Kareem was fucking good here. Really good.
Umm, I have nothing, umm, Elvira Madigan, currently Berlin School:Petzold, Hochhausler, Angela Schanelec, Ulrich Kohler, Ann-Kristin Reyel. Otar Iosseliani.
And Chihayafuru was fucking genius. The way they used the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu as an emotional subtext for the sports series would need multiple viewings to really appreciate.
I won't be watching the Oscars.
But actually, the whole event is going to turn out to be about Woody fucking Allen again, isn't it?
Enough with Toy Story already. Next step will be going on and on about that Duran Duran toy.
If it wins it will plummet to the bottom of the pile of modern poor Best Picture picks, down there with Forrest Gump and Crash. I saw it in 3D, and sort of enjoyed it for what it was, but it just is not Best Picture material.
This argument wobbles a bit when you think about some other recent Best Picture winners. Never mind "Crash" and "Forrest Gump", does "Gravity" really not match the high artistic standard set by, say, "Braveheart" and "Titanic" and "The Artist" and "A Beautiful Mind" and "The Hurt Locker"? I'd say it's well up there. I don't think "Best Picture material" has any meaning given the sort of shite that wins Best Picture one year in two.
I think the only two new releases I saw this past year - in a theater or not - were Wreck It Ralph and Frozen. The last time I saw a non-kid movie in a theater was The Social Network, which [good grief] came out in 2010.
I am so deprived! Just kidding, I hate movies. It was easy to give up.
5.2 is surprisingly true. I don't hate movies but, eh? Two hours is a long time.
I think I've seen only American Hustle, which was pretty thin beer ("The '70s! That's the joke. The '70s!"). I'm kind of rooting for The Wolf of Wall Street because of all the handwringing and pearl clutching.
I watched all but the last 10 minutes of Gravity flying eastbound over the Atlantic last week, I started it too late and got cut off when we landed. I caught the last 10 minutes when returning westbound. But yeah, even taking into account that interrupted viewing, it wasn't that great- since I have no awareness of pop culture it was vaguely in my head that this had been a movie talked about some time in the recent past but I didn't realize it was up for best picture this year.
Since you don't need to sleep as much coming westbound I also watched The Wolverine, Sea of Monsters, and Thor 2. Gravity would probably but not definitely win best picture if those were the competition.
I also sort of saw The Butler on my trip to CA last month, but that flight wasn't movies on demand so it kept playing and I would fall asleep and wake up and there would be the same character with a different president each time. Apparently that is a sufficiently complete summary of the plot.
I also saw Elysium totally out of order, roughly seeing the middle, then the end, then the beginning. I think they should make Academy voters screen the nominees exclusively on planes.
5.2-7: My sister and her husband work on movies. Every time we get together, they ask what we've seen recently. We see maybe one movie a year in theaters (usually something big and dumb), maybe a couple more at home. It's a terribly unsatisfying conversation for both sides.
My parents go see everything they've worked on but walk out after they see the particular scene they were involved in if the rest of the movie's terrible. They once paid to watch only the opening credits on a big screen.
American Hustle and Gravity were both fun. I don't get all the hand-wringing about putting fun movies on the list, especially since they've expanded the number of nominees. Pretty obviously neither of them should win.
12 Years a Slave was absolutely amazing. He faults it for being too close to the historical record, but it's a separate and impressive achievement to hew so closely to fact and still make a meaningful and moving film. McQueen clearly thinks it should be considered on its own, which can be seen even in the typography of the title. Anyway, it's notable for being a film where Cumberbatch (enh, maybe Brad Pitt) gives the worst performance, and I say that as a fanboy. If it doesn't win best picture, it better pick up an acting award for Ejiofor, Fassbender, or Nyong'o.
I think I saw one movie in the theater this year (Iron Man 3; my lab-mates all wanted to go while we were at a conference on the Florida gulf coast. Sure, why not, nothing else to do on the Florida gulf coast). I've probably watched some movies on Netflix in the past year. I definitely rewatched the Jackass movies sometime in the past couple of years, though it might have been in 2012, though. Unless the pattern from the last few years changes my one movie in the theater this year is looking to be Guardians of the Galaxy.
Last week I saw a live play for the first time in about 10 years. Even sat in the 4th row from the front. It's weird having actual people performing for you.
I saw The Lego Movie in a theater last weekend. I don't actually remember what the last movie I saw in a theater was before that, but it probably was more than a year ago.
I'd go to the theatre all the time if it were cheaper, I love it. I see cheap am dram most months as Kid A practically lives at our local little independent (as those who see me in the other place might have noticed).
Kid C and I liked Gravity but more for the prettiness and cleverness than the story. I imagine it looked a lot better in 3D on a big screen than on an airplane screen.
