Report Jotaro_Kujo's Profile

Life is very well, thank you! Better than ever, in fact. How about yourself?

I haven't come across many worthwhile works of anime and manga in recent weeks. Junji Itou's amusing "Cat Diary" manga was the best, and the first "Butt Attack Punisher Girl" OVA held some charm. Everything else was poor or worse. There are a lot of other interesting works I look forward to reading or watching, though.

"Indeed it does. How’s life treating you man? Been a nightmare for me, I’ve been swamped with things to do these past few weeks."

Quite well! I have been busy too, which is usually a good sign for me. Had all sorts of funny, bizarre things happen to me in real life. (Having someone challenge me to a fight at the gym was probably a highlight, in retrospect)

In terms of free time, I have been reading a lot of books, but my movie-watching has definitely suffered.

"It’s just that the line between mindless but enjoyable escapism (an incredibly subjective thing in itself) and banal, blatantly moronic hack jobs can be so easily blurred that being able to distinguish between these two categories in a consistent manner can be difficult."

For me, the distinction is very clear. There are two types of movies; pure entertainment ones, and legitimate art. The former should be entertaining, funny, well-paced, and not have aspirations higher than the quality of the script (and if it does, that's pretension).

Rambo 2 and Rambo 4 are pure entertainment vehicles, and very successful as such. For examples of pure entertainment movies that I consider crap and suffer from pretension, consider Kill Bill Volume 2 or Batman Begins.

"I think the worst thing about those films is the starry-eyed defenders they inevitably attract, who will argue insistently that “you just don’t understand them because they’re too deep.”"

Yeah, I always find that hilarious. Especially considering that even the deepest, smartest films I have ever seen are, at best, the same level of intelligence/complexity as a pretty good book, and well below a great novel. Movies are a great and beautiful medium, but they're intellectually shallow compared to the written word.

"That is absolutely hilarious! Can I ask where that anecdote comes from?"

My father told it to me. To be fair, I haven't checked to see whether it is apocryphal, but it matches what I have read of Landau and isn't too outlandish.

"Landau was such a fascinating figure, and his genius was on par with some of the greatest minds to ever grace physics. It’s such a tragedy how he spent the last years of his life."

Indeed; whenever I hear about someone wanting to ride a motorcycle (or "death trap" as I call it), I can't help thinking of him. I also have Landau's books in both the native Russian as well as English; the latter a gift from an excellent high school physics teacher at the end of the year. So I have that association, too.

"My absolute favorite physicist though is Richard Feynman (as generic as that might be); he is still the most colorful and interesting scientist I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading about (James Gleick’s “Genius” is an enjoyable read), even if it’s quite obvious that he had a particular fondness for embellishing his stories and propping himself up."

As an individual, Mr. Feynman was indeed fascinating and incredible. (It also helps that he taught at my alma mater, Caltech) "You Must be Joking, Mr. Feynman" and "The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist" were two of my favorite non-fiction books when I was 14.

In terms of physics itself, I found "Feynman's Lectures on Physics" very difficult to follow, and a substandard source to learn from. (Granted, I'm not a physicist!) Indeed, it's notable that when he taught an undergrad course at Caltech, most of the people that showed up were grad students, postdocs, and even professors!

"“Fargo” may not have an overarching point (indeed it’s neither a satire nor a parody), but I don’t believe great films need to have a point. In my opinion, they just need to be well-crafted, and I believe Fargo satisfies this. "

When a movie is trying to be art, it needs to have meaning and depth, which Fargo doesn't.

Even then, the Coens have made pointless movies that were at least entertaining and unique. If you enjoyed "Fargo", check out "A Serious Man", which is much funnier, and perhaps the greatest pointless movie ever, "Barton Fink".

"I guess this is the perfect example of humor being subjective, because I found it funny enough. Yes the acting is terrific, and actually a prime reason why I’ve rated it so highly (Steve Buscemi has always been one of my favorite actors)."

I love Steve Buscemi too, but there is only so much an actor, even an excellent one, can do sometimes. I realized this more than ever while recently watching a comedy from my childhood, "Kingpin". It stars two good comedic actors (Randy Quaid, Woody Harrelson) and one great comedic actor (Bill Murray)...but is still total shit.

"Yeah I knew about his insecurities, and his desires to cloak his supposedly deep-seated homosexuality with overtly masculine displays."

Wow, I have never heard of that insane theory. (And obviously, it wasn't what I was referencing) I would ask you more, except that nowadays, bored historians claim that virtually every famous male historical figure was secretly gay.

I have heard claims (unsupported, of course) that Robin Hood was gay, Isaac Newton was gay (with Isaac Barrow!!!), and anyone else you can imagine...

I don't believe that's the explanation at all. I think Hemingway desperately wanted to be a cool, heroic individual...but his character just wasn't up to it.

I believe this from reading about various elements of his autobiography (and yes, his suicide plays a part) as well as the impression I gather from his works. (The short story "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" and novel "The Sun Also Rises" in particular)

"This doesn’t actually preclude living a colorful and eventful life though, which he still did by all accounts. When I say “leading a badass life,” this is what I usually think of."

