also--and again my memory might be off--but aren't the opening credits done in a way that emphasizes the puzzle? IE, the words are spelled using the Zodiac symbols?) Like House...it's the puzzle that drives Graysmith, not a sense of duty.
2) Each victim gets exactly one scene, and it's the scene where they're murdered. And as I pointed out earlier, Fincher goes to a great deal of trouble to completely deny them any agency during these scenes (all the male victims are emasculated, for example). You're required to do a great deal of post-hoc rationalizing to inculcate some sense of honor in Graysmith's behavior, that he's "respect(ing) the lost potential of those silent dead," since there's very little on-screen evidence to indicate that.
I should let this thread die, but this bugs me. It's no different from someone who doesn't like westerns, or screwball comedies, or sci-fi, or noir, or romcoms, or animated movies, or any other film genre from saying they are "inherently lame." It's arrogant and annoying.
I should let this thread die, but this bugs me. It's no different from someone who doesn't like westerns, or screwball comedies, or sci-fi, or noir, or romcoms, or animated movies, or any other film genre from saying they are "inherently lame." It's arrogant and annoying.
All those other genres are pretty cool. Superhero movies...meh. I tried for about 15 years, got excited about the hype, convinced myself this would be the director and action hero that would do it, and then was almost without fail let down. Of the dozens I've seen what's the best? Spider Man 2? Iron Man? The Dark Night? That's just not much of a peak to me. Marvel ain't getting my 10 bucks anymore. (Now that I've written all this I realize Hellboy is a superhero and completely undercuts my entire post. Goddammit. I like Hellboy, especially the second one.)
And by the way, Barnes and Noble is selling Criterion and Eclipse collections for half off. Picked up a bunch of Japanese New Wave on the way home.
Actually once I wiki'd, it seems the genre is pretty small, by sheer numbers. If you did some kind of percentages thing, those, plus the Hellboys, and - depending on some subjectivity - Burton's Batman, the Crow, and Watchmen, I actually don't think it's a bad peak at all.
This is basically what happens in The Game as well, although not really in Se7en.
Of the dozens I've seen what's the best? Spider Man 2? Iron Man? The Dark Night? That's just not much of a peak to me.
I'm not a big fan of the genre either, although I haven't seen Iron Man, which I'm told is the best of the bunch. Spider-Man (all of them) were unbearable, Dark Knight was good but as others have said, they ended it 30 minutes too late.
The first X-Men movie is probably my favorite. The second one is quite enjoyable too, but the plot didn't make much sense...what did Magneto plan to do if he succeeded in killing all the non-mutants? 5 billion dead bodies probably start to smell pretty quickly.
EDIT: OK, it wasn't a ZAZ production, although it was partially written by Pat Proft, a frequent collaborator, and Abrams and one Zucker were originally attached to the project.
I think that both of your objections are somewhat mooted by the fact that it's a movie based on a true story. The old couple solved the cipher because that's how it really happened. The men didn't fight back in the movie because they didn't fight back in real life.
I agree that the puzzle element was played up a bit in the case of Graysmith, but that's about characterization rather than detachment. Graysmith is consistently portrayed as an awkward, unsocial man. His co-workers even question whether he's "touched in the head". Shared interest in the puzzle aspects is the only way that he's able to associate with the others working the case (and, for that matter, involve himself in something that's not strictly his job, as an editorial cartoonist).
My favorites are probably both Nolan Batmans (I really dig origin stories so I don't put Dark Knight as far above Begins as probably most others), Iron Man, the first X-Men (though 2 was decent), first 2 Spideys (3rd was awful), and Watchmen. And I liked Superman Returns too.
I also think Darkman was entertaining as hell as a we're-not-real-serious-about-this "superhero" movie.
I have plenty of opinions about movies in general, but I wanted to chip in with some very underrated movies. They are not my favorites of all time, but they are very good. The stunt man, Bullworth, and Barcelona are good movies and much better than they are typically remembered (when remembered at all).
Regarding De Palma mostly he is bad - or more precisely the start of his movies is usually very good, but then his movies turn to crap, but Blow Out is a strangely good movie.
This is basically what happens in The Game as well, although not really in Se7en.
I generally like his movies but I have always had a major problem with Se7en. First, the constant rain. My major problem with the movie was the ending. Spacey kills the "guilty" people. The slothful, vainful, etc. Except he kills Brad Pitts wife, because of envy. But she was not envious, he was. Paltrow was the innocent person and she was killed for anothers deadly sin. I always thought that was wrong.
I've always considered this a boring, good-for-you movie.
There is one character that is entertaining - the sidekick with dark hair, who actually kicks ass and saves lives while Von Sydow is morosely ruminating about doing the same and failing to accomplish it. There is some terrific cinematography and imagery. Lots of memorable shots. It's been years now, maybe I would enjoy it more now.
But I can't get over the symbolism, and expect that will always bother me. It is just piled on endlessly and everywhere. Watching this makes me feel like Bergman had just discovered that he could apply literary pretensions to film, and he got over-excited with his new toy. I have a similar opinion of Rashomon.
There is some terrific cinematography and imagery. Lots of memorable shots.