I preferred Wolverine, shit as it was, for the high proportion of shirtless Hugh Jackson.
Gravity did not have a good script. But if you can get past that, it was a remarkable movie. You can't really judge it if you saw it on an airplane, it's a movie that should be seen on the big screen. I think it winning best director and best cinematography but not best picture would be about fair.
I really liked American Hustle. Fun, well-crafted, smart, and excellently acted. It's not the best movie ever, but it's very near a local maximum. What small change would you make to improve that movie?
I saw it on two different airplanes! Cinematography aside, the ridiculousness of the plot was my biggest complaint. People overlook the whole "hero never gets hit by bullets" in action movies as part of suspension of belief but I felt like this was going for more serious film making while still relying on that trope more than something like Wolverine did.
Also, Amy Adams is a national treasure. In relatively quick succession I saw American Hustle, Her, and The Master, and I thought she put in the best performance in every single one of those films up against some really top actors.
Loomis has a similar thread up, mentioning this contribution from Crash that is highly relevant to this blog: "showing the hellish problem America faces with Iranian on Mexican crime"
Apparently, "I never go to the movies" is the new " I don't even own a TV."
Apparently, "I never go to the movies" is the new " I don't even own a TV."
But even more virtuous because it proves you are a devoted parent.
1,12.1: As I said in the post, I did sort of enjoy Gravity for what it was, but even that enjoyment was tempered by the way that the key moments seemed to all have been scripted by a 10-year old. The tension was palpable and evident by the very setup, and with the 3-D and all it could have been excellent with the claustrophobia of the suits and all. But instead, every single time it's the one-handed grab of the last possible bit of debris and on and on until it washes all humanity from the film and leaves it in the realm of crap like the latest Hobbit.
I feel sorry for your little lives with your little movies, when I have children to breathe meaning into every chore I do. Watching them destroy my possessions in real time is far more profound and meaningful than your movies.
It's true. Sitting at home reading the internet on an iPad while your kid gets into whatever trouble it is they're getting into is much more virtuous than just locking them in the closet while you go check out some imax.
I would never go to a movie while it is light out. If I haven't seen something by the time Daylight Savings Time changes, there is very little chance I'll see it.
6: 5.2 is me
Yes, what brought that home to me was when you dismissed going to see Nebraska out of hand when I mentioned going to see it. Against all odds here's a movie mostly set right in "your" Nebraska and it was not enough to consider going to the theater.
Anyway, I had no idea what Kareem had gotten into recently, including writing a kid's book, Sasquatch in the Paint.
And Kareem's thought s on 12 years and the others are more thoughtful than my swipe at Gravity.
Sanctimony adds to the richness of my life.
25 - I'm just glad I don't have to go and see children's films any more. Although Monsters University was good, and also had loads of references to the Monsters Inc PC game which my kids played very thoroughly, so they really enjoyed it.
Much more fun though to have older children and make them watch old films I liked. After the John Connor haircut, I bought the Terminator quadrilogy. So far we've only watched #1 but that went down very well.
I would go to the movies more often if they would turn the sound down. If I want my ears assaulted I can listen to rock music, but the prevalent volumes in movie theatres are simply distracting from what's happening on screen.
22: whip it out, bitch. I've got 56" up in here, and we're thinking about expanding.
Watching them destroy my possessions last remaining shreds of dignity in real time is far more profound and meaningful than your movies.
Also, I saw Gravity, so I can participate in this conversation. It was pretty much as JP says: a fine piece of technical flimflam and an utter piece of shit as a movie. That said, Cuaron's range is really something to behold.
Holy shit, I just got to 33, which is state-of-the-art get-off-my-lawnsmanship.
Kareem has literally been my hero since as long as my memory runs, and there's little I enjoy more than seeing him be grouchy in public. But it's a little odd to have this particular complaint in a year when 12 years a slave is running, and "old person votes for Philomena" (which I haven't seen) is pretty much voting your demographic. Of the ones I've seen, 12YAS was the only one to remotely "deserve" best picture. American Hustle was dumb but fun and I feel like Her was super, super dumb and horrible.
The audience for movies in theaters are basically kids, teenagers, old people. You fuckers in your mid-late 30s aren't even getting movies made for you, except maybe for Her, which sucked.
At what age is it appropriate to show kids Ghostbusters given the sexism and the "this man has no dick" type jokes?
(I think this has been discussed before)
mid-late 30s
[blushes, fishes out ID, bats eyelashes at Halford]
Talk about sanctimony made me decide to see if I could locate an old pedometer I got once and see if it still worked, and clip it on. I've taken 30 steps!
Some of the tenured professors in this thread are making sense.
40: we rule the mommy-blogs though.
