If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Note to Self: Never ask Robert Redford for advice... and be more like Robert Redford   (youtube.com) divider line 43
    More: Amusing, Robert Redford, Film Festivals  
•       •       •

3040 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Jan 2014 at 12:55 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-17 12:08:20 PM
A 39 second video clip that consists of 10 seconds of intro animation at the beginning and another 10 seconds of promotional material at the end. But hey, that 19 seconds of Redford talking...wonderful find, subby.
 
2014-01-17 12:15:14 PM

Pocket Ninja: A 39 second video clip that consists of 10 seconds of intro animation at the beginning and another 10 seconds of promotional material at the end. But hey, that 19 seconds of Redford talking...wonderful find, subby.


Okay, I can see that's already been covered.  I guess I'll be on my way.
 
2014-01-17 12:23:05 PM
Hey, he's not dead. I didn't know that. Also he's 1.79 metres in height.
 
2014-01-17 12:57:26 PM

Barfmaker: Hey, he's not dead. I didn't know that. Also he's 1.79 metres in height.


PainInTheASP: Pocket Ninja: A 39 second video clip that consists of 10 seconds of intro animation at the beginning and another 10 seconds of promotional material at the end. But hey, that 19 seconds of Redford talking...wonderful find, subby.

Okay, I can see that's already been covered.  I guess I'll be on my way.


It's a short clip because he is dead.
they just put a talking chip in him. 
Then pulled the string and hit record.
 
2014-01-17 01:00:05 PM
I want my time back subby, I'm sending Vinny over to collect right now
 
2014-01-17 01:18:11 PM
This gets green??!?!?1!?

/wow
//I'm trying to hard I guess
/three
 
2014-01-17 01:46:54 PM

Stinkbeard: This gets green??!?!?1!?

/wow
//I'm trying to hard I guess
/three


...and my Huffington post link about mainstream Bigfoot erotica gets redlit. Go figure.
 
2014-01-17 01:47:16 PM

PainInTheASP: Pocket Ninja: A 39 second video clip that consists of 10 seconds of intro animation at the beginning and another 10 seconds of promotional material at the end. But hey, that 19 seconds of Redford talking...wonderful find, subby.

Okay, I can see that's already been covered.  I guess I'll be on my way.


I'll be on my way, but WHY IS THIS WASTING OUR TIME?

The question AND the answer are as unremarkable as your anus, submitter.  This has got to be the most value-free thread I've seen here.
 
2014-01-17 01:48:31 PM
Subby must be a 'featured partner'. How else does something like this get a green light?
 
2014-01-17 01:49:10 PM
Wow. There's greenlit, and then there's a wavelength of 500-570 nanometers.
 
2014-01-17 01:49:26 PM
Robert Redford comes off as the smuggest man in the world, and always has. People complain that Pacino just plays the same character over and over again, well Redford is even worse -- he's a smug douche in every movie he's ever been in. I even like Sneakers and The Sting, but man, he's such a douche.

Prove me wrong!

/rant over.
 
2014-01-17 01:59:38 PM

Mateorocks: Robert Redford comes off as the smuggest man in the world, and always has. People complain that Pacino just plays the same character over and over again, well Redford is even worse -- he's a smug douche in every movie he's ever been in. I even like Sneakers and The Sting, but man, he's such a douche.

Prove me wrong!

/rant over.


Note to self:
Robert Redford's kind of a dick.
 
2014-01-17 02:07:51 PM
Robert Redford looks like a cadaver.
 
2014-01-17 02:29:32 PM
suck 50 eggs, subby
 
2014-01-17 02:29:44 PM

Mateorocks: Robert Redford comes off as the smuggest man in the world, and always has. People complain that Pacino just plays the same character over and over again, well Redford is even worse -- he's a smug douche in every movie he's ever been in. I even like Sneakers and The Sting, but man, he's such a douche.


Well, he didn't really come across as a smug douche in Jeremiah Johnson.  Hell, he didn't come across as much of anything, really.  Even the trees out-acted his ass in that movie.

And a .30" caliber Hawken?  No such thing, but if there were, it would have only been good for squirrels and rabbits.

/And a .50" caliber don't kick like that.  Unless you're a 10 year old girl.
 
2014-01-17 02:45:26 PM

dittybopper: Mateorocks: Robert Redford comes off as the smuggest man in the world, and always has. People complain that Pacino just plays the same character over and over again, well Redford is even worse -- he's a smug douche in every movie he's ever been in. I even like Sneakers and The Sting, but man, he's such a douche.

