Latest Alexi Pappas short film is out on NYT - This one is about having a nightmare the night before a big race

Next up should be racemares; horrible things that happen to you while racing to your PR and failing.

rojo wrote:

I think most can relate to some aspects of this:

http://nyti.ms/29YbP6g

Wow! The CGI in that is pretty amazing. Andy Serkis really does look like a skinny, attention starved distance runner...though I can still tell its him despite the bun and his character is still somewhat Gollum-esqe looking. We give it two thumbs up though.

Siskel_&_Ebert_the_real_1 wrote:

rojo wrote:

I think most can relate to some aspects of this:

http://nyti.ms/29YbP6g

Wow! The CGI in that is pretty amazing. Andy Serkis really does look like a skinny, attention starved distance runner...though I can still tell its him despite the bun and his character is still somewhat Gollum-esqe looking. We give it two thumbs up though.

Oh, are you Andy Serkis? I admire your work.

rojo wrote:

I think most can relate to some aspects of this:

http://nyti.ms/29YbP6g

Was the lipstick a dig at Rowbury?

Totally taking a shot at Rowbury.

Can you take a shot at someone who shot themselves first.

By god, it is actually worse than the previous one they posted.

Who is the target audience of these videos? Because the acting is horrible. If you aren't a fan of running who is engaged only because it has elite (ish) runners in it, you would just see a poorly done video with bad acting.

sdfsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

Who is the target audience of these videos? Because the acting is horrible.

This describes the vast majority of Hollywood made films.

I'm not watching. Is that another wheating clip? Are we really referring to these as "short films?" I like the part when wheating thinks these will be his post running career. Big bucks and critical acclaim lie just ahead!!

dfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfd wrote:

sdfsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

Who is the target audience of these videos? Because the acting is horrible.

This describes the vast majority of Hollywood made films.

The acting is horrible by hollywood standards as well. This is bad acting by high school acting club standards. It is on par with a typical high school project, where every kid is forced to act, whether they want to or not.

I could respect it if they said they were just doing it for fun as a hobby, but they are trying to do this as a career? That talent just doesn't seem to be there.

sdfsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

dfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfd wrote:

This describes the vast majority of Hollywood made films.

The acting is horrible by hollywood standards as well. This is bad acting by high school acting club standards. It is on par with a typical high school project, where every kid is forced to act, whether they want to or not.

I could respect it if they said they were just doing it for fun as a hobby, but they are trying to do this as a career? That talent just doesn't seem to be there.

This. She better hope she can keep conning the Greeks into propping up her running career because her film 'career' is underwhelming.

And yet somehow the NY Times is pimping her 'films.'

Plastic Greek Goddess wrote:

sdfsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

The acting is horrible by hollywood standards as well. This is bad acting by high school acting club standards. It is on par with a typical high school project, where every kid is forced to act, whether they want to or not.

I could respect it if they said they were just doing it for fun as a hobby, but they are trying to do this as a career? That talent just doesn't seem to be there.

This. She better hope she can keep conning the Greeks into propping up her running career because her film 'career' is underwhelming.

Plastic Film Critic opinions have no value.

I don't really get these "films." Are they supposed to be funny?

zzzZZZZzzz cut it down to 30 seconds zzzZZZZZZ

no one has a 2:30 attention span for 20 seconds of content.

That's pretty good, Rojo. Thanks for the link.

Seriously mate? wrote:

I don't really get these "films." Are they supposed to be funny?

It's the New York Times. Tomorrow they'll have another dumb article on how a 45 second workout is better for you than distance running or vice versa.

No, seriously wrote:

zzzZZZZzzz cut it down to 30 seconds zzzZZZZZZ

no one has a 2:30 attention span for 20 seconds of content.

No need for you to describe your sexual prowess.

What a ridiculously stupid, poorly constructed, miserably acted POS. And I don't care about Rowbury at all but find myself wanting to see Rowbury punch this little $hit in the face.