We might be discussing slightly different qualities. I completely agree with you that Hemingway led a "colorful and eventful life" or "badass life", but not that he was ever a badass himself.

"Make nothing of it man, obviously such generalizations are silly and I just meant that in jest. Kind of like saying that the Vietnamese (my people) are crafty sneaks. I just know a few Russians, and they’ve always been quick to pounce on me whenever we’re ribbing each other. I’ve had nothing but respect for their intelligence and work ethic in my experience."

Oh no, I wasn't remotely offended in the least. Just curious, since I haven't come across that stereotype before.

I would definitely agree that Russians tend to be less meek and passive in conversation than Americans are, and are more outspoken, although amusingly, also reveal far less overly personal information in the process.

"And that’s precisely what gives me trepidations about reading some of the great masterpieces of world literature – that I’ll inevitably miss out on the nuances and subtleties that get lost in translation, and thus I can’t even be said to have truly read those works!"

Some translations are good. Murakami's works, for instance, or Milan Kundera's.

"I do envy polyglots on this matter, so one of my goals is to be able to pick up Spanish and German. I’m learning the vocabulary and the rules, which are quite easy, but it’s a bitch to try to improve without having a fluent partner to practice speaking with."

I can speak and read Spanish decently well, although probably not enough to read Marquez or Borges comfortably in the original language. (I did read a few chapters of "House of the Spirits" in Spanish back when I was practicing it regularly)

Out of curiosity, why did you pick those two languages? While there are great authors in both tongues, they wouldn't be my first choices if I wanted to experience great writers in their native tongue.

While I agree with Rafael Sabatini that most great stories are written in English, my first choice would probably be French.

"I suppose that’s where we diverge in opinions, since “Diamonds are Forever” is my least favorite of the Connery Bonds for that very reason. Now, it’s not like I dislike it or most of the Moore Bonds; I enjoyed them for the campy spectacles that they are. But stray too far into campiness, and you rob them of all vestiges of believability they may have had. Even for an outlandish franchise like the Bond films, some subdued elements are preferable in place of full-blown silliness."

See, for me, they had never a vestige of realism to begin with. Thus, I prefer they take the movie in as exciting, adventurous, and tongue-in-cheek place as they can. "Diamonds are Forever" is a rather dull, forgettable book; one of the worst in the series. (Far inferior to Fleming's "From Russia with Love") But the movie? Entertaining and funny as hell!

"Now I enjoyed “Moonraker” and I loved its diverse settings, but that space battle was “Die Another Day” bad. We’re talking silliness on the level of a giant satellite laser, or a North Korean completely transforming himself into an Englishman, or an invisible fucking car."

Now now, that is a low blow I will not stand for! Regardless of what you thought of the space battle in "Moonraker", it should never, ever be compared to the cinematic abortion that was "Die Another Day". That's simply gratuitous! "Die Another Day" was such brazen garbage that it made the previous worst in the Bond franchise, "License to Kill", seem excellent by comparison. (For no other reason than it had a really hot Bond girl and the first 30 seconds of Gladys Knight's theme were spectacular)

The only good thing to come from "Die Another Day" was a question from a friend unfamiliar with American cinema. When he saw a trailer for the movie sporting Halle Berry, he turned to me and asked "Who is that balding black midget with pubic hair on its forehead?"

"Yes, that’s quite hypocritical of him now that you mention it. It’s almost never a good idea when filmmakers suffuse their works with their ideologies, which tend to be naïve and woefully underdeveloped."

It usually gets worse as directors age, run out of ideas, but have way too ass-kissers telling them they are geniuses who can do no wrong.

"I’ve heard of his reputation for being an asshole, though his being one despite his outspoken liberalism doesn’t surprise me (I’ve met truly insufferable douchebags from both sides of the ideological aisle)."

I watched a documentary two months ago, "Side by Side" about digital versus traditional photochemical film, narrated by Keanu Reeves. They interview dozens of directors. Some of them are probably assholes, but all come off quite well in the documentary. Even Lars von Trier. With one exception. James Cameron. Who came off as the enormous asshole that he was.

While it was rather funny, he went off on an enormous, angry, insulting rant when Keanu dared to ask him whether there was an argument to be made that "photochemical film is more real/genuine".

"Harvey Weinstein is just a cretinous prick."

Indeed. Certainly, I'm not comparing his talent level (very low) to Cameron's.

"Haha that’d be interesting to see! I would hope it doesn’t end up being a rapidly decaying function; that would be quite a shame."

It likely won't!

"Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I’ve been pretty busy."

Not a problem! Take your time; real life always takes priority.

"However, the reason I’ve stuck to my way is because of how blurry the line is between those films which are intentionally stupid but massively enjoyable (Crank:High Voltage from your list is one great example; there’s clearly skill and self-awareness behind it) and truly stupid films that are nevertheless enjoyable as hell (Rambo sequels)."

To me, they're both trying to accomplish the same goal. Neither is attempting to be art, but merely escapist entertainment for the audience. And so I rank them on that scale.

