have you ever thought that maybe the only movies he has ever seen are Godfather I & II, Casablanca, The Graduate, Schindler's List, Citizen Kane and the original Star Wars?

The movie just never drew me in for some reason. It never caught my interest. Normally when I'm watching even a decent movie if someone would threaten to turn it off in the middle of the movie I would flip out but I wouldn't have cared last night. I'm also not partial to movies where everyone has a strong accent and you have to strain to listen to make sure you know what the **** they just said.

I won't give spoilers but the one thing the main characters were driving towards was never really explained which was stupid. Also I love violence in movies but in this film there were times there was shooting just to add minutes to the movie. It was the least entertaining film I've seen in a while. I know it got high ratings on Rotten Tomatoes but this is a time I'd have to disagree.

For what it's worth my wife hated as well as sis three of my friends when I posted my status on facebook saying I hated it so I'm not the only one in the world who feels this way.

Ill second this. It was really well made, but just bored me. Maybe someday ill give it a second chance, but not anytime soon.

The following movies are now available on Netflix Instant:

Seven Samurai
The Battle of Algiers
The Seventh Seal
Radio Bikini

If you want to understand modern insurgencies, I cannot recommend The Battle of Algiers highly enough (along with Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth).

Radio Bikini is about the Crossroads tests on Bikini Atoll in 1946. It's only 50 minutes long. It's an absolute must view.

I have the Criterions of both of those disks. Great movies.

I have the Seventh Seal Criterion. It's actually the only Criterion I own.

Yes. In fact a Canadian sniper killed a Taliban at about triple that. It is a great deal of luck, but without the skill it would be like winning the lottery, with the skill it's more like winning your office NCAA pool.

Watched Zombieland last night. Really like the way it started off but it bogged down in the middle for me. Good kills. I have a personal dislike for the curly headed kid, just something about the way he looks and his mannerisms kill me. Overall an entertaining movie and I'll probably watch it again which is rare for me do.

You are an apalling human being. The movie is great for its masterclass in direction and cinematography. That it has a compelling (for most people) story is icing on the cake. Also, I don't know what you mean by an unexplained drive in the plot. It seemed pretty well explained to me.

Sucked-could have been a good one-but never really went anywhere.

Smokin Aces 2 sucked-lame story-good actors-pass!

Ong Bak 2

Tony Jaa once again proves he is the best martial artist in the world right now. I am a HUGE Jet Li fan-bu i think he has passed the torch to Tony. this kid does his own stunts-wrote and directed the movie and did all the action. WOW!!

Cant wait for Ong Bak 3

Obviously, I'm not taking anything away from that sniper - that's ****ing incredible. But again, I'm asking about a target running across the desert.

Was the victim running?

I personally find it apalling that one would think that one's worth as a person could be dispositively devined by his or her opinion on a movie, particularly if it's 'meh.'
Maybe if someone opined that Schindler's List was about German's 'kicking ass,' but otherwise, that's a tad overwrought.
Or maybe you meant 'appalling human being' in the sense that he simply offended your sense of smug.

he was walking on a ridge.

I saw a sniper once on a show that hit a guy sprinting across a narrow alley at about the range you're talking about. If it can be done in a narrow alley, it is quite feasible.

Snipers have always intrigued me, so I have seen most of the shows about them and read quite a few things.

BTW for all those thinking the ultimate sniper weapon is a 50 cal, you'd be wrong. The newer Cheytach .408 has a better range and more power at long range due to it's proprietary rounds which have superior flight characteristics.

I think that it is rhetorically obvious that "apalling human being" was hyperbolic. It seems, though, that you are simply being defensive. Are you worried about the value of your own humanity (since you apaprently find Children of Men to be merely 'meh')?

Whatever assessment of my humanity I might countenance, my opinion of a single movie, or your reaction to said opinion will almost certainly have negligible effect. That said, I've said my piece in praise of Children of Men. CF4L's 'meh' was the 'meh' to which I was referring.

