Trains are cool. Their paths are essentially fixed, their fuel is basic/utilitarian/anachronistic/archaic (was), and they look amazing. They also make for some entertaining chase scenes, according to "The General" (1927). Even with only one track this movie banalizes most car chase scenes with just two trains. Of course, the fact that it's set about 150 years ago makes the makes it seemingly more original, at least less predictable anyway. The first half of the movie is my favourite. ****
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Trains are cool. Their paths are essentially fixed, their fuel is basic/utilitarian/anachronistic/archaic (was), and they look amazing. They also make for some entertaining chase scenes, according to "The General" (1927). Even with only one track this movie banalizes most car chase scenes with just two trains. Of course, the fact that it's set about 150 years ago makes the makes it seemingly more original, at least less predictable anyway. The first half of the movie is my favourite. ****
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Trains are cool."
ReplyDeleteThis is meaningless.
"Their paths are essentially fixed..."
There's no "essentially" about it; they run on rails.
"their fuel is basic/utilitarian/anachronistic/archaic (was)"
I think you're trying to appear clever here, but you're writing nonsense. How is fuel "basic"? Or "anachronistic"? Casey Jones didn't use diesel - what on earth is your point? How is fuel "utilitarian"? It only has one purpose: as fuel.
"...and they look amazing."
You're clearly not a commuter.
"They also make for some entertaining chase scenes, according to 'The General' (1927)."
So, this silent film came up to you and told you this did it? Have you any control over what you write?
"Even with only one track this movie banalizes most car chase scenes with just two trains."
You didn't mean this did you! As set down, this
reads as a comparison between the chase scene in The General and other films' scenes involving only two trains. Think about what you are writing.
"Of course, the fact that it's set about 150 years ago makes the makes it seemingly more original, at least less predictable anyway."
This is nonsense. I'm trying to think what you might have been trying to say. You might be confusing "original" with "innovative" and I don't think either "seemingly" or, more correctly here, "seem", is necessary at all.
"The first half of the movie is my favourite."
Do you always compare one half of a film with the other? That's unique. Thanks for the insight. You're the new Pauline Kael. Not really.
Thanks for the comment! Wow, people actually read this...
ReplyDeleteYou make some good points. They're essentially fixed but as The General shows us some off the track maneuvers can be made haha. And you can change the paths of the trains at switching yards.
The fuel - coal in this instance. I guess my "basic" comment wasn't very good. Utilitarian - coal has many purposes!! Anachronistic - coal was used for so many things years ago in the west and isn't used as much now, especially with trains but is used in excess today in countries such as China. Haha how does that train in the photo not look good?
"Even with only one track this movie banalizes most car chase scenes with just two trains" - Obviously other movies don't have too many car chase scenes in them with trains. I meant that the film had the ability to make an amazing chase scene with just two trains instead of a bunch of cars on a busy street.
The comparison between the first half and the second was just a red herring....not really supposed to be a deep insight. This blog isn't supposed to have any deep insights, just something fun to do occasionally. I"m surprised anyone has found it. Thanks for the insights on being more descriptive about my ideas.
Do you have a blog?
ReplyDeleteCasey Jones? wtf
ReplyDelete