I wouldn't call Rambo 2 or Rambo 4, two very good action films, "truly stupid", though. Unrealistic in the same way 90+% of action films are, sure. They feature a one-man army and invite the viewer to enjoy the carnage. However, I can't think of anything else that qualifies as particularly dumb about them.

To me, dumb films are ones with pretensions of being something deeper and more artistic that are riddled with plot holes, inconsistency, etc.

"It’s been a long time since I’ve seen Vertigo, but from what I remember of it I would say it’s the best Hitchcock film I’ve watched. That isn’t saying much though since I’ve watched very little of Hitchcock’s filmography, and of the other ones I’ve seen (Notorious, To Catch a Thief, The Birds, and Psycho) I only cared for Psycho (and that was mainly due to Anthony Perkins’ stellar performance as Norman Bates)."

I have only seen "The Birds" and "Psycho" in full. The former was deathly dull. "Psycho" was much better, but while decent, it has aged very poorly, and didn't come anywhere close to its lofty reputation. Agreed about Perkins' performance.

"Despite acknowledging the power of its beauty and elegance, my initial impression of 2001 was that it was a textbook case of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” story being applied to filmmaking. "

I agree.

"It really is a marvel of cinematography and craftsmanship that I have grown to appreciate, and from a pure aesthetic standpoint I have not been able to find its peer (perhaps you can help me with this?). "

2001 sought to convey emotions through film, just like Fellini did. Difference being that Fellini did so far more effectively, memorably, was nowhere near as boring, and managed to craft a coherent, if surreal plot around it.

"It’s hard not to understand why Paul Dirac considered it his favorite film and would sit transfixed in the theater whenever it was showing. "

Whenever I read/hear about Paul Dirac, I have a more powerful sensation than while watching "2001"! Namely, I remember a hilarious story involving Dirac and legendary Russian physicist Lev Landau, who I share a first name with. He went to a Dirac lecture, sat in the front row, and kept repeating "Dirac дурак! Dirac дурак! Dirac дурак!" (Dirac doorak! Dirac doorak!), which translates to "Dirac is a moron! Dirac is a moron!"

"I’m surprised by this; could you expound on what you thought was crap? In my brief time of corresponding with you I’ve found you to be scarily insightful in most respects, and I’ve usually agreed with your insights. But I can’t see your rationale here."

Haha, scarily insightful? Why thank you! I like the way that sounds.

As for Fargo, arguably the Coens' Brothers biggest weakness is making movies without a real point. They might still be fun, exciting, and in the case of something like "Barton Fink", very good (maybe the greatest pointless film ever made!), but there is no real meaning to anything that occurs. This is true of Fargo moreso than any other movie they made. At least "Barton Fink" made some statements about Hollywood and the writing process; "Fargo" is utterly pointless.

And it doesn't even have humor or individually great scenes like another better pointless Coen Brothers movie, "A Serious Man". "Fargo" is dreary, dull, and pointless. The acting is terrific, sure, but that's not enough by itself.

"How in fucking hell can this even be justified? The point of a damn literature forum is to discuss literature…"

It gets better; merely requiring that book reviews actually be about the books in question was considered "oppressive" and "fascist" by these same nutters. Try wrapping your mind around that.

"Interesting. That sounds extraordinarily like something that I would appreciate; which of his works should I give it a go first?"

I would probably recommend "Norwegian Wood", which is what I started with.

"Just as interesting. Heart of Darkness I’ve heard a lot about, and I know of Nostromo (mainly because it’s the name of the ship in Alien, heh). I’ll give him a try, too."

Nostromo is actually the name of the main character in the book!

"Haha, yeah. Reading through his bio, he seems to be a real badass. I would argue that Hemingway led quite an interesting life as well, despite taking his own life in the end."

I doubt Hemingway was a badass. He seems to be a man that desperately wanted to be perceived as tough and macho, but wasn't necessarily so in reality.

Obviously, he was a great writer, though.

"Nice, even though you motherfuckers can be quite the ballbusters"

Huh, how so?

"However, I was actually well aware of the shit quality of Constance Garnett’s translations, so I read the Pevear and Volokhonsky translations of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky."

You're better off than I was; I actually read the Garnett translation for "Crime and Punishment"! I probably read at an 8th grade level in Russian (I immigrated to the US when I was 5), so English is much faster and easier for me.

"Because of this, I realize that I can never make a truly informed judgment call about the quality of their prose; I can only speak of their plotting and characters, which I enjoyed immensely."

That's what annoys me about one of my favorite books ever, Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita". I looked at all 4 English translations of the work, none of which were good, and frequently featured clumsy prose. Asking around, Bulgakov's Russian prose was quite beautiful, but also quite intricate and advanced, relying on many idioms and unique turns of phrase.

Shame I missed out on that aspect of the masterpiece.

"Just the sheer boldness in experimenting with the prose form, toying with it and simultaneously writing some of the most beautiful and some of the most befuddling lines all in one work (heh, just realized that this mirrors my admiration for 2001, and your disdain for it; funny how that works)."