Gravity was fucking awesome, Stormy and Limpy. True, it would have been better if they'd dispensed with the script and slowed the whole thing down, stretching it out to like three and a half hours. Tarkovsky would have wept.
The audience for movies in theaters are basically kids, teenagers, old people. See 33 (bows low in general direction of VW.)
If you can still bow low, you're not that old. Get of my lawn, Stretch Armstrong!
I suppose this is the right thread for noting that there's NMM to Alain Resnais.
The only movie I saw in a theater in 2013 was Catching Fire, the evening after my mom's funeral. I really enjoyed it - much-needed escapism - and my kids did too. Hard to go wrong with Lawrence, Sutherland, and Seymour Hoffman chewing the scenery. One of my friends (60-something African American, local activist, lawyer/divinity student) told me that 12YAS was the best movie he's seen on American slavery. Still on my list.
On the internet, nobody knows how low you can bow.
12YAS was the best movie he's seen on American slavery.
This is amazingly faint praise. I'm not even sure what the comparison class would include. Roots? Django Unchained? The director's cut of Schoolhouse Rock?
I'm not even sure what the comparison class would include.
Wall Street.
"Amistad" was a very good movie.
I liked "Amazing Grace", but it doesn't count. It's almost entirely white British aristocrats. Just wanted to point out, that that movie is better than you'd expect.
it proves you are a devoted parent
Hardly. It proves that your disposable income has been devoured and that you neglect your children via Netflix and the internet, because they're already paid for and in the living room.
Still at 75 steps, but I've nurtured my children like a beast.
Apo speaks the truth. We're not exactly broke, but if we're already paying for a sitter, I'd rather eat dinner at a restaurant or hang out with friends, and in theory watch the movie on Netflix at some point.
Gravity did not have a good script. But if you can get past that, it was a remarkable movie. You can't really judge it if you saw it on an airplane, it's a movie that should be seen on the big screen. I think it winning best director and best cinematography but not best picture would be about fair.
Pretty much this. I'd be happy to see it win best picture, but that's because I'm a giant nerd about space and I spent most of the film just soaking in the atmosphere (so to speak). The script was dreadful and Clooney hammed it up something rotten, but it was probably the best cinematic experience I've had since, I don't know, Finding Nemo maybe. A long, long time, that's for sure. It's the sort of film that reminds me why I (sometimes) put up with all the crap going to the cinema entails these days.
I know that what I'm about to say isn't really original (I mean, because of the huge number of articles about how the proliferation of relatively inexpensive, huge TVs with good sound has undermined the movie-going experience), but having a huge TV with good sound makes going to the movies much less appealing than it used to be.
I kind of liked Gravity, but really liked All is Lost better. Last movie I saw in a theater was Where God Likes to Be last weekend. 12 Years should win.
61: If you have irritating people around you using their smartphones, with a big-screen TV you can pretty much replicate the cinema-going experience in the comfort of your very own home.
Since I'm mining the NYRB for support this morning, here: J. Hoberman's Gravity review gets it right.
63: That review has all the reasons that is was OK as it was, and could have been great; but then they fucked it up with the overly-dramatic time deadlines and space acrobatics.
This is clearly one of those gusty bus issues involving what you are willing to suspend disbelief on or pass over in silence. But for me it absolutely crushes the experience.
See also Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Kareem is so great. Is there any great athlete who is more interesting or thoughtful? Why is he never in the discussion when people talk about the best player ever? Most unstoppable shot in basketball history, as many championships as Jordan, plus he's someone you would actually want to hear from. It would be nice not to have a major-league asshole like Jordan as the universal consensus best ever.
It's weird having actual people performing for you.
Yes. I rarely go to plays, but when I do for the first 15 minutes or so I feel sort of embarassed for the performers. Like..guys...you're acting really weird up there, really, you can relax. I think it's partially the in-person thing and partially that projecting to a large live audience requires a much less naturalistic style than acting for a TV camera.
I'm thrilled by the number of denizens of this blog testifying to the limited use they have for movies and the Cineplex experience.
Makes me feel less like a pariah with self-isolating habits who refuses the significant events of his time.
||
For LB's bank of Sayers lore, or whomever else knows:
Suspicion has fallen on a young woman, and Wimsey has Bunter make inquiries among the staff. Bunter carefully reports: "Not likeable, but they like her"
I think it's "The Unpleasantness at the Balogna Club" but I've never read a word of Sayers; this is remember from the Ian Carmichael series of the early 70s
I'm just checking my memory, to see if I got it or garbled it.
|>
Why is he never in the discussion when people talk about the best player ever?
Because he' always mentioned in such discussion? I mean, if it's at all serious. It is true, though, that he's never at the top (nor should he be). I mean, he didn't work hard enough on defense, sometimes didn't even run down the court, and rarely tried until the playoffs started.
