Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • downzy

      No More Links to Unofficial or Unlicensed Content :(   11/25/2019

      Hi, Due to numerous DMCA complaints directed towards the hosting provider of this forum, we are no longer allowing any links whatsoever to content this is shared, posted, or distributed by unlicensed or unofficial sources.   It's a sad day and we hate that it comes to this, but thanks to the sad and pathetic efforts of some even sadder and more pathetic individuals, the ability of this forum to remain online requires us to remove any links to content that is produced, shared, or distributed by individuals or sources that do not have a license or authority to post said material.   Discussion, concerns, and questions of this matter can be done so here: We apologize that it has come to this but it's the world we now live in unfortunately.   Thanks for your understanding and cooperation of this matter going forward. Downzy

appetite4illusions

Members
  • Content count

    5,871
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

371 Excellent

About appetite4illusions

  • Rank
    FRONTMAN

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Escaping New York...
  • Interests
    Genre films, synth-wave tunes, backcombing the remaining hairs on my head, treadmill running, putting ketchup on chicken, playing gee-tar, doing half-decent impressions, writing when my pen has ink, feeling the burn and occasionally, shrooming out.

Profile Fields

  • Sex
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,399 profile views
  1. Michael Keaton to return to Batman (?)

    Burton's Batman films are just dripping wet with atmosphere and German expressionism. Nolans films are very entertaining....but yes, they are realer than real and in a way, suck all the fun out of the comic-book experience. I'm old enough now to see the strengths in Nolan's storytelling and some of Burton's weaknesses at narrative storytelling...but the visual experience of Burton's films are as good as Batman ever got.
  2. Michael Keaton to return to Batman (?)

    Really? Campy? And campy beyond Adam West? Did we see the same movies? Michael Keaton can be very ha-ha, but his two Batman movies didn't even have a joke in them. Not a quip or even a whiff of that eyebrows up stuff. His Batman was exactly what I want(ed) - silent and deadly serious. Where Christian Bale's Batman ranted and raved like a hungry lion at the criminals, Keaton would just stare at them....I love that. He would stare the criminals down and psychically drain them of all their confidence before he physically fought them. He didn't speak and that was the coolest thing about Keaton. Actually, Michael Keaton knew enough to know that Batman needed to be enigmatic and mysterious. He frequently told the writers of Batman Returns that while he loved much of the dialog they had written for him, having Batman verbalize himself gave the ghost away. He specifically instructed them to keep his dialog to a minimum, to protect the mystique of Batman. This...was one of the reasons people always claimed the villains overshadowed Batman - because they got all the dialog - but to me it was a stroke of genius.
  3. Michael Keaton to return to Batman (?)

    This news put ants in my pants, awakening the six-year old in me like few things have the ability to. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/micheal-keaton-talks-return-as-batman-flash-movie-1299668 Although it's not a "Batman" movie, per say, the idea that Keaton could return to play the caped crusader has been one that has lingered around for decades. It only makes sense to bring him back as an "old Batman" in a mentor role. Since they've got multiple versions of characters and universes going on, it seems like the perfect time to get Keaton back to put the rubber on. He never had a curtain call as Batman, now's a good time. It reminds me of what Sony/Marvel did in bringing Robert Downey Jr in as an attraction and mentor in the Spider-Man films. It's only smart to leverage a character that has yet to prove itself with a character that has a giant legacy.
  4. You have to be 5' 10" or over to work at Norman's. Unless, you're Norman.
  5. Bill and Ted 3

    It's, sadly, the way the brain can instantly perceive and identify video over film. Film is tactile. It's an intermediate. It's real and it has flaws to it - but the brain can see the canvas of it. High Definition video does not have the same effect on the brain. It's perceived as reality, which can be strange and a bummer when your mind is trying to wrap it around a story. Film is majorly expensive in comparison to video, which isn't expensive at all - so 90% of all movies made are made with video or a combination thereof. It won't change. The only thing we can hope for is that video advances to a place where they can really simulate the canvas of film - but it will still be a fugazi. As far as Bill and Ted go...yeah, putting something that heightened and weird on something your brain tells you is supposed to be real, generates feelings of ambivalence.
  6. WTF Finck Solo

    Robin's solos on the Chinese Democracy material (Better, Street of Dreams, Catcher, etc) are unquestionably better than whatever Slash decides he's going to play in the moment. For someone who is so expressive and so melodic in the way his solos sing, Slash is very flat and unmemorable when he steps up to do an interpretation of a Chinese Democracy solo. That is something you just couldn't have told somebody ten years, twelve years ago...that Slash can't top Robin's melodies on the newer things. It's quite surprising.
  7. When did Axl lose his musical and performing drive?