Well, he didn't really come across as a smug douche in Jeremiah Johnson.  Hell, he didn't come across as much of anything, really.  Even the trees out-acted his ass in that movie.

And a .30" caliber Hawken?  No such thing, but if there were, it would have only been good for squirrels and rabbits.

/And a .50" caliber don't kick like that.  Unless you're a 10 year old girl.


Wow, I can't believe he didn't take that into consideration when he neither wrote the screenplay, nor the novel it was based on.
 
2014-01-17 02:45:48 PM

busy chillin': suck 50 eggs, subby


I think you're mistaking Robert Redford for his brother, Paul Redford.
 
2014-01-17 02:56:39 PM
Saw "All is Lost".  (One of the few apparently) - excellent, Redford deserved an Oscar nod but I guess the "Academy" thought otherwise.
 
2014-01-17 03:01:56 PM

Githerax: busy chillin': suck 50 eggs, subby

I think you're mistaking Robert Redford for his brother, Paul Redford.


F*ck me! I even googled something and he came up. Things being wrong on the internet?!?! We have got to fix this!
 
2014-01-17 03:05:28 PM

Mikey1969: /And a .50" caliber don't kick like that.  Unless you're a 10 year old girl.

Wow, I can't believe he didn't take that into consideration when he neither wrote the screenplay, nor the novel it was based on.


I would expect that at some point he actually shot the thing before doing it on camera, so that he knew what it felt like and could replicate that when shooting a blank.

That's what Daniel Day Lewis and Mel Gibson did.
 
2014-01-17 03:07:00 PM
 
2014-01-17 03:18:28 PM

dittybopper: Mikey1969: /And a .50" caliber don't kick like that.  Unless you're a 10 year old girl.

Wow, I can't believe he didn't take that into consideration when he neither wrote the screenplay, nor the novel it was based on.

I would expect that at some point he actually shot the thing before doing it on camera, so that he knew what it felt like and could replicate that when shooting a blank.

That's what Daniel Day Lewis and Mel Gibson did.


Of course, this was in 1972, not last week.
 
2014-01-17 03:35:28 PM

Mikey1969: dittybopper: Mikey1969: /And a .50" caliber don't kick like that.  Unless you're a 10 year old girl.

Wow, I can't believe he didn't take that into consideration when he neither wrote the screenplay, nor the novel it was based on.

I would expect that at some point he actually shot the thing before doing it on camera, so that he knew what it felt like and could replicate that when shooting a blank.

That's what Daniel Day Lewis and Mel Gibson did.

Of course, this was in 1972, not last week.


Daniel Day Lewis made "Last of the Mohicans" in 1992.   It's actually older today than JJ was when LotM was made.
 
2014-01-17 03:40:38 PM
Yay, and I still haven't seen either one.

I too liked both The Sting and Sneakers.

The Candidate was okay.

If your S.O. doesn't make you sit through The Way We Were every time it's on then you are a lucky man.

Redford seems like a decent person.

But let's not get distracted from the point, which is that this was an abysmal post.
 
2014-01-17 03:42:27 PM

Far Cough: PainInTheASP: Pocket Ninja: A 39 second video clip that consists of 10 seconds of intro animation at the beginning and another 10 seconds of promotional material at the end. But hey, that 19 seconds of Redford talking...wonderful find, subby.

Okay, I can see that's already been covered.  I guess I'll be on my way.

I'll be on my way, but WHY IS THIS WASTING OUR TIME?

The question AND the answer are as unremarkable as your anus, submitter.  This has got to be the most value-free thread I've seen here.


Actually it's not wasting our time.  Er, very little of it anyway.  Even by Karen Carpenter's standards, the content was...a little thin.

/To soon?
 
2014-01-17 03:49:43 PM

dittybopper: Mikey1969: dittybopper: Mikey1969: /And a .50" caliber don't kick like that.  Unless you're a 10 year old girl.

Wow, I can't believe he didn't take that into consideration when he neither wrote the screenplay, nor the novel it was based on.

I would expect that at some point he actually shot the thing before doing it on camera, so that he knew what it felt like and could replicate that when shooting a blank.

That's what Daniel Day Lewis and Mel Gibson did.

Of course, this was in 1972, not last week.

Daniel Day Lewis made "Last of the Mohicans" in 1992.   It's actually older today than JJ was when LotM was made.


Meh... Filmmaking in '92 and filmmaking in '72 were separated by more than just 20 years. A lot changed in that time. Attention to detail, continuity editing, scoring, soundtracks, overall quality of the films themselves as a finished product changed a lot from the mid-60s through the 70s.

