Reply With Quote
Derrr... that wasn't party of five it was six feet under..
Either way the guy sucks ass.
Last edited by ynh; 09-30-2010 at 03:29 AM.
Derrr... that wasn't party of five it was six feet under..
Either way the guy sucks ass.
WTF ... Edited the wrong post.. can you delete a post here? Anyways.. was saying Freddy Rodrequez sucks ass.. he's a midget and cast wrongly.. almost makes planet terror unwatchable...
Then I stated something about party of five.. then took it back thinking I was remembering wrongly about him being on it but was actually right.
I'm following you around because I'm posting in a thread that I've already posted in?
I've never been stalked before...Yeah buddy, responding to you in four threads, total, is stalking. Are you going to arrest me?
are you sucking up to the wanna-be intellectuals in here too
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Shawshank is brilliant. Flawlessly paced and extremely cathartic.
The movie itself was just okay, but I didn't care for the ending of Lost in Translation at all.
Lady in the Water was, I think, the only movie in the last decade that I walked out of the theater on.
And I'll also have to echo the sentiments of the M. Knight haters in here; though, I actually enjoyed Signs. The Village was somewhat intriguing until M. Knight took a giant dump on the audience's captivated faces w/, well, the way he ended it (I won't say anything for those who have yet to waste their time w/ it). Also, I didn't necessarily enjoy Lady in the Water even before the end, but who could honestly take THIS guy seriously?
You didn't see Driven, I take it.
Gone Baby Gone had a great ending. In fact, it made the whole movie for me, and it caused an hour-long discussion between my girlfriend and I about the ramifications of his decision. Loved it. And I'm surprised anyone disliked the endings to Lost in Translation, No Country for Old Men, and There Will be Blood.
Sunshine had a horrible ending. The first 80 minutes of the film were great, but the last half hour devolved into a silly horror movie that betrayed everything that came before it. Still can't figure out what the ending even means.
Get it, don't get it...whatever...
I didn't like the ending--but it hurts you when you hear that for some reason.
It makes you feel better to think I didn't get -this way you feel superior-than to hear that someone didn't care for the ending.
I am shocked you liked the ending of Shawshank because it is a conventional hollywood ending.
Back in HG Well's era, that ending might have been passable. Modernizing the book makes the ending about 100000000000000x more lame.
Spielberg has never had a problem completely redoing source material before, I see no reason why he'd want to suddenly stay faithful to it now.
I thought that whole movie was terrific. The only thing that bothered me was how those bullets can go right through Sullivan but not even put a crack in the window directly in front of him. Pretty minor, but I can't get over it for whatever reason. A small hole in logic and physics isn't enough to overcome a great looking shot I suppose.
Complete dog . Really that movie is very average after the opening D-Day scene.
There's nothing logical about the way Captain Miller behaves. In one scene he berates his group to "follow in orders!" after Caparzo is killed trying to help out a family. Another scene, he ignores said " in orders" to simply go get Ryan, and he decides to "win the war" and attack the German gunners in the field, which ends up with Wade getting killed. After that, suddenly "winning the war" goes out the window as he stupidly lets a prisoner go because those are the rules of international law or whatever.
Then after all that, he allows some wad Private to tell him off and, once again, ignore " in orders", meaning his entire group of men that have been on this agonizing search are all gonna die because the asshole their searching for doesn't want to leave and the Captain leading them is inconsistent as .
Also, the most annoying scene of all is right near the very end. Private Ryan just told a Captain in the US Army to suck it because he won't leave his fellow soldiers behind, he's going to fight like and risk everything, he's gonna man up and be courageous and all that ...........but suddenly at the "alamo" moment, right before Tom Hanks gets shot, you see a scene of Ryan in the fetal position crying for his mother like a ing pussy. Completely destroys the character of the guy who just a while earlier put a death sentence on everybody you had an emotional attachment to through the entire film. Definitely the worst scene of the entire movie, and it completely ruins it for me.
I assumed your use of "pseudo-wannabe critics" to be in reference to the large group of people defending the ending of No Country for Old Men. And, yes, I was part of that large group. Have fun considering it priceless, but I just saw it as a logical conclusion based on the context of this thread.