FTR, as an experience, the movie is as visceral and compelling as any I've seen recently, and the verite style they employ is right in my wheelhouse as my favorite movie of all time is Apocalypse Now for the very same reasons. But as a polemic on our pending future they evidently envisioned, as evidenced by the attendent DVD interview/short, it's run of the mill. Kind of comes across to me as if those kids crying for the trees out in the forest in that infamous youtube clip decided 'dude, we need to sober up and be like super cereal and make like a movie to show everyone how super cereal all this stuff we're wailing about is.'

And C'mon man, if you don't realize that you MIGHT come across as someone who actually found someone else genuinely fundamentally appalling on the basis of their opinion on literature, media or art, you might have the requisite self-awareness for the board. :p

Or, as it's known to those in the COD universe, the Intervention.

Oh, I assumed the 'meh' verdict was coming from you because it wasn't coming from CF4L. He thought it was one of the 5 worst movies he's ever seen.

If I come across as not-joking when I clearly am then chalk it up to people being <S><ST>penz'd</S></ST> Reaper'd.

When someone follows up '5 worst ever' with 'just never drew me in' THAT'S when my hyperbometer blips, and say 'oh, he means more like 'meh. ;)

And so you know, your proclivities vis-avis 'the arts' can be as difficult to read as reading when Dane is and isn't kidding with his 'I'm King Shit of jew Mountain, the first thing they teach the waitstaff at Dorsia is 'recognize and respect the Dane,' schtick.

That's what I got out of it.

And Children of Men was a great film.

You're right I am sure I can think of five worse movies but I was truly unimpressed for the reasons I stated earlier. Anyone who gets offended so much by someones opinion of a MOVIE is an unreasonable person and thus why I kind of ignored the other guy

Just watched The Other Side of Heaven for the soul reason that it has Anne Hathaway. It's about a Mormon guy who becomes a missionary. They write letters for three years before seeing each other again. Would be a major yawner for you guys. Not because it's romantic, because it's actually not, but just for some of the subject matter. Made me do some thinking about what's really important to me.

I think, if as you say you can appreciate violence, that if you allow yourself, you COULD be drawn in by this movie. If it just washes over you without requisite attention, you might miss how immediate and suffocating the action is in the set pieces. This isn't stylistic John Woo stuff, or some CGI GI Joe hyperconvoluted orgy of violence [though there is a good deal of CGI, but it's not blatant stuff crafted for 'hyperrealism,' instead crafted for actual realism]. They do a good job of putting you in the midst of the degrading scene. Again, reminscent of what AN did so well 35+ years prior.

I've never had a problem with reading Dane appropriately. But, just to keep up this allegation of being hard to read, I present the text following the next quote.

The other guy? I've nearly given away more awe-inducing readings and interpretations of film than you've given away charitable contributions to NAMBLA, you apalling twat. Go back and look at CoM's long, single-camera takes and then get back to me about "engaging" cinema.

If I was as overly-sensitive as you are I might take offense to being called an appalling twat for calling you "the other guy" instead of "your royal highness" (or what did you want to be called your majesty?) but instead I can only laugh that people in this world can be so offended by someone not liking a movie, lol

Yes. You laugh because the only appropriate response to the stench of you own shitty movie-watching skills wafting around you is suicide. So you laugh because, as evidenced by your thoughts on Children of Men, you are unable to give the appropriate response to anything.

The average movie watcher watches in order to be entertained. What entertains one might not entertain another. Boys, can we keep this in mind, please? I so see this thread going into the direction of the DC forum. Opinion is opinion. Not everything needs to be debated. Geez.

The average movie watcher is a drooling ****ing simian with the mental acumen of 2.5 googlegoogles.

LOL this is great entertainment on a Sunday afternoon
What is another movie you worship? I want to tell you I hate that too and see how you get overly-sensitive again

I'm fully accepting of that and not debating anything

ps - it's the other guy who does
pps - don't call him the other guy

LMAO Carry on then. :)

luv,

For someone who loves to write, you might try taking a deeper look at films in the future. They can serve as an excellent muse, as well as a reflection of the society in which they are created.

