It seems the opening scene had everyone hooked but you.
The opening scene only established the rules of the dream world and established characters. What was the hook? Was it the scene with Leo waking up on the beach? Was it his conversation with the older version of the Japanese man? And it sure wasn't the "mindcrime" that he and his croonies pulled off? I'd like to know so that I can tell if it really was a hook or not.
Thanks for posting that, Larry. I just don't think he gets it.
I get it, but only when someone doesn't insult me and my point of view. If you add a smiley face at the end or a J/k, then I know you're joking. If you don't, I have no choice to think I'm being insulted. That's the problem with text, you can't tell when someone's being sarcastic unless they point it out. I'm sure everyone here has experienced that situation. Why else do you think when I did burns on you I added a smiley face or a LOL face? So you knew I was joking (heck, I posted the link to Kelso's Burn Show the first time to let you know I was joking). If no one gives me the heads up, or someone else doesn't give a heads up to someone else, then how would they know what is a joke?
It's a great article; one that I've shared it with a few people.
I agree, its a great article. But where's the negatives? There's no explanation about where the film fails or perceived fails by other people, why it fails by these points of view and there is no comparison between the negatives and positives. You can't argue for something if there's only one side to it. For example, "Citizen Kane." It's classified as the best example of filmmaking and storytelling by many filmmakers. Yet, there are some filmmakers that feel it is the worst example of filmmaking. If you're going to discuss "Citizen Kane", then you'd explain the argument of those who see it as a best example and explain the argument of those who don't see it as a best example. You explain pros and cons and then you explain why which side is more right than the other if you're defending one side.
Sorry, Nick, I don't mean for that above statement to be a hurtful or a rude remark, it's just if your defending a work and presenting an article, you have to explain the pros and cons, why the pros work and don't work, and why the cons work and don't work as well. If you only explain one side without explain the cons, someone could very well misinterpret the article as propaganda. The only thing that counts as a con that I can see was where you quoted the Whiners and their comments about why they killed off Two-Face, and your explanation of why.
Again, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, its just that's one of the things I was taught at FSU.
And if in any way any of my past posts came off as rude or defensive, I apologize to all. And if you're going to joke or kid around, post a smiley face or just simply add "J/k." Subtext is hard to understand when it comes to text alone.