I was about to say! But 2001 is roughly a hundred times better and less disastrous of an experiment than "Finnegan's Wake" was.

"I’d forgotten that there was only one novel though, and that Puzo only collaborated with Coppola on the movie sequels; somehow I’d always remembered it as there being two novels, and that I just hadn’t read the second."

Were you thinking of "The Last Don"?

"I bring this up because I was about to make a point about how the complete arc of Michael Corleone’s evolution spanned the first two films (and how beautifully interwoven it was with his father’s past in the second film), and ask how well Puzo did it."

Very well, in my opinion. Pacino and Coppola did a fine job, too, but it was handled effectively and believably in the book.

"Oh believe me, I’m a big fan of over the top movies, and I can still enjoy some of the Moore era Bonds. I liked The Spy Who Loved Me, for instance, and For Your Eyes Only. "

Those are my third and fourth favorite Moore films, respectively. My absolute favorite is "The Man with the Golden Gun", and second is "Moonraker".

"Yes, that would make sense since you’re Russian, and as someone with a unique perspective and experience on the matter you would understandably be irked by that. Since I do not know much about Soviet Russia (and let’s face it, neither do most viewers/readers in the Anglosphere), I had no such qualms about FRWL. Besides, it’s as you say – Bond films/novels are intrinsically ridiculous, so that horrible, botched treatment of Soviet era geopolitics shouldn’t factor into how good or bad the film/novel is anymore than its complete misrepresentation of MI6."

Sure, but my point is that moving the series in a more tongue-in-cheek, campy direction makes sense to me, taking this into account. And the shift from Connery to Moore wasn't as drastic as people believe; "Diamonds are Forever", my favorite of the Connery Bonds, is right up there with "Moonraker" in terms of campy characters and scenes.

Even "You Only Live Twice", my second-favorite Connery Bond, has virtually nothing in common with the book, and features plenty of silliness, like Bond using a jetpack.

"I looked up the ending; you’re quite right, that would have been a much more thrilling one. But I don’t believe that one change would be enough to undermine what up to that point was a very solid Bond flick."

Don't get me wrong; I consider "From Russia with Love" a decent, enjoyable movie. But it's consistently ranked as one of the two or three best of the entire Bond film series, which makes no sense to me.

"However, from what I can remember the vast majority of Moore’s Bonds were silly almost to the point of parody."

I guess I'm not seeing a significant difference there. A lot of Fleming's Bonds feel silly as hell. And the movie adaptations, even the first four (which were reasonably close to the source material), were usually even sillier in the changes they made. The Moore scenarios, which were completely original scripts (they merely took the name from the Fleming works) don't seem any more or less ridiculous, but they have more variety to them (I love how the Moore films globe-trot around the world), and play them off with more comedy.

"That only works with films that are tongue-in-cheek about it and clearly don’t give a fuck about internal consistency (the Crank series)"

Well, Crank 2 is just a full-blown comedy, with action merely supplying the driving force behind the events. The Moore films are still very much action movies, although they're borderline action comedies at times.

"Yes, Watchmen is brilliant; I know that there is much, much more to it than its ending (in particular its worldbuilding and how well crafted it was, how the images in the panels correspond with the dialogue in more than one way, i.e., Dr Manhattan appearing while a man says “out of the blue”)"

Yeah, my favorite aspect of Watchmen was the "world-building"; how wonderfully detailed and complete it all was.

"Mikasa is terribly dull, and I agree that she is an awful character outside of her elegant and sober design."

She has a design? She always looked like "generic anime girl" to me.

"My best advice would be for you to stay away from all things Attack on Titan related; no point in making yourself suffer if you won’t like the work :P As you say, we only have such a limited amount of time to consume as much good works out there as possible."

Heh.

"I wasn’t aware that he was a hypocritical liberal, though. I don’t pay attention to the personal lives of filmmakers,"

I'm not referring to Cameron's personal life. I'm referring to Avatar celebrating primitivism and embracing an anti-science, Luddite stance while spending $300 million on cutting-edge computer graphics, digital cameras, building specially-made hovercrafts, and otherwise stretching the role of high-end technology in film.

I respect Cameron as a great filmmaker. I do also find it amusing that such an outspoken liberal is simultaneously the biggest asshole among any Hollywood director. Although I guess the same can be said for Harvey Weinstein among producers, minus the talent and greatness.

"That’s interesting; I truly didn’t know that. And I also didn’t know that CraveOnline purchased MAL. One would think that site renovation would be amongst the first details to be eked out afterwards…"

It would be remarkably simple to fix many of these issues. As a comparison, Criticker is coded entirely by a single guy who works as a computer programmer by day and fiddles with the site in his free time, yet is way smoother, more functional, doesn't have any major bugs, and the minor bugs are usually fixed within a few days.

I'm actually surprised a better anime community site than MAL hasn't sprung up.

"Fuck man, I write too much. I'll cut down, for both our sakes!"

Haha, I'm used to it with many other conversations on here with friends! It doesn't bother me, and I can write up responses reasonably quickly.

I do notice that such conversations tend to get alternately larger and smaller in length over time; would be interesting to graph it!

