If you don't like him in The General's Daughter, I don't think you could ever like him.

negative infinity.

don't be mad cuz I made fun of pleasantville, I'm sure lots of other 15yr old girls think it's deep.

on a serious note chopstick why don't you go look up some of the write ups I've posted in the film drafts and then show me some of the contributions you've made to this forum and the discussion of films and get back to me with your trite insults.

You must hate The Fabulous Baker Boys which I think is great. I thought the brothers were very good at playing brothers.

To shoot Debbie? That is just plain lol.

Lol. I just did argue The Searchers is anti-racist. I'm not the only one. I'm allowed to have my own opinion, just like you.

Yeh, you're right. You are tone deaf.

+1 I only read the one post that related to me. The rest of the wall text i didn't read. Even his shorter posts are decent walls. I aint gonna bother climbing them.

FBB"s is great. Prime white gold Michelle Pfeiffer doesn't hurt either.

I'd go all "living actor" on JB's too if it didn't sound so smarmy.

Ahhhh yes sicario. ..


Anyways to include myself in the current conversation: I know some people enjoy dumb and dumber but I prefer the godfather

Point Break (The new one)

Why did I watch this piece of ****? I don't have any excuse for watching this, other than I wanted to see what they would do to a guilty pleasure of mine (the original Point Break is awesome).

This was a CGI'ed Warren Miller movie, but I would argue Warren Miller's movies have more plot.

There are a couple nice set pieces, like the wing suit scene, but honestly, just youtube a few videos and you'll have the same thing basically. The rest of the stunts were so horribly choreographed, like the free climbing and the snowboarding, that there was never any sense of tension/thrill. They were pretty to look at, and that was it.

Now for the plot, or lack thereof. The original was centered around surfing, with the villains being bank robbers to fund their never-ending summer. This time, we get some philosophical bull-**** and eco-terrorism as an excuse to do a bunch of stunts in different types of extreme sports. If you turn your brain on even for a microsecond, you'll realize how illogical their terrorism is towards their goals, and this really is just a selfish journey to complete these ridiculous stunts. That's the difference between the 2 movies. The first one had some heart to it, and characters who you could actually enjoy being around for a couple of hours on screen. This version's characters were so one dimensional and hollow, that I really should've of just fast-forwarded to the next stunt, instead of listening to their ramblings about the environment and their place in nature.

They got rid of all the strengths of the original, but for some reason kept the same ending (I'm not putting this in spoilers because it spoils nothing), which was flawed in the original but sort of made sense. In the world of the new movie, the ending makes absolutely no sense.

Also, there was one real actor in this movie. Ray Winstone, wtf were you doing in this pile of garbage? You are too good for this!

That's not really fair. That's like saying some people enjoy snickers but I prefer lobster. Both are good, but for very different reasons.

I don't know if it's deep, but I did enjoy it

I don't like dumb and dumber

I found Pleasantville to be quite pleasant. Not something I'd rewatch but it was cute and well executed.

Maybe RBK just couldn't handle the female masturbation in Pleasantville seems to bother a lot of guys actually.

Not that Joan Allen is really my first choice for 'woman I'd like to see pleasuring herself on screen,' or even anywhere near the top of that list but...

Then again we don't really see it anyway.

I liked pleasantville a lot and i like joan allen. She can pleasure herself all she wants.

I have no beef with joan allen, anyone who helps bourne is fine by me.
and I don't actually care about pleasantville one way or another I just found it funny that he was being all condescending about the big lebowski then talking about how great that truly mediocre film was like he has superior taste in film.

You're so intellectually dishonest, it's not even funny. This is why I don't engage people like you. The point of that scene was to show how far he would go. Martin stepping in front of him makes HIM the hero of the story. But, oops, they diminished that in front of the audience of the time because they made sure you knew that Martin was one of the people John Wayne hates. For the last time, the audience didn't notice the racism, because it was so endemic at that time. I've seen you make some really aggressively terrible posts about stuff you don't agree with, but it's good to know that you're not worth more of my time.

Again, check your intellectual dishonesty at the door. You said it was anti-racist, you didn't check off even one box (that I could easily eviscerate) saying why, and neither has anyone else. It's extremely easy to say something, it's much harder to actually back it up. You're just putting your knowledge of today onto the period of the time. This is below college discourse, and you should be ashamed to think you've scored some kind of gotcha points.