I saw Gravity at a 3D Imax, so maybe thats why I came away with a better impression. Also, the script becomes more interesting once you recognize that Sandra Bullock actually died 3/4 of the way through the movie.
67: Because Morgan Freeman, I mean Bill Russell, is pretty unmatched? Also, agree with VW.
Kareem seems to have liked American Hustle more than I did.
It's the Bellona Club, but I don't know the line offhand. -- might be original from the TV script. Or I've forgotten it. That's not one of the books I remember vividly, and I'm not recalling much more than that I think it was the one with Peter hanging around with lesbian artists.
Going to movies is awesome. I go see all the comic book movies, Star Treks, and lately have seen the new Robocop and latest Jack Ryan movie.
I'm up to 75 steps.
Your decision to ignore The 39 Steps during this slow live-blogging makes me wonder about your commitment to cinema.
What an oddly cranky thread -- or maybe it's just me.
Actually, it probably is me, because I found the Kareem article interesting because it was by Kareem but otherwise kind of annoying.
This is a questioning of only one category: Best Picture. And why the Academy continues to play it safe in this category, like the young first-timer in prison who tries to be the best buddy to everyone and to not offend anyone.
Really? That seems like evidence in favor of a much broader adoption of the analogy ban.
Also I love Kareem, (and Kareem was one of the first sports books that I really enjoyed), but I think Von Wafer accurately describes his place in basketball history -- one of the best ever, but probably not the best ever.
It would be nice not to have a major-league asshole like Jordan as the universal consensus best ever.
I do agree with that that. Honestly I've come around to appreciating LeBron. I haven't gotten as far as actually rooting for him, but he does have a certain charm. I appreciate that he's at least opening the door to the idea that somebody will supplant Jordan at the pinnacle eventually -- whether LeBron or somebody else.
69: I mean, he didn't work hard enough on defense, sometimes didn't even run down the court, and rarely tried until the playoffs started.
From Airplane, best picture, 1980:
Joey: Wait a minute. I know you. You're Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. You play basketball for the Los Angeles Lakers.
Roger Murdock: I'm sorry, son, but you must have me confused with someone else. My name is Roger Murdock. I'm the co-pilot.
Joey: You are Kareem! I've seen you play. My dad's got season tickets.
Roger Murdock: I think you should go back to your seat now, Joey. Right, Clarence?
Captain Oveur: Nahhhhhh, he's not bothering anyone. Let him stay here.
Roger Murdock: But just remember, my name is... [showing his nametag] ...ROGER MURDOCK. I'm an airline pilot.
Joey: I think you're the greatest, but my dad says you don't work hard enough on defense.
[Kareem gets angry]
Joey: And he says that lots of times, you don't even run down court. And that you don't really try... except during the playoffs.
Roger Murdock: [breaking character] The hell I don't! LISTEN, KID! I've been hearing that crap ever since I was at UCLA. I'm out there busting my buns every night. Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes.
Thanks for making that explicit, dood.
That said, Kareem should maybe be top five in the GOAT discussions, but thinking of him as number one makes no sense at all. Surely Russell, who was not just a better basketball player than Kareem but also a far cooler person, is Jordan's only real rival for the top spot. (And yes, don't call me Shirley!)
I'd rather eat dinner at a restaurant or hang out with friends, and in theory watch the movie on Netflix at some point.
Emphasis on the "in theory". Netflix is all about TV shows now and has the movie I want to see about 5% of the time these days. Redbox or some sort of digital rental, instead.
I would probably go see more movies in the theater if movie theaters that played older movies were more common. I've been watching a lot of movies in the past few years as part of a plot to destroy my literacy, but I generally only see movies in the theater with family. Last year I saw American Hustle and Frozen, which I actually thought was pretty good.
Also, chris y is completely right about the sound.
Evidence of my decline in reading: I've seen two versions of The 39 Steps, the Hitchcock version multiple times, but never finished the novel, which is extremely short.
but never finished the novel, which is extremely short badly written.
FTFY.
Why is he never in the discussion when people talk about the best player ever? Most unstoppable shot in basketball history
This got me to look at the b-r.com career WS list (which is going to (a) reward longevity more than most MVP or GOAT measures and (b) have a slight towards offense, since it's harder to measure individual defense based on box-score stats). As a note Magic and Bird don't show up until the 20s on this list because both had relatively short careers.
The top 6, with my comments.
1) Kareem 273 WS, .23 ws/48.
-- I'm a little surprised to see him atop the list, though I shouldn't be. He's far enough ahead of 2nd place that perhaps he does deserve more credit than I'm giving him.
2) Wilt 247 WS, .25 WS/48.
-- hard to say much about him. WS isn't very useful for players pre 1973.