"You’ve got a great list going there. One thing I do notice and appreciate is how unconventional it is. I know many film school types, and their lists will inevitably include films like Citizen Kane, Vertigo, 2001: A Space Odyssey, etc., and nothing else."

I actually rate on two different scales in my head. Namely, I characterize a picture as being either "pure entertainment" or a "work of art". Even though they're both assigned scores on the 0-100 scale on Criticker, they're not directly comparable. That's why a movie I consider a perfect comedy, like Johnny English, is rated so high. I don't actually consider it superior to something like "Wild Strawberries", heh.

As for the specific movies you mentioned, I love "Citizen Kane" and consider it a masterpiece, as I gave it an 85 and it's in my top 50-75 films. Possibly the greatest movie when it came out in 1941, even if it's slightly overrated nowadays. I haven't seen Vertigo, and as for 2001, I gave it a score of 45 (for me, 50 is "average") and consider it one of the most ruthlessly boring pictures ever. I appreciate what Kubrick was trying to do and his boldness, but it failed and resulted in a mediocre, deathly dull flick.

"I’ve only seen one Lumet film, and that is 12 Angry Men, which I thought was phenomenal. What would you recommend from his filmography?"

My favorite picture of his is the masterpiece "Network". ("12 Angry Men" is my second favorite) Other great movies include "Serpico", "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead", and "Find me Guilty", the latter where he coaxes a very good performance from Vin Diesel, of all people. Embarrassingly enough, I haven't yet watched "Dog Day Afternoon"!

"A collection of very talented filmmakers indeed; no one can do black comedy quite like the Coens (Fargo and Burn After Reading)"

Amusing you mention Fargo, as it's the only Coen Brothers movie I genuinely dislike. Even "Intolerable Cruelty" was okay; "Fargo" was downright crap at times, something I would never write about their other films. It highlighted all their weaknesses as filmmakers and very few of their many strengths.

"Burn after Reading" was absolutely excellent, and I consider "No Country for Old Men" my 3rd or 4th favorite movie of all time.

"westerns quite like Sergio Leone (except John Ford)"

The only two movies I have seen by John Ford were "The Hurricane (1937)" and "Young Mr. Lincoln (1939)". Neither is a Western, but the latter is considered a minor classic. Both were absolute shit. Of all the famous directors from that era, his movies score the lowest for me. Of course, I still want to see "Stagecoach", "The Searchers", "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon", "The Man who Shot Liberty Valance", etc.

"I know that he’s regarded as great, but I could never get started with 8 ½, which is the only film of his that I’ve tried to watch. I know that it’s tremendously well-crafted and influential, but I’m always wary of films branded as “deep” (which is often a codeword for pretentious)."

I've never considered Fellini "deep". There is nothing intellectual or heady about his movies. Rather, he is presenting his dreams, inner thoughts, and indescribable emotions in the form of a movie. Like an abstract or surrealist painting, only with film.

And sadly, similar to abstract/surrealist masters like Kandinsky, Dali, Chagall, etc. there are actually hacks who look at Fellini's work and think "that's not so hard! I can do that!" No you can't, asshole.

When Fellini does it, it's a masterpiece. Somehow, it all works. I couldn't even tell you why or how. When imitators do it, it's navel-gazing, boring, stupid bullshit. It never ceases to amaze me that people can look at an artist as utterly unique as Fellini and think it's all just random weird scenes.

Anywho, while they're not his major classics, I would give both "I Clowns (1971)" and "Fellini's Casanova (1976)" a watch.

"Nice as well! I’ve been meaning to sign up for genre specific sites to keep track of what I’m consuming (besides the buggy cesspool that is MAL), but I’ve always been too busy and felt that it wasn’t worth the effort. Would you recommend this site (if I found the time to)?"

While I would definitely recommend Criticker as an excellent site, I actually despise Goodreads and wish I had signed up for a site like Shelfari, in retrospect. Sadly, even Shelfari only allows one to rate on a 1-5 star scale, which I hate.

However, Shelfari's community isn't as utterly distasteful and odious as Goodread's.

For instance, many of the most popular "reviewers" on GR post "reviews" consisting of a series of gif images. Some don't even review the book in question at all. This is deemed completely acceptable by its shitastic moderators/administrators and the userbase as a whole. (The userbase is best described as mostly 20-45 year old women suffering from severe mental/personality disorders)

I would take the MAL userbase every day of the week and twice on Sundays over those on Goodreads.

In spite of all that, I have made many good friends on Goodreads and there are certainly a number of cool, worthwhile people there.

"I do want to get around to reading Conrad and Murakami sometime; what makes them stand out amongst the rest of your list as your clear cut top two?"

They write the best. :)

It's hard to describe everything that makes them great. Murakami, for instance, has the most amazing metaphors ever. He has a way of describing things and looking at the world that makes you think "wow, I would have never looked at it that way in a million years...but that's the PERFECT way to describe it." His stories are bizarre urban fantasies featuring a lot of sex as well as plenty of death and suicide, and yet, they feel very uplifting and "pure". His books are incredibly emotional, yet written in a different style than what you would ever associate with that adjective. Again, I can't tell you how he does it.