The thing you don't seem to get is that I'm not hurt by the fact you don't like the ending of No Country for Old Men. It doesn't bother me, on a personal level, at all. But I do disagree with your assessment of the film's ending. And, as this is a message board meant for discussion, I feel it perfectly appropriate to express my disagreement.
Thinking you wrong isn't the same thing as thinking you inferior, but it's pretty telling -- priceless, even -- that you would make that leap.
Exactly. Who is he to play God and force the little girl to go back with coke abusive/neglectful-to-the-extreme- female biological donar?
I agree there was no cut and dry "best" way to decide on the girl, and that was the whole point the directors were trying to make.With him sitting on the couch at the end could mean a lot of things also. Maybe he felt guilty because he made the wrong choice. Or maybe he has nothing to do because his girlfriend left him because he decided to give the baby back to the mother. Maybe he's just accepting the repercussions of his decision whether he likes it or not.
Either way, the ending of Gone Baby Gone makes the movie. The thing about the movie that Affleck struggles with at the end is the ethics of everything. He struggles between what's right and what's wrong. But the greatness of the ending is which option is really right and which is really wrong?
He did plenty of illegal stuff along the way. Were his main complaint to Jack Doyle-Morgan Freeman "you're not getting away with this *&^%", would have been better. It wasn't. BabyFaces main and repeated complaint to both Doyle and Girlfriend was that "The girl belongs with her mother". Girlfriend tried to tell him what a ty mother she was. He wouldn't hear it.As a lawful detective (or private investigator) how can he sit there and let an extremely illegal situation happen and how would that affect his integrity as a PI or as a person? And where do you draw the line after that?
So ya, no for sure good way out of this one but BabyFace being so damned determined to give the girl back to Ms. Neglectful, that sucked. Crazy as it sounded, girl staying with Doyle and wife may have been what was best for the little girls future. I don't neccessarily agree he should have been allowed to keep her, but the foster home situation can be corrupt and scary as Ms. Neglectful.
Agree that it stimulates conversation on what option should have been carried out. We were left thinking what happens to the girl in 6 hours when Babyface is relieved of babysitting duties and CrackNeglector returns home.It really is a great ending as it explores gray areas of a lot of things. Moral/lawful conflicts, work ethics, personal ethics, etc. Still don't know what I would have done.
And it's obvious why you intentionally make generalized comments with no specific targets. Man up and directly address the people you're talking to next time. You think you are being witty with wordplay, but it's a completely transparent attempt.
Sorry, who's got the superiority complex here?
Who's hurt by it? You are not the first person to have a meltdown in The Club, and you won't be the last. Trust me, it's nothing new here. You hear outrage when really it's laughter or amusement.Get it, don't get it...whatever...
I didn't like the ending--but it hurts you when you hear that for some reason.
That's not it at all. You've had 9 pages to explain a single reason why you didn't like No Country for Old Men's ending. The only rationale you've provided so far is that it was "trying to be unconventional" and "the way it made me feel". Both reasons are pretty flimsy, extremely subjective (unconventional is far too broad of a term, and your personal feelings have little to do with how good the movie may or may not actually be), and more importantly, they have no sense of qualitative thought.It makes you feel better to think I didn't get -this way you feel superior-than to hear that someone didn't care for the ending.
To put it in other terms, a very famous TV pair once was asked, "What do you like?" They responded, "We like stuff that's cool." When asked what they defined as cool, they said, "Stuff that we like."
You've essentially done the same thing here. When asked why you didn't like No Country, you said because it was unconventional. Then when pressed further, you said because of the way it made you feel. Considering that earlier in the thread you stated this: "The critics and dumb s like you bought it, though.", you've yet to show a single reason why anyone is an idiot for liking that movie, other than your personal sentiment, which is a pretty weak reason to attack other people so vehemently. You accuse the writers of laziness and it's proponents to be dumb s, yet you've managed to avoid any explanation for why you think so. Anyone with a modest amount of brainpower would realize that you need to substantiate opinions with evidence, or your argument is truly thin and worthy of such mockery.