Game over, brain power size confirmed. Poker related nicknames never let me down.

Is this the politard forum?

I am happy to no longer engage with you. People who insult others for their opinions are plain stupid.

You said the last time you watched The Searchers was 5 years ago. Sounds like you need to re-watch. Yes, initially Ethan hates on Martin a lot. That was BEFORE the standoff. They do start to warm to each other. They are together for 8 years ffs.

Actually i did. That's how dumb you are. Everyone is opposed to Ethan's racism in the movie, and the audience is not meant to be on Ethan's side either. To me, that sends the message that this is an anti-racist film.

Anyway, whether i'm right or wrong i don't really care, it's my opinion and i'm entitled to that. You don't have to agree, just don't insult me. But you started it so i won't engage with a ****head like you anymore. That's fine.

You can chat with the 3 people left who like you.

Not sure why I'm bothering, but you can't be serious with that post. You actually insulted me multiple times, and then complained about me insulting you.

You literally said you didn't read ANY of my arguments, and then told me I was wrong. I haven't read YOUR arguments, because you haven't had any. You ignore everything I said about the time period, and then get all high and mighty saying I'm wrong. If you look at it from today's perspective, it's very easy for TODAY's modern thought to say there was a message that was not there. It was not there specifically because of the time, place, and context of the movie. I'm sorry. Every anti-racist thing you think you're mentioning was undermined by various things. While I haven't seen the movie in quite awhile, I remember quite well how the movie made me feel. You're calling my opinion invalid while stating yours is correct.

I've said this numerous times already, but you haven't read the times I said it. It's very easy to say the movie is racist (tons of evidence to back it up), it's very easy to say there was zero social message (I think this was Ford's intent, but Wayne effed it up by playing his racist aspects with zero nuance). There is no way it is easy to say the movie was anti-racist. You have to tie yourself in knots to get there. This was a commercial movie, made by a director who very much cared about his commercial success. He's not undermining his core audience by making them "feel bad" about their prejudices. As I also said, Ford's biographer said people didn't even NOTICE the racism in the movie, racism was so entrenched at that time.

I can't stand engaging with you because you're not approaching the discussion honestly, and trying to use it as a way to say gotcha. If you want to call that insulting you, fine. But don't try to say that I'm invalidating your opinion. I'm asking you to back it up, and you won't do it while calling my opinions that you haven't even read invalid. I've backed up my opinion, you haven't. Also, you can call me dumb all you want, but that's not even close to the case.

How many movies from 50/60 years ago don't seem racist when held up to today's litmus test though?

Hell you could probably make a case for films like In The Heat Of The Night and Guess Who's Coming To Dinner as being racist films by today's standards while at the time those were considered racially progressive films.

I'm fairly sure there are a bunch of films with deep social meanings in them from that time. There were a whole lot of people in Hollywood who were absolutely not racist.

If you're talking about cartoons, there's not a single great Animation Director from the Golden Age of Animation I can think of who did not make horrifically racist cartoons at some point in their career. Tex Avery was one of the most talented people, and one of the biggest frequent offenders.

The point is that Ford cared about how his films did commercially. His target audience was filled with racists. He wanted his movies to make money so he could keep working. He's not going to undermine them at the harm of his own creative/financial success.

Lol the 4-time Oscar winner and director of The Grapes of Wrath deliberately injected racism into one of his prime-period films in order to pander to mouth-breathers. Sure.

Also, The Big Lebowski and Pleasantville are equally fantastic, as are Fisher King, Last Picture Show, Fabulous Baker Boys, and Jeff Bridges in general.

Actually, other way around. You insulted me, so i insulted you. That's fair.

I read a little bit but cmon dude. You need to get to your point quicker. You don't need to write mountains of text surely. You don't expect people to read it all do you?

I did make my arguments...

No, you. lol. Anyway i seriously don't care anymore. We will agree to disagree, which is fine by me.

Besides Hateful Eight, whose mid-movie VO interjection I find delightful and clever, those are just bad movies with bad voiceovers.

I get your point, but you also realize Wild effectively used that device you're decrying as lazy, right?

Tbh I don't think performances get much better than Jeff Bridges in Starman.