As for Conrad, his books are terrible and awe-inspiring in their majesty. 20 pages of a Conrad book feel more weighty and significant than 100 pages from virtually any other author. No one in history can write characters like him.

He creates minor characters that he devotes only 5 pages to that are more amazing, unique, and unforgettable than that any major character by a typical professional writer in his/her entire 30+ year career. And he creates dozens of them in his stories. His books have you absolutely spellbound at what you're reading by the end.

There are passages he writes, seemingly out of nowhere, that are the most incredible, terrible insights into human nature that anyone has ever recorded. (And his books aren't the least bit lurid, either)

On an amusing note, Joseph Conrad is one of the few writers who lived a life almost as amazing as his stories.

"My list would be: Vladimir Nabokov, James Joyce, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, F Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway."

I'm curious; did you read Tolstoy and Dostoevsky in the original Russian (my native country) or the English translations?

Regarding the English translations, the great Russian-American poet Joseph Brodsky once wrote

"The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is that they aren't reading the prose of either one. They're reading Constance Garnett."

Vladimir Nabokov had a more succinct description of Garnett's translations; "dried shit".

"F Scott Fitzgerald"

How would you rank his novels?

"I’m curious as to how you rank your favorite authors, though; do you judge primarily on skillful prose, plot, characters, or engaging ideas?"

I have no set criteria for judging. All of those matter in forming an impression.

"I wouldn’t like that, but the reason it works out that way is because I favor either transcendent prose writing (Joyce and Nabokov), depth of characters and plot (Tolstoy and Dostoevsky), or both (the rest)."

Agreed about Nabokov's mastery of English prose, but I'm not a fan of Joyce. Dubliners was nice if not especially great, but "Ulysses" was poor and forgettable, while "Finnegan's Wake" is the most pretentious bullshit ever written.

"The Godfather movies (excluding the abominable piece of shit that was the third) as opposed to the original novels by Puzo."

Heh, I actually slightly prefer the original Puzo novel to the film adaptations. Had a pulpier, more sensationalist feel to the story. Coppola's artistic treatment was excellent too, but I prefer the book.

"Heh, but I don’t agree with your example; while I’ve never read the Fleming novels,"

Based on what you have written about "The Godfather" above, a pulp action-adventure way more deep, interesting, and vastly superior to the Fleming books in every way (which are good paperbacks at their best, but never anything special), I doubt you would enjoy them.

"I can’t imagine they’d be as bad as the Moore era films. I enjoyed Connery (the quintessential elegant badass), but I found Moore’s films to be too over the top and silly (even accounting for the fact that Bond films are meant to be nothing more than mindless, escapist spectacles). "

Over the top and silly is the best approach towards Bond stories. They are intrinsically ridiculous and at times borderline idiotic. Treating it seriously and emotionally is as absurdly pretentious and misguided as treating Batman/Superman with deathly seriousness.

For instance, I have never understood the hype behind "From Russia with Love". It's one of the dumbest books Fleming wrote in the series; he didn't have a fucking clue about Soviet Russia, and it showed. While the movie improved upon it in some ways by not spending half of it on backstory of the villains, it was also worse by changing the dramatic, cliffhanger ending into a dull, forgettable one. And it was a faithful adaptation of a moronic story, which it played completely straight.

Meanwhile, something like "The Man with the Golden Gun" is a classic of pure entertainment. There are a lot of great aspects of the Moore films that I can go into more detail; their use of humor and blending it seamlessly with the action, the creative fight scenes, fantastic stuntwork, perfect pacing, the variability of locales, etc.

Also, while I prefer Moore over Connery, they are both outstanding Bonds, and in my view, largely similar in their approach.

Both play the character with a wink and a nod. Moore more overtly, and they each have their unique mannerisms, but both play the unflappable, ultra-cool protagonist with a deadpan joke forever hanging on his lips. Which, incidentally, is different than the James Bond Ian Fleming described in his books.

"Duly noted. I enjoy the aesthetics of the action and fighting genre from that era, so I’m looking forward to starting it."

Me too, actually. I would recommend the "Shootfighter Tekken" OVA, then. Although it was released in 2002, it's very similar in that regard.

As for Attack on Titan,

[spoiler]"I appreciate that it doesn’t rely on fanservice (one thing that the anime did which annoyed me), doesn’t have a harem situation, and focuses a bit on worldbuilding."

Huh, I didn't notice any fanservice or a harem situation in the anime. Then again, I only watched 6 episodes, and it might have developed later.