Any time you walk into a discussion with people, stating your opinion as fact and denouncing those who disagree with you as mentally incompetent, don't be shocked when people start laughing at you when they ask why you think that way and you can provide no other explanation, instead resorting to insults and self-promotion.
By the way, the individuals that I referenced above were Beavis and Butthead. It's telling that your remarks remind me of what they said, I think. Now watch, instead of analyzing NCFOM and telling us why you feel it was a bad ending, you're going to go back to smack talk and name-calling, just like a typical junior high school kid trying to be a badass.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 10-01-2010 at 11:01 AM.
I read your post and will give it a respectful response-if;And it's obvious why you intentionally make generalized comments with no specific targets. Man up and directly address the people you're talking to next time. You think you are being witty with wordplay, but it's a completely transparent attempt.
Sorry, who's got the superiority complex here?
Who's hurt by it? You are not the first person to have a meltdown in The Club, and you won't be the last. Trust me, it's nothing new here. You hear outrage when really it's laughter or amusement.
That's not it at all. You've had 9 pages to explain a single reason why you didn't like No Country for Old Men's ending. The only rationale you've provided so far is that it was "trying to be unconventional" and "the way it made me feel". Both reasons are pretty flimsy, extremely subjective (unconventional is far too broad of a term, and your personal feelings have little to do with how good the movie may or may not actually be), and more importantly, they have no sense of qualitative thought.
To put it in other terms, a very famous TV pair once was asked, "What do you like?" They responded, "We like stuff that's cool." When asked what they defined as cool, they said, "Stuff that we like."
You've essentially done the same thing here. When asked why you didn't like No Country, you said because it was unconventional. Then when pressed further, you said because of the way it made you feel. Considering that earlier in the thread you stated this: "The critics and dumb s like you bought it, though.", you've yet to show a single reason why anyone is an idiot for liking that movie, other than your personal sentiment, which is a pretty weak reason to attack other people so vehemently. You accuse the writers of laziness and it's proponents to be dumb s, yet you've managed to avoid any explanation for why you think so. Anyone with a modest amount of brainpower would realize that you need to substantiate opinions with evidence, or your argument is truly thin and worthy of such mockery.
Any time you walk into a discussion with people, stating your opinion as fact and denouncing those who disagree with you as mentally incompetent, don't be shocked when people start laughing at you when they ask why you think that way and you can provide no other explanation, instead resorting to insults and self-promotion.
By the way, the individuals that I referenced above were Beavis and Butthead. It's telling that your remarks remind me of what they said, I think. Now watch, instead of analyzing NCFOM and telling us why you feel it was a bad ending, you're going to go back to smack talk and name-calling, just like a typical junior high school kid trying to be a badass.
You answer this:
#1) You seem to have gone way out of your way to keep addressing me, most of the times, in a very disrespectful way. So I will ask you why should I NOW respond to you and answer your questions -when during the last thread (the old man getting tased) I offered to settle things with you and offered you choices and even a truce. I also asked you to be reasonable and give me a respectful reply--and I asked you not to just continue your smart ass remarks if you wanted to settle it.
You came back with another insult and another smart remark. Anyone can go read that thread if they care and you can also do that if you want. The point is that I tried to reason with you and all you have done in every thread I post in is come and attack and try to poison the well against me with your remarks.
So, if you would like to seriously discuss-then it is up to you-or not...it won't bother me.
#2 (This should hopefully open your eyes to most of your accusations against me--IF--you care to do the checking)
I have noticed that THIS happened in the threads you have accused me of attacking others.
THIS thread....I posted an opinion (post #3). I posted another opinion (post #5). I did not insult or attack anyone. Post #6: Someone questioned one of my choices (Shutter Island) and I answered respectfully that maybe-I was at a point where I had seen too many movies with unconventional endings and maybe that is why I felt disappointed in that movies ending. Again, I was respectful and didn't insult or attack anyone.
Post # 12: Out of nowhere, some poster whom I don't know or have anything to do with...attacks me-unprovoked, calls me an idiot, say I don't know ,etc....after that-all bets were off and others also swooped in and started throwing personal attacks at me-one called me a re ed monkey...
SO ...would YOU be very cordial AFTER being attacked like that?