Doesn't matter though, I'm not a Jeremiah Johnson fan, it's just that a movie from 42 years ago isn't what I judge someone on. I like a lot of Redford's stuff, so I'm not holding his older stuff against him.
 
2014-01-17 04:24:58 PM

Mikey1969: dittybopper: Mikey1969: dittybopper: Mikey1969: /And a .50" caliber don't kick like that.  Unless you're a 10 year old girl.

Wow, I can't believe he didn't take that into consideration when he neither wrote the screenplay, nor the novel it was based on.

I would expect that at some point he actually shot the thing before doing it on camera, so that he knew what it felt like and could replicate that when shooting a blank.

That's what Daniel Day Lewis and Mel Gibson did.

Of course, this was in 1972, not last week.

Daniel Day Lewis made "Last of the Mohicans" in 1992.   It's actually older today than JJ was when LotM was made.

Meh... Filmmaking in '92 and filmmaking in '72 were separated by more than just 20 years. A lot changed in that time. Attention to detail, continuity editing, scoring, soundtracks, overall quality of the films themselves as a finished product changed a lot from the mid-60s through the 70s.

Doesn't matter though, I'm not a Jeremiah Johnson fan, it's just that a movie from 42 years ago isn't what I judge someone on. I like a lot of Redford's stuff, so I'm not holding his older stuff against him.


I think I may have given you the wrong impression.  Other than Redford, Jeremiah Johnson is a great movie.  It stands up pretty well today, except for his parts.
 
2014-01-17 04:34:28 PM

Mikey1969: Meh... Filmmaking in '92 and filmmaking in '72 were separated by more than just 20 years. A lot changed in that time. Attention to detail, continuity editing, scoring, soundtracks, overall quality of the films themselves as a finished product changed a lot from the mid-60s through the 70s.


I'd disagree with that to some degree, about the only thing that has changed in the process is the marketing and quality of the film stock final product. The actual making of a movie hasn't changed much in damn near 70 years. I'd even argue that the increase in the quality of tools available to the director has actually hamepered film making since so many people use things like HD, CGI, 3D, Digital Film as crutches to make movies look better than they actually are.

Case in point. Gravity, amazingly stunning visually but the reality is its a pretty shiatty story line.
 
2014-01-17 04:35:45 PM

dittybopper: I think I may have given you the wrong impression.  Other than Redford, Jeremiah Johnson is a great movie.  It stands up pretty well today, except for his parts.


I usually like Redford, as I mentioned. The person I usually can't handle is farking Kevin Costner... Talk about the same character over and over. I love his stuff when he was younger, like Silverado and Fandango, but almost all of the rest of his stuff has been the same goddam character to me.
 
2014-01-17 04:37:42 PM

Mikey1969: I usually like Redford, as I mentioned. The person I usually can't handle is farking Kevin Costner... Talk about the same character over and over. I love his stuff when he was younger, like Silverado and Fandango, but almost all of the rest of his stuff has been the same goddam character to me.


"we need someone brooding, quiet and distant but secretly has a heart of gold"
"Quick to the Costner phone!"
 
2014-01-17 04:44:50 PM
Kevin Costner is an android. The truth will be revealed in 100 years when they finally dismantle him live at the Oscars.
 
2014-01-17 04:52:10 PM
I don't think I could afford the amount of makeup Redford wears.
 
2014-01-17 04:53:30 PM

PaulRB: Saw "All is Lost".  (One of the few apparently) - excellent, Redford deserved an Oscar nod but I guess the "Academy" thought otherwise.


Yes, quite well done.  I could tell the audience was engaged since I didn't see a single cell phone light up in front of me.  Maybe the Academy only wants to nominate speaking roles?

/I enjoyed Redford's performance - don't care about the dude's politics
 
2014-01-17 05:08:27 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: Mikey1969: Meh... Filmmaking in '92 and filmmaking in '72 were separated by more than just 20 years. A lot changed in that time. Attention to detail, continuity editing, scoring, soundtracks, overall quality of the films themselves as a finished product changed a lot from the mid-60s through the 70s.

I'd disagree with that to some degree, about the only thing that has changed in the process is the marketing and quality of the film stock final product. The actual making of a movie hasn't changed much in damn near 70 years. I'd even argue that the increase in the quality of tools available to the director has actually hamepered film making since so many people use things like HD, CGI, 3D, Digital Film as crutches to make movies look better than they actually are.