3) Karl Malone 235 WS, .21 WS/48
-- A reminder that this metric does overvalue longevity and scoring. Still it's impressive that Kareem ranks almost 20% higher in total WS (and 10% high in WS/min).
4) Jordan, 214 WS, .25 WS/48
-- As bad as Jordan was on the Wizards, this is a reminder that he really didn't play much past his prime.
5) John Stockton 208 WS, .21 WS/48
-- I think John Stockton is amazing,and I'll still say again that this metric overrates offense and longevity.
6) Tim Duncan 189 Ws, .21 WS/48
-- Considering Duncan's defensive value, this makes me take the idea that Duncan might be a top-8 player of all time.
If you look at the top 5 for WS/min (post 1970), with at least 125 WS you get:
1) Jordan
2) David Robinson
3) LeBron
4) Kareem
5) Magic
6) Barkley
7) Duncan
Again, pretty impressive to see Kareem so high on the list considering that he played for so much longer than anyone else. On the other hand, the level of competition in the 70s was a lot lower.
Apologies for not just wandering off-topic, but hiking out into the woods. But once I started looking, it was interesting.
Russell, who was not just a better basketball player than Kareem
Jesus Christ. Russell was a great, great player, but this is the worst sort of basketball hipsterism. Kareem's obviously the NBA's all-time leading scorer; Russell, meanwhile, got outscored by such all-time greats as Jack Sikma and Kevin Willis. Obviously scoring isn't the be-all and end-all of the game, but seriously.
Oh yeah, and that's just based on total points over a career! On a per-game basis Russell gets beaten out by such luminaries as Antawn Jamison, Wayman Tisdale, and Kiki Vandeweghe.
Arguing that Kareem was better than Russell misses the point in the same way that arguing that George Gervin was better than Kevin Garnett would.
On a per-game basis Russell gets beaten out by such luminaries as Antawn Jamison, Wayman Tisdale, and Kiki Vandeweghe.
Stop now before you just embarrass yourself.
Arguing that Kareem was better than Russell misses the point . . .
Well, no, I think you can make an fair case that Kareem was better than Russell. Personally I find that a tricky argument to evaluate because they were such different great players.
I suppose I should have said Carmelo Anthony or Tracy McGrady rather than George Gervin. Regardless, Josh, do you know anything about basketball? (That's a serious question, by the way. I'm not trolling. I mean, I know you know a lot about soccer, but I have no clue if you're similarly informed about basketball.) Also, have you ever watched film of Russell in his prime? He dominated the best players of his era. Dominated them.
Thank you 88. Russell never broke 20 points a game in a season, never hit .50 shooting from the field in a season, etc., and this was as as a 6'10 guy in the fifties and sixties.
The only movie I saw in a theater in 2013 was The Grandmaster, but I'm kind of always already in the bag for Wong Kar Wai. Usually I see new movies after they come out on DVD because my dad buys ALL the DVDs and whenever I visit he gets me to binge-watch with him.
I think you can make an fair case that Kareem was better than Russell.
I don't think you can, actually. Defense is notoriously hard to quantify, but Russell's genius at that end of the floor was unparalleled. Although Kareem was absolutely brilliant -- again, maybe even top five in GOAT discussions -- his impact on the game in the era in which he played doesn't really compare.
Having said all of the above, I'm not invested enough in basketball these days to have a serious discussion about Russell v. Kareem (leaving aside that such a discussion is, in my view, inherently unserious*).
* Yes, that was me just trolling.
My point is not that Russell was worse than any of the players I mentioned! Just that if you're going to say he was a better player than Kareem, you're going to have to argue that his defense and rebounding was good enough to make up for his (relatively small) offensive contribution. You might be able to make that argument, but I kinda doubt it.
It's the Bellona Club, but I don't know the line offhand. -- might be original from the TV script
I'm at a crossroads: looking inside the Amazon or B&N copies doesn't yield the line, and the whole Carmichael episode is on youtube.
But I follow Robert Frost in respecting memories for themselves, and not trying to correct them. I was very impressed by a notion of his that sometimes the idea you have of what might be in a book you haven't read might be more valuable to you than what's actually in it, and you need to be aware that you might lose something by writing over it, so to speak.
I think the solution is to be aware of what you think you remember, and then go and check, so that you don't write over unconsciously, and still possess the remembrance.
Actually, if we're talking about college as well, I think Kareem's impact was comparable to Russell's.
Bill Russell was far better for the obvious reason.
He dominated the best players of his era. Dominated them.
And put him on Kareem's 80's Lakers and he's maybe not even beating out Worthy for the power forward slot.
George Clooney's Fairy Godstronaut character and the human backstory in general ruined Gravity for me. It didn't help that I saw it the same week that I saw a 70 mm print of 2001 in a theater.