THIS has happened in a lot of the threads where I am minding my own business. If you are attacked like that...what happens? How do you deal with it.
The same thing happened in the old man/taser thread and YOU were one of the first ones that attacked me and insulted me..called me stupid among other things.
One of the things that I like about this site is that we CAN do that and I dish out my share so --I know I have to just deal with it. This is also one of the reasons why this site is becoming like craigslist, though and this is why I have reacted in this way.
If you really want to be fair...do yourself a favor...stop from examining my posts (and trying to poke holes in my arguments) and start from the beginning of the thread and find out WHY I may be responding in the way that I do.
IF you find ONE thread....just ONE thread...where I attacked someone FIRST...
I give you my word that I will apologize to everyone in this thread and wear a dunce cap or whatever.
If you want to keep trying to shoot holes in every post that I make--and you want me to seriously respond when YOU decide you want something answered, then you tell me where I insulted someone unprovoked.
If someone in this MOVIE thread was insulted by something I said directly to you= I apologize.
So, again--CRY HAVOC...
Do you want to answer me respectfully and after finding out that I DID NOT fire the first shot....do you STILL want me to answer and explain everthing that I have said up to now?
Well you're an idiot, but I actually did prefer the way Stephen King ended it in the novella. Its more open ended, so they did close it up more by actually showing them both in Mexico.
Let me see...I am gonna take a guess...
you pseudo wanna-be critics HATED the ending to
Shawshank Redemption because it had a feel good ending...
---they should have had both Tim Robbins & Morgan Freeman killed!
Lets see...Tim Robbins on the way to mexico,after spending his life in prison
for a crime he didn't commit....killed by a drunk illegal immigrant ...!!!
and
Morgan Freeman...well...
as long as he dies and at the end ...psuedo wanna-be's need at least SIX possible explanations for the ending---because there always has to be a mysterious unresolved ending...
was Morgan Freeman ACTUALLY dead in the last scene--or was that a flashback...when he described his dream?
did Tim Robbins really get killed by the illegal immigrant or is the fact that the last shot of him --he is shown clinging to a in' pinata...a CLUE...
that he ACTUALLY survived...and lived out his life in Mexico...????
THAT is the avant-garde, artsy ending that would go over every dumb moviegoer's head....brilliant!
Otherwise the adaptation was done rather well. It has nothing to do with being avant garde. You're just an idiot.
LOVED that ending. Especially the whisper.
I didn't like There Will be Blood very much but I only watched it once. However I do remember liking the ending quite a bit.
Hurts? No one here is pained by your opinions. Thats some ego you got there.
Get it, don't get it...whatever...
I didn't like the ending--but it hurts you when you hear that for some reason.
It makes you feel better to think I didn't get -this way you feel superior-than to hear that someone didn't care for the ending.
I am shocked you liked the ending of Shawshank because it is a conventional hollywood ending.
Responding to you and pointing out that you didn't understand the movie has nothing to do with being hurt and everything to do that it was obvious in your posts you didn't know.
Thats all.
No one said that people here don't like conventional endings. Thats your strawman, no one actually brought that argument.
Idiot. If you can't tell that I was describing a fantasy Shawshank ending. then who is the idiot?
I loved Shawshank period. I loved that it HAD an ending. It satisfied.
See, you like to try to talk smack and attack me, call me an idiot. A personal attack whenever you don't agree with any opinion. How ironic that you attack first-and then think it is appropriate to call someone else an idiot.
I was obviously referring to the actual ending and its differences from the original ending. I didn't bother reading your drivel, but what made you think I thought your ending was real?
You loved that it had an ending? Thats a high bar you've set.
Also, whats ironic about me attacking you and then calling you an idiot? I see no irony there, explain it to me please.
No problem.I was obviously referring to the actual ending and its differences from the original ending. I didn't bother reading your drivel, but what made you think I thought your ending was real?
You loved that it had an ending? Thats a high bar you've set.
Also, whats ironic about me attacking you and then calling you an idiot? I see no irony there, explain it to me please.
An intelligent person who tries to impress by pointing out fallacies like strawmen would also be aware of this one:
A personal attack is committed when a person subs utes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.
``Get it''.
Your welcome.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