I always thought Bergman was wildly overrated and I saw his movies as good for me and didn't really like them. That said, the cinematography for Seal was good. So much of it looks cliched now, but that was because it established the standard, which everyone copied to the point that it became the cliche.
Children of Men is great. I will fight you. I will fight you right now.
Anyway, comic book movies are usually disappointing, sadly. X2 is probably my favorite. I liked the first X-Men, too. Brian Singer failed with the new Superman, but he deserves credit for making two of the better films in the genre. Comic book people hate Burton's Batmans, though I like them better than Nolan's. I liked V for Vendetta quite a bit and while the film was definitely meant as a comment on the Bush administration, which the creator was not happy with, I thought it captured the themes of the original well.
Yeah, although I liked the movie, this always bothered me too.
John Doe himself is the one who is killed because of envy. There is nobody who dies for the sin of wrath, unless you want to believe that Pitt received the death penalty for shooting John Doe at the end.
1. The Virgin Spring
2. Persona
3. The Seventh Seal
4. Autumn Sonata
5. Hour of the Wolf
It was outstanding! It was incredible. It was one of the tensest, most thrilling movie-going experiences of all-time. It was aesthetically and technically brilliant. Clive Owen oozes awesome like mucus from his eyeballs. I cannot believe anyone did not love that movie. I love that movie more than my foot. I love that movie more than all of my childhood pets, even if all of those pets could be combined into one super-pet. I rewatch that movie at least once every three months or so. It is the greatest thing.
These flippant and supremely negative judgments still bother me. It's pretty rare that I see a movie that I really think is a disgrace, or one that has absolutely no qualities. But some people on this thread really enjoy such summary dismissals. They must be exagerrating, right?
I liked Children of Men. I didn't love it. The one-shot scene in the apartment building, where a spoiler-alert-causing event occurs to silence a battle, was pretty amazing. I didn't like Michael Caine. I wasn't impressed with the imagination of the piece. I don't know. There was good and bad. Worth seeing.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but Gaelan's somewhat mental.
I remember really liking that one, though it's been awhile.
Andy, might I suggest this Columbo episode -- Requiem for a Fallen Star -- for a fun Anne Baxter turn as a murderess. She plays an aging movie star who is being blackmailed by a gossip reporter.
The movies that I hate are those that (in my opinion) promote terrible life-values--movies that praise cynicism/nihilism and ridicule success/happiness. When I say that, suppose, Lars Von Trier's Antichrist has no redeeming qualities, I'm not saying that just because the cinematography was sloppy and I didn't like the score, or whatnot. I'm saying it has no redeeming qualities because if you watch it and take it seriously you will become a worse person. It corrupts you. It's the exact opposite of the purpose of art.
...I've gathered that my viewpoint on film is unusual. I'm fine with that. There's more than one way to watch a film, and there's no guaranty that mine is right, but I think that's what's causing the confusion.
I think the problem is, however, that citing Lars von Trier's Antichrist vs. something like Zodiac, it really becomes a lot more subjective than you're giving the films credit for. There are a million ways - as already said - to see Zodiac as a hopeful film about people dealing with reality. To make an empirical judgment across the board for this film - as well as a number of others - simply isn't fair.
That seems like a controversial statement.
I love unusual viewpoints, and I have absolutely loved all of your contributions to this thread because of it, but if you had shown such humility earlier you might have forestalled some of the "troll!" calls.
The main point of my post was my liking for Inception. I'll also add that while I kind of agree with the "point of art" post I also liked Zodiac and don't think it applies in that case. I would apply it to unreademable filth like American Psycho (especially the book) or something like that.
Nolan really doesn't seem to know when to end a story and he always seems to be juggling several different storylines at once so at the end it usually always takes an extra 30 minutes or so to wrap up all the story lines. I think Inception had the quickest ending but Dark Knight and Prestige had drawn out and multiple endings and even Memento had a longish ending.
I'll probably go see Salt next it was a pretty good book and it will be interesting to see Angelina's take on the cod trade and how salt impacted world history.
:) I had forgotten that I wanted to read Salt; next trip to the library web site I will reserve it.
Well, yeah, that's the point -- she dies for Pitt's sin.
A+
1. Wild Strawberries
2. The Seventh Seal
3. Cries and Whispers
4. Persona
5. Winter Light
6. Shame
7. Saraband
8. The Virgin Spring
A
9. Smiles of a Summer Night
A-
10. The Magician
11. Through a Glass Darkly
B
12. Scenes from a Marriage
B-
13. The Silence
C-
14. The Serpent's Egg
I'm surprised that I've seen so few. I went on a real kick five years ago.
Okay, "vainfully-wise." Happy?
A+: Fanny and Alexander, Scenes from a Marriage, The Seventh Seal, Winter Light, Shame
A: Cries and Whispers, Through a Glass Darkly, Wild Strawberries
B+: The Virgin Spring, Persona
B: The Magician
B-: Saraband, Hamnstad, To Joy
C: Autumn Sonata, Hour of the Wolf, The Silence
C-: Thirst, The Making of Fanny and Alexander
D: The Passion of Anna, Crisis
I loooooove Bergman.