I saw 12 Years a Slave yersterday, and it is quite clearly the best of the lot (and would maybe be the best Oscar-winning pure drama since Platoon?). Kareem's complaint that it keeps itself at historical remove from the present is weird. American slavery is something whose singularity we are historically removed from. What would you contextualize it with: a montage of Abu Grahib, Florida tomato farming, and the prison system? Though I agree with him that the "happy", at-least-this-one-got-away ending does leave you with a pretty empty consolation, I think that ultimately gets at the old, can/should conventionally realistic, dramatic art try to depict historical horrors? I am not sure what narrative framing could be "true" to slavery without making the thing unwatchable.
Defense is notoriously hard to quantify, but Russell's genius at that end of the floor was unparalleled.
I love sentences like this. I wish there were an analog to "biscuit conditional" for them.
Well, certainly if you're going to tag Kareem for lack of defense you have to talk about Russell's offense. Plus, Kareem was a great shot blocker. Impact on the game seems partially down to having entered the league at a time where there were already other great players active. Kareem might get underrated because he never won a championship on a team where there wasn't another great (top 5/10) player.
But just on coolness...can we have some nerd solidarity here? Are we going to judge Kareem for being introverted, methodical, and scholarly?
99: I know you liked living here, but I wouldn't have figured you for a USF superfan.
75: IIRC, the lesbian artists were less likely to murder somebody that the Scottish artists.
103: Plus Kareem studied with Bruce Lee. That gets you some major coolness points right there.
1700 steps. Take that, grocery store.
We go to see so so so many more live performances than movies in theaters, but think at least partly due to where we live. Too many great options! Agree re assaultive sound level being a major turn off.
Watch quite a few movies at home, though. It's worked really well for us to be pretty vigilant in steering the kid's interests in movies and music in general directions that we find congenial. Figured he'd be our roommate for roughly 2 decades, so made sense to not end up with endless horrendous junk inundating the communal living space.
My only regret about seeing Gravity in a crowded theatre was that I was then obligated not to laugh out loud at the hokey imagery at the ending. I enjoyed Gravity for its well-paced, well-executed action-thriller elements, but the dialogue and characters and message-such-as-it-was were average at best.
(The way in which I would have liked the Cuaróns to demonstrate that they were thinking about something other than SFX and danger would have been simple-but-super-unlikely: Cancel the reflex casting of Clooney and put another woman up there instead. I imagine that the script would've needed remarkably few changes, and it would if anything have reinforced some of the themes they did put in the film.)
1700 steps. Take that, grocery store.
And that was just walking down one aisle! (Seriously, every time I go to Texas it kills me how much bigger the supermarkets are than they are here.)
I can't comment on this discussion until I hear what Russell thinks should win Best Picture.
It's hard to imagine I'll take 8000 more steps in the next seven hours. Pedometer must be broken.
Also, to keep complaining about Kareem's film criticism:
[12 years] is a depiction of history, not an exploration of the themes that explain the human motivations that allowed slavery to exist
To me this is exactly what is good about the movie. "Human motivations" haven't changed all that much in 150 years and can't do much to explain what allowed slavery to exist. What's changed are social and political institutions, laws, and economic systems that countenance, reward, punish, and channel certain human motivations and not others. You see exactly how worthless the "good master's" liberal temperament is in doing anything that makes a difference in Northrup's structural situation.
I'm biased, but the claims for Bill Russell as greatest of all time always seem incredibly weak and to develop into either woo about defense and his era or arguments about rings and the 60s Celtics. The latter, sure I guess, and Russell was definitely the most dominant defensive player and rebounder of his time, probably the greatest defender/rebounder relative to the existing competition of all time, though Russell also played on a very good overall team. But Kareem had much better longevity, was probably greater at his peak, was a much better scorer, played on plenty of championship teams, and played in a much more competitive era. That's putting aside player improvement over time and that peak Kareem definitely would have beaten peak Russell one on one (I think the pre-merger NBA was such a different kind of thing it's hardly worth comparing). To put cards on the table, my own view is that Jordan was the greatest player, with Kareem having the greatest career in NBA history.
I still see a ton of movies in theatres, and yeah, it's completely obvious that that's determined by my circumstances.
Most of what I enjoyed/appreciated/respected most wholeheartedly last year was clearly not going to be nominated as a Best Picture - The World's End, All Is Lost and, yes, Frozen - and I'll be perfectly satisfied if 12 Years a Slave wins. I thought it was less good at drama than it was at message, artistry, and emotional engagement, but those are plenty to make it the most deserving nominee.
My only deeply-felt annoyance - outside of Brad Pitt the Magical Canadian - was that, as someone who's slow to recognize faces in real life, I was amazed at how distracting I found all the celebrities in minor roles.