"The point of the story is that the true enemies are humans, not titans. The titans themselves are humans who have transformed and lost their minds, and they only actively seek out humans to consume. Amongst those attacking humanity are intelligent titans who can speak and humans who can transform into titans at will. The walls that span the country-sized area are made from slumbering, crystallized titans and are made to contain humanity, not to protect them. The reason the humans are cowering is because they are fed propaganda and are being oppressed by the inner government, who possess titan powers and actively kill dissidents. Some among them possess the ability to control humans and to wipe memories, and they are actively suppressing those who have developed new technologies (like advanced artillery and air balloons). In addition, some of the best fighters are relegated to the inner walls, so the forces engaging the outside are minimal, are not the best, and are poorly funded. I don’t like Eren, but he’s supposed to represent that “crazy motherfucker” mentality you’ve alluded to. The humans who are cowering and ineffectual are the “hunted,” while Eren is the “hunter” (his surname Jaeger means hunter) who wishes to break free from humanity’s cage."

This partially explains it, but I must say, "erasing a person's memory" is perhaps the laziest, most bullshit power you can give a character in an anime. Any form of psychic mind control in a series not based around telepathy is. It's pure plot contrivance; a get out of jail free card for when the events stop making sense. That way, a character is silenced without anyone wondering where he/she disappeared, or why he/she was killed.

And it's completely unrelated to the powers displayed throughout the rest of the work. It's as relevant as Attack on Titan suddenly featuring characters that can fly through air or fire giant chi blasts.

"The ideas are not terribly original at all, but I do appreciate that the author is basically trying to refute the ending of Watchmen (he states this on his blog) where humanity would be united against a wholly unexpected threat."

I don't understand that motivation at all. The ending of Watchmen shows that this solution is highly imperfect, and humanity is far from "united". It's also a very small part of Watchmen's story as well as what makes it so good.

"The petite girl (I assume you are referring to Annie) actually has more to her than meets the eye, and it’s her character arc that I’m curious to see develop."

I was actually referring to Mikasa.

"Also, sequences like Eren killing a bunch of armed, grown men as a child are fucking stupid (though I get that it’s meant to showcase how much of a monster he is)."

That was in episodes 5 and 6 and dumb as all hell. Even the way they presented it.

"The anime’s pacing is horrendous (it stretches out the events of two chapters over three(!) episodes)"

That's insane. Normally, it's 2-5 episodes per volume, with a volume consisting of roughly 8 chapters. And even 2 chapters in one episode can often be a bit slow.

"It does capture the cyberpunk vibe much better than the series did. If you want another cyberpunk work then you should try Battle Angel Alita; like GitS it features a strong female protagonist. James Cameron has been sitting on the rights of the story for God knows how long… "

Yeah, I have been interested in Battle Angel Alita, too. And yes, I know James Cameron has had the rights for well over a decade. No surprise he wants to do an adaptation. It simultaneously appeals to the hypocrite liberal in him as well as the special effects/cinemaphotography junkie.

"It’s hilariously buggy and infested with all sorts of immature children with no life experiences whatsoever. What is it about anime and manga in particular that draws in that crowd?"

Agreed about being hilariously buggy; Xinil coded this site when he was a 22 year-old at a state college. Not bad for a student, but poor work by professional standards. It's also been horribly maintained, and the sale to Crave didn't improve matters, unfortunately. I remember that 4 years ago, there was a bug with being unable to access posts in certain topics, and as that silly Makoto thread proved, this is STILL a problem.

Also, messages say "?" every time I log in. And hilariously, one of my long-time friends on here told me that he only figured out how to permalink reviews in the last week, something I have tried and failed to figure out for years. Keep in mind this guy has been on the site for over 6 years (he joined 2 days before me!) and is currently a manga moderator.

This is basic functionality no one bothered to code into the site.

"Ah good to hear. Yeah that'd be awesome, I'm always up for expanding my interests. There's just so much good material out there though, and in all sorts of languages. I always fear that I won't get the chance to see everything that's noteworthy, and that I'll inevitably miss something meaningful."

That's likely inevitable, unless you become an obsessive cinephile or reader. I have long ago made peace with the fact that even if everyone suddenly stopped writing new books and shooting new movies tomorrow, I will still be missing out on the majority of great books and films out there if I live to 100.

"I'm basically open to works from all genres, provided that they are either intelligently crafted or entertaining. Do you have any preferred writers or filmmakers?"

Of course! http://www.criticker.com/profile/ShogunRua/

Sidney Lumet is my all-time favorite, but I also love (including a couple not on my Criticker favorites);

Lina Wertmüller
George Roy Hill
Johnnie To
Billy Wilder
Coen Brothers
Sergio Leone
Andrzej Wajda
Sung-su Kim
Akira Kurosawa
Federico Fellini
Chan-wook Park

As for books, https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/6212215-vlad

Favorite authors are probably

Joseph Conrad
Haruki Murakami (Conrad and Murakami probably being my top two)
Milan Kundera
John Steinbeck
F Scott Fitzgerald
Vladimir Nabokov
Rafael Sabatini
Robert Anson Heinlein
Philip Jose Farmer
David Brin

"Ah, that's interesting about the "Street Fighter" movie. I usually am quite dubious about the quality of game-based works in general, but I'll try to get around to it."

As you should be. Most game-based anime are among the worst in the history of the genre, such as the Tekken OVA or FF: Advent Children. Ninja Gaiden isn't bad, but nothing special, either; just a decent early 90's violent action OVA.