I would have agreed with you completely except that I just watched The Book of Eli on DVD last night. That movie was a ####ing disgrace. Didn't make a single shred of sense, preachy to the point of self-parody, and utterly boring on top of it.
I didn't realize Andy was making movies.
In my mind , all of Mememto is an ending. That is why I love it so much.
I still think Insomnia is criminally under rated as well - does it get much love here? Everyone talks about Nolan and never mentions frigging Insomnia...
(Maybe I missed all the posts on Insomnia -I can't sift through thousands of posts to see though)
I really should one day go back over and read the thread, I've missed the last 600 posts.
Hell, if it weren't for insomnia, some of the best posts in threads like this would never get written.
Let me state, from experience, that oozing large quantities of mucus from your eyeballs is not awesome at all, whether Clive Owen does it or not. In fact, it kind of sucks.
The last time I did it, I was like eight years old, and the mucus hardened into a shell overnight and totally immobilized my eyelids, such that when I woke up and tried to open my eyes and couldn't, I thought I'd unexpectedly gone blind and, in the parlance of the masses, freaked right the #### out.
Plus, why in the hell do all action heroes nowadays have to be Superman without the krypton?
I remember all three of Whit Stillman's movies very fondly. On a high curve:
1. Metropolitan
2. The Last Days of Disco
3. Barcelona.
Put me down for Wild Strawberries #1 on the Bergman list.
I ask because I just saw the original Funny Games, and the only thing I took from it is that Haneke is a an awful, misanthropic man--ie, whatever messages he was trying to deliver about the portrayal/aestheticization of violence in the media got lost among the overwhelming bleakness on display.
Me too. Most films that get made have one or two things that the makers managed not to get wrong. I can think of some of the worst movies I've ever seen – take Meet the Fockers, for instance – and someone at least had the interesting idea of casting Hoffman and Streisand. And the moxie to talk them into it. The execution was terrible, but it was a professional test of endurance for all concerned. I was not ashamed of Robert DeNiro after I saw the picture.
The films that I have found pretty much nothing to say for at all tend to be baseball films, because I will watch absolutely anything about baseball. Probably the three worst movies I've ever seen are two third-sequels (Bad News Bears Go to Japan and Major League Back to the Minors) and the bottom of the barrel, a film called Ed. Ed is the one with Matt LeBlanc and the chimpanzee. I mean, you'd think that "Matt LeBlanc and a chimpanzee" would be saying enough, but it's a really badly-done animatronic chimpanzee. Plus the film seems to have been written and shot by people who had never seen a movie before. They set up the camera in very odd places and cut the footage together randomly. And this ain't the artsy variety of odd angles and random editing, believe me. If you ever try to see it you will be begging for someone to anaesthetise you after a couple of reels.
But really, anything better than that has something worthwhile in it. One of the worst major pictures I ever saw was Exposed, with Rudolf Nureyev and Nastassja Kinski – unbelievably bad, but you got to look at Nastassja Kinski. Which beats looking at Matt LeBlanc.
"My films are intended as polemical statements against the American 'barrel down' cinema and its dis-empowerment of the spectator. They are an appeal for a cinema of insistent questions instead of false (because too quick) answers, for clarifying distance in place of violating closeness, for provocation and dialogue instead of consumption and consensus."
from Film as Catharsis
http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/03/haneke.html
"Thanks for coming, now get out!"
[/Barris]
It's not the greatest movie you'll ever see but is lots of fun and is perfect for settling on after flipping through the channels. Poitier plays the role of city-cop-who-is-out-of-his-element masterfully.
Also, the score sticks out as being exceptionally well done.
The movie reminded me that there are a lot of Poitier movies I still need to see. (Saw The Jackal for the second time this weekend also, though I'm referring more to his earlier work.)
And that was your first mistake.
Insomnia suffers in part for not being as good as the original version.
Just saw Inception, my first movie of the year (need to use babysitters more often). I liked it as a fun little puzzle box, but part of what came with that was a lot of exposition and some predictable conclusions. Still, it was neat seeing Nolan put it together, talented guy.
Big Lebowski definitely improves with repeated viewings. As does Anchorman, for some reason.
Big Lebowski definitely improves with repeated viewings
Yup. I didn't like it the first time I saw it.
I warned you. Seriously, somewhere in this thread, I told you not to watch Funny Games.
This statement and the fact that his movies are unwatchable make me feel proud to be an American. And I'm not the patriotic type.
One good thing: It was better than Stone's Natural Born Killers.
Man Bites Dog is still the best exploration of the violence in media topic, in my opinion.
I didn't love the ending of Prestige, but I have a hard time seeing how you could have ended it any earlier.
It was called Deadly Pursuit in Oz. I always liked it
Apparently the actor who was playing Cameron *is* a (really) young Joseph Gordon-Levitt.
I did not remember that from the last time I saw that movie.
When does Joseph Gordon-Levitt not look like a really young Joseph Gordon-Levitt? The writer of the posted article was mocked for saying that the actors were too young, but he had a point. Levitt-Gordon and Page look like teenagers and, in some way, it made the story less credible.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main