Case in point. Gravity, amazingly stunning visually but the reality is its a pretty shiatty story line.


Actually, the story writing has been consistent, but there has been some serious work towards making the entire package a better product. Like I said, even scores are better. Hell, for the most part, they were non-existent or minimalist for quite awhile there, and it ends up being that 'something' that you can't put your finger on, but seems to be missing from the older stuff. A score is like garnish on your plate at the restaurant,though, it's at its best when you don't even realize it's there, but you notice when it's missing. There are a lot of other production aspects that got better throughout the 70's, and a lot of it is due to technology. Not all movies before then(but a lot of the greats) had pretty static cameras, for example, pretty boring stable shots, it's another thing that made more leaps as the 60s turned into the 70s. Now, things that were new back then are common now.

IdBeCrazyIf: Mikey1969: I usually like Redford, as I mentioned. The person I usually can't handle is farking Kevin Costner... Talk about the same character over and over. I love his stuff when he was younger, like Silverado and Fandango, but almost all of the rest of his stuff has been the same goddam character to me.

"we need someone brooding, quiet and distant but secretly has a heart of gold"
"Quick to the Costner phone!"


And that's why I like his younger stuff... In Silverado, he's the perfect arrogant smartass kid. And he's a lot of fun. I liked him in A Perfect World and Swing Vote though, because he was really playing against character in those. And Field of Dreams and Dances With Wolves I liked in spite of him...
 
2014-01-17 05:10:21 PM
IdBeCrazyIf:

Case in point. Gravity, amazingly stunning visually but the reality is its a pretty shiatty story line.

Dammit, hit 'Add Comment' too quickly...

I keep hearing good things about Gravity, but it really does look like it would be slow and somewhat plodding, only so much can go on inside of a space suit. Definitely looks gorgeous, though.
 
2014-01-17 05:14:17 PM

Mikey1969: Talk about the same character over and over.


halfagiraffe.tv
 
2014-01-17 05:18:14 PM

dittybopper: Mateorocks: Robert Redford comes off as the smuggest man in the world, and always has. People complain that Pacino just plays the same character over and over again, well Redford is even worse -- he's a smug douche in every movie he's ever been in. I even like Sneakers and The Sting, but man, he's such a douche.

Well, he didn't really come across as a smug douche in Jeremiah Johnson.  Hell, he didn't come across as much of anything, really.  Even the trees out-acted his ass in that movie.

And a .30" caliber Hawken?  No such thing, but if there were, it would have only been good for squirrels and rabbits.

/And a .50" caliber don't kick like that.  Unless you're a 10 year old girl.


And some folks say he's up there still...
 
2014-01-17 05:21:50 PM

LarryDan43: I don't think I could afford the amount of makeup Redford wears.


Interesting math problem
 
2014-01-17 05:32:36 PM

Mateorocks: Robert Redford comes off as the smuggest man in the world, and always has. People complain that Pacino just plays the same character over and over again, well Redford is even worse -- he's a smug douche in every movie he's ever been in. I even like Sneakers and The Sting, but man, he's such a douche.

Prove me wrong!

/rant over.


You want smug douche?!

Watch LITTLE FAUSS AND BIG HALSEY

Even Redford does not like this movie to be aired due to the character he played.
If you can find a copy Watch it! You may have to order on-line through a Video to DVD dealer.

1970 - Lauren Hutton, Michael J. Pollard, Robert Redford - soundtrack by Johnny Cash
 
2014-01-17 05:39:19 PM
 
2014-01-17 05:43:35 PM
 
2014-01-18 10:24:00 AM
If you don't like Three Days of the Condor (a film which is still relevant today even though it was made in 1975), you have no taste in movies....period.

/"How do you know they'll print it?"
 
2014-01-18 12:33:28 PM

Pinner: Mateorocks: Robert Redford comes off as the smuggest man in the world, and always has. People complain that Pacino just plays the same character over and over again, well Redford is even worse -- he's a smug douche in every movie he's ever been in. I even like Sneakers and The Sting, but man, he's such a douche.

Prove me wrong!

/rant over.

You want smug douche?!

Watch LITTLE FAUSS AND BIG HALSEY

Even Redford does not like this movie to be aired due to the character he played.
If you can find a copy Watch it! You may have to order on-line through a Video to DVD dealer.

1970 - Lauren Hutton, Michael J. Pollard, Robert Redford - soundtrack by Johnny Cash


I have literally never met another person in my life who saw this movie.
Saw it as a kid and loved it.
Course I was like, 8.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report