"I can't believe I forgot to include this on my list too. I've definitely seen Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal, and I found it to be exquisite. Indeed, I've seen a little bit of the TV series and I've found the movie version of Kenshin's character to be the most interesting incarnation."

What astounds me is that the second OVA, Samurai X: Reflection is not only a strong contender for the worst anime ever made, but one of the worst pieces of visual garbage I have ever suffered through. The first is an all-time classic, and the second is all-time shit!

"I had planned to get around to seeing all of Satoshi Kon's movies. I didn't know much about the man, but judging from the quality of "Perfect Blue" I figured he was an excellent artist, and was sorry to hear that he had died so young."

Yeah, Kon really was a genius. Not just within the realm of anime, but as a filmmaker overall. There are maybe five directors that have worked in medium one can say that about, if even that many.

"Though I am surprised that you would have a low opinion of the "Brotherhood" remake; I asked around and was told to skip the original anime since the remake is more faithful to the story of the original manga and this was supposedly better than the original anime's storyline. I only saw the first episode of "Brotherhood" and none of the original, so I wouldn't know which is better."

Sometimes, being less faithful to the source material is a good thing. Don't know how much this will resonate with you, but the Connery and Moore-era Bond movies versus the original Ian Fleming books are a great example.

Also, there were several episodes that had the same plot between the original FMA and Brotherhood...and the former handled it many times better.

"And of course I'll check out all of the rest. I really appreciate that you took the time and effort to type all of that out. That was refreshingly exhaustive, and you certainly didn't have to do all of that."

Thanks, and it's no problem. It's nice to discuss anime, which I haven't done in over two and a half years.

By the way, the Baki OVA from 1994 is only recommended for hardcore Baki fans and completionists only; it's not good unless you have a pre-existing love of the story and characters. (Nor is it especially faithful)

"Ah yes I see. Heh, sorry that it caused you much discomfort. I actually understand your sentiment well; had I not been partial to the manga beforehand, I would certainly have deemed it generic and contrived. To each his own!"

Yeah, I saw you had the manga in your favorites. Is it substantially better and different from the anime adaptation?

"Definitely check it out. There are some elements of it that I prefer over the TV series (mainly the streamlined focus and the much more subdued and muted version of the Major), though I enjoyed "Stand Alone Complex" as well. The Wachowski brothers were quite obviously inspired by it in making "The Matrix.""

I remember liking what I saw of SAC too, but I thought that from the trailer alone, the movie seems to have captured the cyberpunk vibe better than the subsequent TV series did.

And yeah, I remember when people thought the Wachowskis would be great directors making multiple memorable films, heh...

Also, I very much enjoyed you referring to this as an "accursed" site!

"Yeah unfortunately I got dragged into a hilariously frivolous "debate" in the process. I made the mistake of replying and now he's absolutely convinced that I'm an alt of yours."

He's hilarious in how aggressively stupid and utterly off-the-mark he is. I love these Internet Detective Dipshit types; I picture them as even dumber and more bumbling Inspector Clouseaus. They're funnier than your garden variety idiot.

"I'm relatively new to the medium, and for me it takes a backseat to other forms of media."

Me too, actually. I mainly watch movies and read books. (I can link you to my Goodreads and Criticker accounts) In fact, "Attack on Titan" and "Tenga Toppa Gurren Lagann" were the first anime I watched in about 2.5 years.

"If anything, I'm the one in need of recommendations."

As a medium, manga has far more interesting, mature stories than anime does. In fact, most anime that I can recommend are just adaptations of even better manga.

As for specific shows,



Those are the main ones I would recommend; hopefully, you get some use out of them!

"I suppose you could try it, though it's sort of hit and miss."

I've seen it alright. :) I even posted a blog entry on my running thoughts on the first four episodes. I managed to suffer through the first six installment, but that was it for me.

Also, looking at your list also reminded me that it's been a good 10 years that I have wanted to watch the original "Ghost in the Shell" movie but still haven't gotten around to doing so!

"Ha thanks, I appreciate it man. Glancing at your wall, it looks like the poster you were arguing with seems to have carried on being an ass. I noticed that he tried to be conciliating, but then had to sneak in that little jab at the end. I hate it when people pull off that passive-agressive shit."

Exactly. It's the behavior of a petulant child. The only surprising parts are his age (he's not a teenager) and that it's the first douchey comment I can recall reading on my wall in 6+ years and 2400+ replies! I seem to have lucked out; looking at the profiles of friends on here, some are littered with people angry at a review or forum post of theirs.

On an amusing note, he wrote a further response on my profile that I simply deleted...only for him to re-post it two more times! A for effort, I guess.

"Btw it looks like you've got a pretty eclectic and diverse taste in anime. Now THAT'S a rarity here, what with the infestation of moe/harem garbage plaguing the ranks of anime and manga these days."

Thanks. I have actually been curious about what quality anime have come out in the time period 2010-2014, as I went 2.5 years without watching the medium at all, and have only seen "Panty and Stocking" from 2010 as well as "Attack on Titan".

You write a little too articulately for the MAL forums, and actually used "beta male" in an accurate manner. That's a rarity!