True, but I often watch movies in order to "escape" reality. When escaping reality, I tend to not feel like looking into things that deeply. The book is typically always better, so I leave my deep thinking and creativity for when I read.

Hee, hee, hee, Reaper pulls the Jon Stewart classic 'I air after dueling robots' gambit!!!

When it comes to media and food and the finer things in life, respec mah authoritah!! I even got penz to MS Paint my patented methodology underlying my ruminations. But if it ever appears I might have gotten a little carried away in my recriminations, well everyone knows I'm just a little jokester who never ever takes his navel lint seriously.

Listen to my profound teachings!!! For I am a mere jokey jokeman!!! Heed my introspections!! for I am a lowly dancing monkey!!

jk'in witcha Reap.

No shit you're joking. :p A serious look into my posting would, for the poster with a functioning sense of humor, reveal a distinction between my posts of good tastes and my posts of good taste that also include exaggerated violence. The violence and wrought language are in jest.

As for penz, I didn't get him to MS Paint anything. He posted that on his own and I am using it as an avatar because I can [and enjoy] laugh[ing] at myself.

Everything is a text.

You can watch Rambo III and enjoy it for the mindless explosions and still see the philosophical underpinnings inherent in the "One man does what evil gub'ment cannot" message.

A serious look into correlation of terminology would reveal as strong an inverse correlation between accusations of being 'an appalling human being' and threats exaggerated violence, as the correlation between Perez Hilton's queeny hyperventilations and 'put a boot in yer ass cuz it's tha 'mercan way' bravura. :D

I am unaware of saying that exagerrated violence represents the totality of my me-playing-around posts.

2010, the year Reap busts his 'sarcasm isn't self-evident on the internet' cherry. Pose for a post coital photo.

I disagree. I think that it is self-evident in nearly all cases. The only times that I don't detect sarcasm are when posters known for being idiots go all sunshine/dog's ass.

If you cannot recognize even the possibility that 'you're an appalling person' could be uttered in some degree of seriousness from a persona such as you've actively engendered here, particularly in response to the diss of an undeniably 'fapworthy' movie as CoM in said persona's general estimation, I can't help you.

And I'd add, your assertion that you've never ever had a sarcasmeter malfunction [unless the sarcasticator was somehow the anomoly], as well as how tenaciously you grip this whole 'sure I can be pretentious, but I could NEVER be TOO pretentious in this area' line just feeds into said persona.

In the interest of general peacable relations, I'll cop. I'm a dumbass, I should've recognized that Reaper was intimately versed in the subtle distinctions between reerun and full reerun when it comes to the sanctity of proper media criticism and opinion, and would never cross improper lines.

Uttered from the joking part of the persona. Seriously, if someone thought I was seriously saying the poster was an appalling human being for a movie opinion, however terrible of an opinion it is, then that person has missed something about me along the way. Which is pretty funny to me.

I am aware that I continue to blur the lines. It is fun. I must take umbrage with your use of pretentious. No one uses the word pretentious if what they're talking about delivers on what is promised.

Who is to say what lines are improper?

Here's my take on all the DVD's I've watched since the beginning of the year.

Public Enemies - 8 (above average, worth viewing more than once)
The Hangover -8 (better than your average comedy)
The Hurt Locker - 8 (good suspense, but lacked character development)
A Perfect Getaway - 7 (much better than I expected)
Inglourious Bastards - 7 (not as good as expected, above average)
Law Abiding Citizen -7 (better than expected, worth renting)
Pandorum - 7 (much better than expected, very entertaining)
Paranormal Activity - 7 (disappointing at first but gets better)
The Other Man - 7 (good film, sort of like the Sixth Sense)
Zombieland - 7 (very entertaining, not much story)
500 Days of Summer - 6 (very disappointing, almost hated)
Taking of Pelham 123 - 6 (very tired of John Travolta tough guy act)
Julie & Julia - 6 (pleasant story but boring)
Stepfather - 6 (much better than expected, entertaining)
Whiteout - 5 (very disappointing, director shouldn't work again)
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - 4 (Michael Douglas should be ashamed)

DeepPurple -- on the matter of The Hurt Locker lacking character development, I disagree. The movie is a character study of the protagonist, so the film is largely centered on him. If you were desirous of a fuller exploration of other characters in the film then you are imposing the form of a different film upon it.