On topic, but as far as I can tell from the thread, nobody here will stop masturbating to Alain Resnais.
It is remarkable, though, how great both Russell and Kareem have been after their basketball career ended -- Magic, too. I can't think of any other sport where three people in the top 10 all time great player lists have had such interesting post-sports careers; did Johnny Unitas study history and write grouchy film reviews or do incredible development work for lower income communities?
Pele, Maradona, Garrincha, and George Best have certainly led interesting. if not always admirable ones.
Um, assume I wrote what I meant there.
Pele is apparently just an awesome human being, who does heaps of really good work for charity, and was at one point a minister in Brazil (for sport, admittedly, but.)
Maradonna's Maradonna, of course.
But most all-time great players become managers, which isn't a very exciting career --- why don't basketballers?
Magic's career as a businessman really is remarkable. He's done great things and made loads doing it. It's especially impressive given how Isiah and Michael run things directly into the ground.
And don't forget, 12 Years clued Richard Cohen in about slavery, so it's got that going for it.
I just rewatched Aningaaq (the unseen part of Gravity). It's on the >a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zcYkuIzzy8">internet, people.
But most all-time great players become managers, which isn't a very exciting career --- why don't basketballers?
Most all-time great players don't become managers in any US sport.
127 -- Hmm. Is that because of the sport's organisation, intrinsic to the sports, or what? I mean, most really great footballers don't become really great managers, but some do, and most really great footballers do a spell in management.
Bill Russell did coach for a few years, but even he admitted he was not very good at it.
Did any of you Wimsey types listen to the BBC audioplays? They were on regularly when I was a kid, and that was my introduction to the stories and probably part of why I haven't read them as an adult, which isn't fair because it's not that I didn't like them. Well, the one with the bell tower left me weeping in terror, but that's the most memorable part.
3400 steps, birthday party, bam!
130: The bell tower was sort of a horror. I never heard of the audioplays (or TV shows) before I heard of the books.
Kareem was a truly great player. Nothing I say about Russell is intended to take anything away from Kareem's greatness. Except that this
peak Kareem definitely would have beaten peak Russell one on one
seems highly dubious to me.
Again, I wonder if anyone here, other than maybe Nick, has watched film of peak Russell. He regularly ate Wilt's lunch. Which makes a claim like
he's maybe not even beating out Worthy for the power forward slot
so silly that I find myself thinking, again, that none of you have actually watched film of Russell playing.
119: I wonder if it's because basketball is more about athleticism and less about skill than other pro sports. (For example, Olajuwon started playing basketball at 15, where most sports you seem to have to start playing at age 5 to ever be any good.) That means the players haven't spent their whole lives only thinking about that one thing, and it allows them to develop as people.
133: I think "watching film of Russell playing" is pretty low on all of our todo lists, yes.
But most all-time great players become managers
I think part of it is that coaching in soccer requires badges, which in turn requires years of experience which can be waived with playing time. So ex-players have an automatic leg up on non-players when it comes to getting into managerial positions. I don't know of any equivalent in North American sports.
Also, he was the first African American coach in the NBA and won a championship. Yes, he wasn't a good coach -- because, like Jordan, he was kind of a hyper-competitive dickweed -- but he still broke the barrier. Kareem is okay at jazz, though. (Again, that last part was just trolling. I love Kareem and think he was an incredible trailblazer in a bunch of different ways. That he hasn't gotten a shot coaching speaks to that, I think. I mean, but for Red Auerbach, Russell would never have gotten a chance to coach and likely would have been labeled a troublemaker by the league.)
I wonder if it's because basketball is more about athleticism and less about skill than other pro sports.
Awesomely racist. Congratulations. No wonder you don't want to watch film of Russell.
I should also say again that if we're counting college, I think Kareem has a legitimate claim to GOAT.
Basketball's not sports. It's just yelling!
Oh, the traditional story about baseball was that weaker or utility players made better managers than superstars because they had to try harder, study the game more, think during play, had better social skills, had less pure talent to rely on, didn't intimidate average players, could flatter superstars etc etc.
Lots of second base and catchers. Few pitchers.
136 -- but badges are (comparatively) recent, aren't they? I do agree the badge system favors ex-players, but isn't that somewhat because ex-players have always been favored as managers?
He regularly ate Wilt's lunch.
Playing at just about .500 head-to-head counts as eating someone's lunch now? (And I count about 30 times out of ~90 that Wilt scored <20 points in a game against Russell. That doesn't spell "domination" to me.)
What makes me especially happy about the Wafe's "watch the films" argument for Russell as GOAT is that it's pretty much exactly the same argument that insane Lakers fans use for the Kobe as GOAT argument. Black Mamba, Wafer. Black Mamba.
