I found Grand Budapest Hotel to be thoroughly brilliant and enjoyable from start to finish, but maybe because I haven't seen Wes Anderson's previous films. Try not to compare it to his other films. which can be hard because of his style, but I think you'll find it a lot more enjoyable and much better than "not bad".

As for Cappin Murica Too, I did like it, but compared to and still coming off the high of The Avengers (as I had watched it again not long before), where the characters, dialogue and action was just so great, especially the action. So well choreographed, so well paced, so well shot (no shaky cam BS) and such interesting stunts and if memory serves me, no stupid slow-mo. After that, CA2 didn't quite compare.

Which is why I want to see it again, where Avengers wasn't so fresh in my mind, and where I hadn't been put in a different state of mind after watching GBH

Badly acted and not very inspired dialogue-wise.
...But deserves an upvote for the thumbnail alone!

Looks cool but so much lame dialogue in this trailer

I grow my own plants, well, as many as I can in an apartment. I bike everywhere I can. I eat some meat, but it consists very little of my diet. I produce a grocery bag of trash a week and most of that is organic waste.

Oh, you mean I should stop living in a first world country and go back to the stone-age! I get it now. You mean, I should completely and utterly give up everything because it may cause some pollution? Very illogical of you. I believe that is another one of those fallacies people are chiding you for.

By acknowledging the climate change is man-made, we can make better strides to actually bring about meaningful changes. One person reducing their carbon footprint isn't going to make much of a difference, but 350,000,000 people will.

Or, if politicians like Marco Rubio, who I shutter to think belongs to my state, would stop denying climate change we could actually have a dialogue about actual changes we can make, not ad reductionist claims like some people here on the sift are making. (I.E., you.)

Um, as for the state getting out of the way . . . The reason we have any clean air is because of their standards. For instance, it took a government mandate to eliminate lead from gasoline. Lead, which is highly toxic and one of the leading causes of anti-social behavior in convicted felons of violent crimes. I'm sure the free-market would have solved that issue on it own, however, in a much shorter period of time. *Thinks about that for a while.*

So you want to move away from the AGW and just say the climate is changing?

Basic premise flaw: if we humans aren't creating it, then there's nothing we can do. I give you, case in point, climate change deniers. Such as our Marco Rubio. Humans aren't causing it, therefore, we shouldn't impose any regulations on oil and gas. (I believe they did something similar back in the leaded gasoline days. May what short memories we have.)

By the way, saying since California has environmentalists that having the worst air pollution thus makes environmentalism a mute point would be called Fallacy of Composition. Because, let's not forget basic math: California population is greater than oh, I think 49 other states and contains the counties largest ports (major source of air pollution), the majority of the countries cars, the majority of semi trucks and trains originate here, they house dozens of oil refineries and there's this little itty bitty nascent issue of these Rocky Mountain things people keep talking about. Or, this "valley" people make fun of. I hear it's right next to these mountains.

So, really, the logical argument would be, because of the increasingly dire air pollution in California, more and more people are become environmentally aware and are slowly changing their habits to reduce future smog, but without increasing government intervention, larger corporations will continue their practice so long as it returns a profit. So, as a result, the larger corporations are spending millions lobbying politicians who have been passing favorable laws much to the angst of the growing environmental movement.

And no, that doesn't require overthrowing the government and going to an all berries diet. Nor me writing a book about my efforts.

Uniformitarianism as stated was proven false in the early 1800's

That is not correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

"Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism."

The entry says exactly what I have been saying, which is that uniformitarian ideas are foundational to modern geology, excepting now because they have been unable to deny that there were catastrophes they have mixed in catastrophism.

You completely ignore the scientific method

When you stop ranting at me and form a cogent argument, maybe it will be possible to have a dialogue.

neither can fossilization

I guess this cowboy lived millions of years ago:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm

and I love that your 'proof' video includes Uluru, the oldest large rock in the known world, which is proven by numerous differing methods to be well over 550 Million years old

Using logic, the point of demonstrating that you can find the same sediment all over the world would be to show that those dating methods are wrong. Yet, you cite the dating methods as a reason not to watch the video which has proof that they are faulty. Incredible.

so it goes unwatched.

It's simply the close-mindedness that you accuse me of that it goes unwatched.

LOL that was awesome including the dialogue

Thank you @shinyblurry for the contribution. Even if I disagree on the basic message, it was interesting input that this discussion was IMO lacking so far. Now somebody's might post something dismissive now (I have to admit, asshole that I am, my fingers are actually itching in way trolls know too well) but I found that worth reading. Which brings me back to the point Mitchell made.
The issue is dialogue and how disruptive the selfrighteousness of those who found their definitive answer can be. We can argue semantics even further than already done here but it doesn't matter how gnostic or theistic one is. There is a silent majority consisting of various levels of belief and disbelief and at the fringes of both sides people tend to get loud, sometimes unbearably so.
What the screaming people at the edge like to do is to get bogged down into dogmas and discussions of detail but in the end both kind of extremists would like to force their worldviews on everyone else. I think it is certainly not acceptable to insist that people seeking solace in religion must be idiots who don't know how the world works. If a woman who just lost her child wants to tell herself that this is part of gods plan then I have no right to walk up to her and tell her she's full of shit. Even though I know this to be true. We all live in a world we're poorly equipped to understand and have to make sense of it somehow.
The problem starts once you force yourself onto somebody. The point I made before is that one side's extremists is assholes who walk up to grieving women and tell them their full of shit, the other side is people executing that woman for praying to the wrong god. It's easy for me to pick a side here.
However, most people aren't that extreme. Most people are more civil than that and I believe/know that a more civil and understanding approach is better. It necessary to push back against those who are harmful in executing their beliefs, be it Osama Bin Laden or Rick Santorum (Santorum he he) but everyone else is better dealt with in a respectful manner. Antagonism doesn't feed dialogue well.
That is why I resisted my urge to make fun of the deeply religious guy posting here. I really wanted to because I disagree with his worldview so strongly but all he did was stating his journey to where he now in his life and on top of that, he did it without telling anybody else here off. I would be the asshole if I would react like a Hitchens. I'd rather behave like a Tyson (not the rapey one). LIke most humans, I want to be one of the good guys. It's just not that easy to figure out how to be one.
In the end it all boils down to this (and several posts in this thread truly showed it): Why can't we be friends? Why can't we get along?
Because we're humans. That's how we roll.

