and I look forward to the day when all humans have been replaced by them.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We're talking about different movies. I got the title wrong, it's "The Beach". It came out in the 90s, and is about Leo finding this secret commune colony on an island near Thailand and living in it for a while before some drug growers get mad at them and kick them out.
Yep, that's about it. Too bad George didn't keep him (or other decent directors) for all the other movies he made.
And I'm not saying that episodes 4-6 were utterly fantastic movies in every way; obviously they had a good bit of camp (esp. #4), but that was part of the charm I think. They were never meant to be ultra-serious, "deep" movies with Oscar-winning performances (not that the Oscars are good indicators of performance quality these days anyway), they were meant to be visual feasts that were fun to watch while eating popcorn and watching it on a big screen. They had mildly interesting plots, decent characters, good comedic relief (thanks C3PO!), they weren't "dark" or "gritty", all in all they were great escapist entertainment, and while again not having top-of-the-line acting and script, what they had served the movies well.
That all changed with the Prequels. The plots weren't that bad and the characters might have been OK, the visuals were certainly great for the time (though too fake-looking, but lots of high-CGI movies of that era suffered the same problems), but the horrible acting and dialog really ruined it all, they broke the suspension of disbelief. (The obvious racist stereotypes in Ep.1 didn't help.) I've seen better acting on fan-made Star Trek episodes. And at least with the fan-made Star Trek stuff, you know going into it that this is what you're going to be watching. I don't expect to see amateurish acting in a $100M+ movie. And also, my expectations are much higher: I'm not forgiving of seeing a highly-paid professional actor deliver amateurish acting, while I am forgiving of an unpaid truly amateur actor deliver amateurish acting.
Leonardo was in several great roles before Titanic proving his acting ability, including Gilbert Grape and The Island.
Big Bang Theory seems to do OK with a reasonable-sized apartment (not the huge places you see on things like Friends). It is a little suspicious how waitress Penny can afford her own place though, when her two physicist friends across the hall are sharing a place.
The ACLU isn't really "left", they're civil libertarians. The "left's" values only sometimes coincide with social libertarianism. It also depends on which part of the "left" you're talking about: like the right, they're a coalition of different interests who don't always agree: environmentalists, vegans, SJWs, progressives, secularists, communists, etc. are usually associated with the left, but these different groups have different aims and frequently disagree on things. On the right, there's the religious nutters, the big-business pushers, the economic libertarians, the imperialists and war-hawks, etc.
You know. You've always known. The things you see, the things you hear, and smell — they aren't any more real than your dreams. You've drifted through life so far wondering when you're going to wake up. But you don't have to wonder anymore. This is your alarm clock. The only decision you have left to make — the only decision you've ever had to make — is whether you want to wake up, or turn it off and drift back to sleep. In exactly two minutes, your phone is going to ring. If you want to open your eyes, to be born into a world more real than you've ever imagined.. answer it.
'really, everyone in this low-income school has a personal trainer and stylist? And these people manage to have perfect hair as soon as they wake up or after running through the mud?'
US shows (and Canadian ones aimed at the US market too) take this to an extreme in other ways too. Notice that shows about young, broke 20-somethings always have them living in luxurious houses and apartments, usually in swanky city centers where rent is astronomical?
The problem is that the Hollywood remakes aren't very good: they fail to include what made the original so great in the first place. We can see this perfectly with JJ Abram's Star Trek movies: lots of great effects, but a crappy story and over-the-top action without any of the philosophy or character development that made the original Star Trek special.
That's why you subject the ancient remedies to modern testing.
And even in cases where they're harmful, at the time it was probably better to suffer with the side-effects than have the original disease. It's no different today; every medication can have negative side effects; we're just better at designing and manufacturing drugs to minimize or eliminate these side effects than before.
Don't forget, for Episode 4, his (now ex-)wife helped edit the original script. With the Prequels, he didn't get any kind of criticism whatsoever.
It's not just that. Take a look at Lucas's first big movie, THX-1138. How many lines were spoken in that move?
Lucas is all about visuals, and that's it. If he'd realize that and confine himself to that, he could make a great visual art director in a big-budget movie.
No, 4-6 were good popcorn movies. They weren't high art by any means, but they were far better than the Prequels which were trash. The reason is simple: in 4-6, other people were able to cover for George's inability. The prequels suffered for bad direction and horrible dialog (/script). In 4, his (now ex-)wife edited the script. If it weren't for her, 4 would have the same utterly horrible dialog as the prequels, and 5 and 6 might not have happened. George was also a better director back then, because his ego wasn't as big. 5 was great because it had different writers (Brackett/Kasdan) and a different director (Kershner). 6 was OK because it too had a different writer (Kasdan/Lucas) and a different director (Marquand).
With the Prequels, Lucas did everything, and no one wanted to say anything to him because his ego was so big and he had put himself in charge of everything, so the results are predictably bad. Lucas was never much good at writing a script or even directing actors, but he refuses to admit it.
Natalie Portman and (by most accounts) Hayden Christenson are actually good actors, but you wouldn't know it from the Star Wars prequels. When you have direction that lousy and a script/dialog that lousy, even the most talented actor is going to look bad. According to TFS, Portman even complained that after the Prequels, everyone thought she was a bad actress.
You can't judge an actor by a single movie. Cruise really is a good actor, that's one reason he's had such a long career. Too bad he's also badshit insane with that Scientology crap.