How do you give (very disappointing, almost hated) and (much better than expected, entertaining) the same rating?

Towards the end when he returns to the states we find some of what he is made of, and overall the film accomplished what it meant to do, which is why I gave it a very good score of 8. I guess for the film to score a 9 or 10, I liked how it opened with action and after the scene with the main character assuming the role a possible flashback could of been inserted with a little knowledge of the character. If only they could of combined Jar Head with The Hurt Locker and we could of had a 10.

I think you're referring to 500 Days of Summer, after reading reviews I was under the impression that film could almost walk on water. The film for me, was a major disappointed to the extent I couldn't stand the main character Zooey. Better than expected, would be a sci-fi flick such as Pandorum, because I always expect a cheesy film when Dennis Quaid is involved, and this movie was actually good. So expectations do play a part when I'm scoring a film.

Oh, well thanks for the response. For my part, I would emphatically say that the flashback would have made the film worse.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Maybe.

I wouldn't even rate Julie & Julia a 6. It's like the first act the whole time and that's it. They try and create some conflict with the husband, but it's forced and doesn't work.

finally got around to seeing Frost Nixon.

How Sean Penn got the Oscar for f**king Milk over Frank Langella playing Nixon is beyond me. Truly a crime punishable by nuthooks.

Probably the 1st movie in 5 years that I was that impressed with.

Last year was ****ing stacked. Penn, Rourke, Langella and Richard Jenkins each delivered performances that deserved to win and would have been the best performance of 2009.

Damn. You're hard to please.

Watched 'a perfect getaway'

boring and long, towards the end it was decent but not enough to save it...not worth the rent

i took a bunch of film classes in college and it made me very critical of film in general.

a shitload of quick edits and jump cuts in an action flick doesn't really do anything for me. creativity with the camera and strong acting performances are what i enjoy.

don't get me wrong; i like many genres of film, but on the whole, most of the blockbuster movies bore me to tears. way too formulaic.

when i want to enjoy a movie, i will normally go to older movies. directors like billy wilder, hitchcock, sam peckinpah, orson welles, sam fuller, hal ashby are what i like the most. i even like to throw in some foreign stuff, powell and pressburger, truffaut, and some kurosawa when i'm feeling really adventurous.

No one is more critical of film here than I am and I've seen plenty of worthwhile, important film in the past couple of years, let alone the past five.

i think i could probably give you a run for your money in the critical department when it comes to movies. beer and books probably not so much; i am easier to please in these areas.

i'm not saying that there aren't or haven't been good films released in the past few years. i'm simply saying that the directors of today lack the creativity and vision that directors of the past have, for the most part. my assumption is that this is the product of big studios not wanting to take risks on pictures that are perceived as "out of the mainstream" and not considered to be as profitable as a "blockbuster" type of film or a cookie cutter movie with big name stars and a boring and cliched script.

i should also add that these are just my opinions and everyone is certainly entitled to theirs; i always enjoy a lively film discussion.

I don't doubt that you could give me a run for my money; I didn't say that I was singularly the most critical on CP, only that there are none moreso.

There are great directors working today. Few would dare say that Paul Thomas Anderson, The Coen Bros., Alfonso Cuaron, Quentin Tarentino, Darren Aronofsky, Pedro Almodovar, Steven Soderburgh, etc. lack an abundance of creativity and vision.

Are you aware of the richness and depth of independent film both in America and abroad?

p.t. anderson, coen brothers, almodovar - all fine directors and capable on any given day of producing some good stuff.

tarantino - sorry, but i think he's kind of a hack as a director. way too much copycatting from blaxploitation and sonny cheeba movies from the 60s and 70s. that being said, he's a GREAT writer; the dude can definitely write dialogue.

aronofsky and soderburgh - meh...aronofsky is a bit indulgent for my taste. i liked pi, but it's his only film that really caught my eye. the wrestler was ok, just a bit overhyped. i like soderburgh's early films much better than his later fare; schizopolis and sex, lies and videotape are both good, but once he butchered solaris, that was it. it was far inferior to the tarkovsky version (which i really dug) and once he started making the oceans 11-13 movies it just looked like he was copying french new wave directors like truffaut and godard with his stylized approach.

