Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 428641" data-attributes="member: 8">I think that&#039;s understandable and besides, there&#039;s something awkwardly cliché about complimenting an artist on his/her &quot;signature&quot; song, as it were.Unless, of course, there isn&#039;t much work to choose from.But if I&#039;m thinking ahead and consider the idea that many people think the way I do (??) then it&#039;s possible that they also have avoided that signature song compliment, and therefore it may sound surprisingly re-honest and re-fresh to compliment the artist on that very best-remembered thing.Not that every move needs to be carefully plotted or anything.Well I did mention &quot;D-list actress&quot; but I wouldn&#039;t say that it was her performance that brought the film down. There&#039;s also nothing unexpectedly good about it (imo) and that&#039;s very much what this film needed.A crazy thing about the main character is that he constantly jumps over objects, even when he doesn&#039;t need to, as if he were training for the Olympics or drank too much Red Bull.TLADinLA is supposed to be sort of a renegade/vigilante cop avenging the death of his last-day-on-duty partner.That partner hopes to catch and arrest a bunch of crooks but it&#039;s going to be a solo operation because &quot;this is on me, I need to do it by myself&quot; because hm-hm something.Apart from being utterly stupid (one man against a group) I don&#039;t think it would be allowed to operate that way unless it&#039;s a matter of improvisation that cannot be avoided.To be fair, a story is a story and if it needs to happen this way then so be it.Predictable spoiler: he&#039;s outnumbered by the crooks with guns and he gets shot and DIES! Oh my god, how could this have happened - how? How?The&nbsp; criminal antagonists don&#039;t do drugs, they counterfeit money. OK, it was the mid-eighties after all but there&#039;s hardly anything sinister about it.I think this film is completely devoid of darkness and atmosphere to the extent that even an Angelo Badalamenti score couldn&#039;t save it. But that still was no excuse to give us the worst&nbsp; soundtrack/score instead.Everything about this film is almost fascinatingly&nbsp; sucky.It&#039;s the kind of film that one pretends not to have watched so any comments thereupon can be safely avoided in case someone should have the nitwitsy ignorance to bring it up in conversation.Kim Cattrall (oh it&#039;s double &quot;t&quot;, never noticed that before) survived and apparently didn&#039;t even lose face, and as of today she has massively risen in my esteem. Which, incidentally, would be a great opening line.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie Oleson, post: 428641, member: 8"] I think that's understandable and besides, there's something awkwardly cliché about complimenting an artist on his/her "signature" song, as it were. Unless, of course, there isn't much work to choose from. But if I'm thinking ahead and consider the idea that many people think the way[I] I [/I]do (??) then it's possible that [I]they[/I] also have avoided that signature song compliment, and therefore it may sound surprisingly re-honest and re-fresh to compliment the artist on that very best-remembered thing. Not that every move needs to be carefully plotted or anything. Well I did mention "D-list actress" but I wouldn't say that it was her performance that brought the film down. There's also nothing unexpectedly good about it (imo) and that's very much what this film needed. A crazy thing about the main character is that he constantly jumps over objects, even when he doesn't need to, as if he were training for the Olympics or drank too much Red Bull. TLADinLA is supposed to be sort of a renegade/vigilante cop avenging the death of his last-day-on-duty partner. That partner hopes to catch and arrest a bunch of crooks but it's going to be a solo operation because "this is on me, I need to do it by myself" because hm-hm something. Apart from being utterly stupid (one man against a group) I don't think it would be allowed to operate that way unless it's a matter of improvisation that cannot be avoided. To be fair, a story is a story and if it needs to happen this way then so be it. Predictable spoiler: he's outnumbered by the crooks with guns and he gets shot and DIES! Oh my god, how could this have happened - how? [I]How?[/I] The criminal antagonists don't do drugs, they counterfeit money. OK, it was the mid-eighties after all but there's hardly anything sinister about it. I think this film is completely devoid of darkness and atmosphere to the extent that even an Angelo Badalamenti score couldn't save it. But that still was no excuse to give us the [I]worst[/I] soundtrack/score instead. Everything about this film is almost [I]fascinatingly[/I] sucky. It's the kind of film that one pretends not to have watched so any comments thereupon can be safely avoided in case someone should have the nitwitsy ignorance to bring it up in conversation. Kim Cattrall [SIZE=3](oh it's double "t", never noticed that before)[/SIZE] survived and apparently didn't even lose face, and as of today she has massively risen in my esteem. Which, incidentally, would be a great opening line. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played JR Ewing?