Yeah, I'm aware - now - that this commentary-versation was going in a completely different direction than I was taking it. Unfortunately, I sometimes can't resist the urge to respond to the immediacy of what my gut might be feeling... meaning, I started typing my snotty remark before I dove into the meat of what all the previous comments were focusing on. After I hit the submit button, I did realize this fact, but I re-read my post, and was still rather proud of my observations.

So I figured I'd leave my blurb up just in case there was anyone out there who might not be as musically oriented as some of us, but still has an appreciation for viewing some of the ""TOOLS"" that have resulted from the ever evolving technologies of THIS MODERN AGE, as the absurdities they often are.

The rest of you who are taking the other fork in the road of this dialogue, move along.... nothing to see here.

His "style" is to take elements of existing movies and genres and putting them together to what I'll call generously "homages" to the originals. Tarantino is a remixer, taking samples and putting them together into a new song. Sounds familiar but is somewhat new.
He is very, very good at that and can write interesting dialogue (the first half of Death Proof was nothing but). He also starts to believe his own hype (as seen in Django Unchained, a good but way too mastubatory in nature film) and risks to develop the same relationship to Christoph Waltz (a very good, distinctive and interesting actor) that Tim Burton has with Johnny Depp.
I love pretty much all his movies but he certainly has to watch out that he doesn't trip over his own ego and reputation, both bigger than good for him.

It came across as an education vid for students of CGI; "These are the effects we can accomplish now kids."
The film as a film? Ludicrous plot. Inane dialogue and pretty dire acting -I kept expecting gorgeous George to fill in the holes with a coffee advert. 9/10 for effects. 0/10 for everything else.

I think they were extremely kind to this movie. Outside of the visual aspect of the movie it was pretty much shit (acting,story,dialogue...). Of course I'm one of the very few that has this opinion. Maybe i'm just getting old and grumpy. GET OFF MY LAWN!

I'd enjoy these if they weren't stuck in the authors narcissistic presentation of unnecessary dialogue.
This is the internet. Get rid of the talking heads and give us the content. Anyone else remember hyperlinks? They were those magical things that said "subject" -click!- "information" Grah.

@Sarzy, @lucky760:

To's output can be roughly divided into three categories:
- Straight Film Noir influenced by Jean-Pierre Melville, including his early Milkyway Image productions, his The Mission / Exiled / Vengeance sort-of-trilogy, etc, with a special mention for Election 1 & 2.
- Somewhat more 'commercial' ventures: Running Out Of Time, Full Time Killer, Drug wars, and Breaking News... Less edgy, but better production value.
- And his more 'out there' attempts, that are usually crime films with some surreal aspect: Running On Karma (Shaolin-monk-turned-stripper sees people's past incarnations, tries to reverse their karma), Throwdown (everyone is a secret Judo master), Mad Detective (schizo detective can see people's inner personality and dialogue with them)...

He sometimes misses the mark, but his films are usually worth their salt (this often extends to other Milkyway films he produces).

Breaking News, it turns out, is a minor To film. It's well directed (as you can see by yourselves), and it's definitely fun to watch, but ... it's just that his other films are better! My advice : start with PTU, Exiled, or Full Time Killer. Then if you like what you see, go for the rest.

And if you like Running On Karma, check out Wai Ka Fai, To's writer / Milkyway co-founder and sometimes-director. That guy is good.

I think we have to give them artistic license to show as many examples as possible of the worst it can be, but at the same time it paints a pretty bleak picture where every single "man" acts compulsively and exaggeratedly sexist whenever they're within earshot of a "woman".

I don't like the more subtle aspects either - "men" peeing in alleyways? I've seen women peeing in alleyways and i consider it equally disgusting as men peeing in alleyways. Whoever does it is gross or utterly desperate, and by dint of easier access men are probably more inclined to take the risk of it. This embellishes the misogyny.

The clothing comparisons made is another example - they compare loose fitting shirt and shorts with (for example) skin tight, see through, almost naked stuff. Her dialogue at the end makes me think the author was being quite a bit tongue-in-cheek about that and therefore other bits. Topless jogging? How many would want to do that? Doesn't make good mechanical sense to me and i think you'd find a topless woman walking around my neighbourhood would be shopped in by the women who saw her, not the men.

I think if they're going to try to make a point with the rape scene then they needed to be less tongue-in-cheek with the goofy stuff that i think is added for a level of humour.

Though I'm down with a little bit of lyrical grandstanding, I agree with the earlier sentiment that the length of a shot doesn't make it great, but the content does. If we're talking about long cuts, then the refugee camp scene from Children of Men takes every award. Though there are periodic cuts in that scene, it was shot in full a few times and spliced together. The emotion and gravity of that scene are matched with the action, the dialogue and the acting. The scene somehow shows the dreadful reality of that kind of situation without detracting from the story, and the amazing moment where the baby's crying stops everyone in their tracks momentarily for a common goal. This was good, but it's not even close to the greatest i'll see this week.

Children of Men:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twcKoAQ7HIg - though it's only the first part of it.
Some stuff missing, followed by:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5vmo_oUnJo

Hope someone can find a full video!