Just saw Law Abiding Citizen. It was pretty cool. Made you wonder how he was doing it. It definitely took a different direction than I thought it would.

Just watched JCVD -- a crazy, silly little film where Jean Claude Van Damme plays a lightly fictionalized version of himself. Its mostly a comedic send up but there is a great monologue that goes all meta on the audience. Van Damme legitimately acts his ass off in this movie.

Tarantino shows his influences on his sleeve, sure. But hack is way too strong for me. I mean, Inglorious Basterds is a tremendous artistic achievement. I'd vote for Tarantino for this year's Best Director Oscar over Kathryne Bigelow.

Aronofsky, well, I can see indulgent when talking about The Fountain. His other three films are pretty damn nice from the director's chair. I really, really disagree with you about The Wrestler; I find it to be a tremendous work of art. That film is the ****ing American story.

I mentioned Soderbergh not for his money-making Hollywood films. Allow me a quick simile: I put up with the ubiquitousness of Boulevard's Unfiltered Wheat Beer because it pays the bills, allowing Boulevard to brew the Smokestack Series. In the same way Soderbergh makes fare like the Oceans franchise so that he can make better, more creative films like Traffic, Bubble, Che or The Girlfriend Experience. He's unafraid to change up his styles or to take large risks. He's unafraid to fail, which is commendable.

I'm not nearly as critical as you guys when it comes to movies. (or "films") I either like it, or I don't.

But I have to say, I do enjoy reading these discussions. It's interesting.

Yup I definitely agree. I saw it about a year ago or so. (December of 08' I think) Acually quite a good flick as you mentioned...and who knew Jean Claude Van Damme could act. I mean seriously. Displayed some impressive acting chops in that movie as well as being his usual badass self.

I have disliked every movie since 1984.

Did you recently watch 1984?

Just watched Law Abiding Citizen...awesome, loved it. Well thought out, provoking, very grey in that plot points and characters and such aren't fleshed out or black and white...makes ya think.

Gerard Butler was ****ing epic...great acting.

Now having said all that, the end was ABSOLUTELY ****ING TERRIBLE. Jesus I hated it...even though it somewhat fit in with the story and theme it almost killed the Clyde character for me. Didn't ruin the movie but it def brought the experience down.
Posted via Mobile Device

I wouldn't go that far but I definitely didn't care for it at all.

ROFL at the pissing contest about who's more critical of movies.

Come on.... it's easy. phisherman took a bunch of film classes in college.

ROFL

I don't know... I think phisherman is just a little bit more critical of film and seems to know slightly more about it than Reaper16. :Poke:

Amazing.

i'd quote a line from tommy boy right now but...

film classes don't make me an expert by any means, but they did make me watch movies in a more critical manner. we didn't just watch all artsy fartsy foreign films either; shit, we watched dirty harry and easy rider in one of them.

this isn't about who is more critical really. i don't care about ranking myself or being seen as some kind of movie guru. but i do however, have strong opinions about film based on years and years of watching both foreign and domestic, commercial and independent, cheap and expensive, old and new, good and very crappy movies. i'll debate them with anyone.

reaper, sorry man, the Wrestler just didn't do it for me. it was ok, but nothing groundbreaking. how about we discuss something older than the last few years, soderbergh references withstanding?

You're reference to Tommy Boy is completely lost on me. I saw the movie once. That was plenty for me.

I know what film classes are all about. I have a degree in film.

That whole back and forth between you two was cracking my shit up.

not really a pissing contest for me, though it is fun to get reaper started on his compulsive quest to be considered the most knowledgeable on every subject.

You don't need to apologize to Reaper16. You've probably forgotten more about film than he'll ever know. He just liked The Wrestler because it had a bunch of bulked up men in tights, which to him is the epitome of "the ****ing American story". :)