    For me, it spoke so much when Robin Finck bailed for the second time in the months that preceeded the release of Chinese Democracy. I don't believe he ever would have done that unless he knew that a part of Axl was over and was not going to rise to his ultimate moment...and he didn't.
  8. Mick Mars solo album with lead singer Adlers Jacob Bunton

    Mick is one of the best, if not the best rhythmic guitar player of the eighties. His riffs and grooves always stood out and I dare say that he gave Motley some respectability with his prowess. I know he's been at work at his solo album for years now, so I am very intrigued to see where he takes it.
  9. Alan Niven. good or bad?

    He's got a bit of the 'cunt' persona to him. It might just be how he has that high-horse mentality and is thoroughly outspoken about it. The kind of guy who has no problem turning his nose at something. He undoubtedly helped the band navigate the early pitfalls and created opportunity for them to get the music across to a national audience. As it pertains to Niven, I've always wanted to know what exactly it was that caused Slash to turn his back on his management. In Slash's book, he claims Niven, himself, Slash's wife and Alan's wife were partying one night and Alan got extremely weird as it pertained to Renne. In a very Slash move, he says in one sentence "I don't remember exactly it was he said..." but then, several sentences later, he says "...it was very weird and I never forgot it..." Which was it it? Does Slash remember what Alan said/did or doesn't he? Either way, must have been bad.
  10. Tommy Stinson interview from 2017

    Tommy Stinson came from The Replacements and had Paul Westerberg as a model for behavior and success. There’s no doubt why someone who would be no-frills, so to speak, would look at a completely eccentric guy like Buckethead (whom could become his character at any moment and disrupt all order) and sneer. It’s very old school values versus one person’s bizarre process of creativity. I’m sure he looked at Bucket and saw someone who was Uber talented but forced his uncompromising way of working on the band. Bucket really is an individual unto himself and you can see how someone who was so “band oriented” wouldn’t appreciate that.
  11. I think it took them many years (decades) to reach the same place in life that Axl settled into: just don't give a fuck. They had a lot to accomplish after 1996 and 1998 - namely, trying to create another band whose music was big enough to become a household name. They kinda did that - even if Velvet Revolver was only relevant for their debut album, they touched the sky with that band with the two singles which were pretty ubiquitous. After that... Well, Rock N Roll is built on memories, not on the path of tomorrow. They did their own minor things for periods of time but came to realize that if they wanted back into the tent of the big circus and the glamour of that - that they would have to develop an attitude of apathy and an acceptance that there is no forward momentum. Guns N' Roses is a lumbering touring machine and nothing more. It's a well oiled stage act that can command the highest ticket prices but cannot figure out what its identity is independent of its original albums. I think they both know that and they reached a place of apathy where there are very weak expectations as to anything else.
  12. Jesus Rolls (2020) Lebowski spin off

    I've read several reviews from people who have seen it and the response is that it is a very marginal movie that is more or less, just a faithful remake of the movie that inspired it. The fact that this is Turturro's character from Lebowski doesn't seem to factor into it in any tangible way - so its a fruitless spin-off, if you're to believe the reviews.
  13. "What Movie Did You Watch?" - 2020 Edition

    Ford v Ferrari was my favorite film of last year. It got very dwarfed at the Oscars, but it may be indelibly the best film I've ever seen about professional racing - and I hate professional racing.
  14. I'm not so much a Bond fan as I am a Cary Fukunaga fan. It's quite exciting seeing him tether himself to a big bombastic franchise. Not that I want that to become the norm, but for a guy who has played only in minor leagues before, I really want to see what he'll do with a huge canvas and a downright iconic character.
  15. The Joker

    I see where you're coming from and I totally agree, I just think that fundamentally the one thing that has always set Joker apart from other villains is the fact that he's an abstraction. He's devoid of form or reason and every time you think you've got a grip on him, he shifts. Its what makes him so fascinating - he's unknowable. Whether that exists in a grounded, reality-based plot like the Dark Knight or in a hyperbolic, comic-book world like Burton's Batman, it still stands out very much. The character is always larger than life, it's just part of the tradition. In trying to make Joker just like the rest of us, Todd Phillips undermined that central philosophy of being "unknowable." I have a hard time imagining the character of Joker masturbating alone in a dark room with whiskey tears. That's way too intimate and internal and just undermines the strength that the character should posses. I actually just don't want to imagine that sort of thing - it's ugly. Well, I can give an answer to that but I thoroughly realize its unpopularity: this shouldn't have been a Joker solo movie, nor should one have been made on that premise. It shouldn't have been called "Joker." My perspective is that this was most definitely a story about "Arthur" and it would have been more appropriate to call it that and then surprise people by putting him in Joker makeup at the end - thus making it a story about Joker only in its closing moments. But I get that they wouldn't have made so many millions if this thing wasn't called Joker and it didn't rest on selling it on the image.
×