140: He does satisfy the rare "they made a major change to the rules to try to thwart his dominance" criteria. Chamberlain had a few, but they were more minor. And Jim Brown's power led them to radically change lacrosse.
I did not realize that Kareem was still all-time points leader (assumed Jordan had taken him out). Looks like Kobe will not catch him; LeBron or Durant would be probably the most likely active players to do so.
Remember when I tried to write a sports post and we mostly talked about movies ...
Also longtime medical marijuana user. And did not know this: In 1998, Abdul-Jabbar reached a settlement after suing Miami Dolphins running back Karim Abdul-Jabbar (now Abdul-Karim al-Jabbar, born Sharmon Shah) ,
Remember when other people posted comments on the blog.
145: yeah, I know. My problem is that making arguments across eras is nearly impossible. Add to that the difficulty of quantifying defense, and all I've got is a lot of championships, his coaching career, and the film. That said, I do think it's likely that almost nobody in this thread has ever watched Russell play, which makes Josh's bullshit about hipster nostalgia all the more annoying. Who rides a fixie, Josh?
I was down on the Gravity backstory, and then my friend who last year delivered a stillborn baby at 20 weeks was all, it feels like that, an abyss much bigger than the world, and I was like, yeah that's why I didn't want to tell you how I felt about Gravity.
There's no question that it's the most important accomplishment in film of the year. It's not just that it's a good use of 3D. It writes its own visual language. The fact that the dead child backstory was cliched and undercooked and that it featured Buzz Lightyear in the role of Jiminy Cricket are fairly venal sins in light of that.
Dirk needs like 6 more 20 pt seasons at 35 so unlikely. He is in good shape so maybe four and fractions and passes Jordan.
But out of the top twenty points-leaders there a lot not approaching ATB. O'Neal? Hayes? Wilkins? English? Havlicek?
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is an insightful and amiable middlebrow humanist.
More importantly, I learned from reading that article that Esquire features an ongoing The Women We Love of Instagram which has cheesecake photos curated by a grad-studenty-looking woman who per her tagline writes about "social justice, architecture and beautiful women" so you can totally qualify your skeeve. It's kind of the quintessential Playboy/Esquire boring bourgie porn move.
Further to 157: It is a boring move. I am not bored by it.
It's been fun for me to read this fervent discussion of pro basketball players at their peak in the 70s. I followed the game as a fan in those days, also played pickup, and had opinions of my own. The outlines of any argument I would recognize or might make are represented here, so I have nothing to add.
Sometime in the 80s I lost all interest in the game. No epiphanies, it just went away. The stars of the late 80s and 90s were mostly just names to me.
This is odd because Chicago was very exited about the Bulls dynasty, and almost everybody (else) shared some of it. Another odd thing was that my office in Deerfield was virtually the next building to the Berto Center, the Bulls' practice facility, so there were almost daily sightings. One time, in June shortly after a championship, I realized that I was driving right behind Michael Jordan who was in a red convertible. It was amazing to see how many people driving or walking saw him and reacted, waving and saluting.
And all of this more or less left me cold: not oppositional, not rancorous, just utterly uninterested.
Aside from the malign influence of Bob Greene--I'm only kidding there, but his fandom was as egregious as everything else about him--I can't account for this. I'm not a superfan but can easily watch a Bears or Hawks game with pleasure, but my basketball light went out decades ago.
The Frozen people did see the winner in its category.
However much support in my movie alienation I've received from 30ish people on this blog, I still have to contend with my mother, who will be 96 next month, hustling me off the phone to watch the Oscars.
Self-respecting grown-ups don't have GOAT discussions, people. These arguments are meant to teach you how to argue when you're twelve.
But you have one GOAT discussion ...
||
Since when do all the winter storms get names? Last one was Pax; now we have Titan.
|>
The Weather Channel started the stupid winter storm name thing a couple years ago. It doesn't mean anything.
156 is basically correct, but I was still amused, at the least, to see my ranking avowed so straightforwardly by a person writing for a thoroughly mainstream magazine.
(i.e., Philomena was overrated, when it was released, by people like my mother, but it's now being underrated by people like the Academy voters. It wasn't executed perfectly, but it did indeed take some serious questions more seriously than fly-on-the-wall histories like Dallas Buyers' Club.)
Did Ellen DeGeneres just refer to Kristen Bell as "Kristen B. Ell"?
I bet a GOAT argument could take a who-would-win-in-a-fight argument in a fight.
A five-year old GOAT argument no less.
That was a good slip-up from Cuarón. "The wise guys at Warner Brothers... the wise people at Warner Brothers."
It's a lot cooler to say 'I survived winter storm TITAN' than 'it snowed yesterday'.
Similarly, the heavy showers that stopped me going for a run yesterday afternoon are now officially "WINTER RAINSTORM BLOODHAMMER".