|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Jun 24, 2004 12:32:51 GMT -5
I'm going for Fahrenheit 9/11. I am a huge Michael Moore fan, and with all this controversy surrounding it and all these people talking about it, it MUST be a great movie.
After that, I'm most likely to check out the Notebook. I don't care what the critics think, they're probably wrong. Again.
Then I'm going to watch Two Brothers, which I have been looking forward to all year but unfortunately, the theater I work at isn't getting; hence my watching the Notebook first.
I have no interest at this time in seeing White Chicks. I've seen about 20 minutes of the movie, and while it is funnier than I expected it to be (which isn't saying much, believe me), it's not very funny.
Now, if say, the Wilson bros. were to do a movie called Black Chicks, you KNOW they'd be hung by their balls for being "racist". White Chicks represents the double standard, which I do not believe in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Jun 24, 2004 12:42:35 GMT -5
I would most likely see FAHRENHEIT 9/11 first, but not sure if I'll be able to see it this weekend.
Don't really have any interest in seeing the others.
WHITE CHICKS should be called DRAG QUEENS.
Who would be fooled by those disguises? "That's a man, baby!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Jun 24, 2004 14:38:06 GMT -5
The Notebook? What is it, guys? Sorry, but I didn't hear anything about it. Or maybe I just don't remember the title.
The rest of them - I'm not interested. Saw Bowling For Columbine yesterday and though I admired Moore's attitude at first, the documentary soon became boring and then, at the very end, pointless, pretentious and manipulative. I'm not happy saying all this and knowing Smitty is Moore's fan but the Charlton Heston part of Bowling For Columbine was a huge letdown and at the present moment I'm not interested in anything else Moore did.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Jun 24, 2004 16:36:15 GMT -5
That thing with Charlton Heston DID go a step too far, but the movie made some good points, and surely ISN'T manipulative.
However, while it WAS really good, his best movie was the one he made about corporate downsizing. You should probably check out The Big One.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Jun 25, 2004 7:56:22 GMT -5
That thing with Charlton Heston DID go a step too far, but the movie made some good points, and surely ISN'T manipulative. Leaving the little girl's photo at Heston's mansion WAS manipulative (and cheap) in my opinion: look, the kind-hearted Mikey here and this old moron Charlton there... He could leave the photo just like he did, softened by the moment, but keeping the scene in Bowling For Columbine means he's not intelligent enough to recognize how cheap some of his deeds are. It's sad but I know we can't agree about this one issue, Smitty: you like Moore, I don't like him at all; some of the stuff he does may be very rightful but such docs as Bowling For Columbine I just don't buy. |
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Jun 25, 2004 12:41:51 GMT -5
That wasn't manipulative; Michael Moore didn't do that to prove his point, he did that for dramatic effect (which I feel worked).
Bowling for Columbine is NOT anti-NRA, anti-gun, anti-Heston, etc. It's about why Americans are so violent. He goes deeper into this by pointing out how fear and bigotry manipulate our society. I mean, to me, that's really deep. Because it's true. Maybe the message didn't mean as much to you as it did to me, but that's really what he was going about when making the movie. Some of the interviews, including the one with Heston, were only thrown in for entertainment purposes, either comedic or dramatic. To me, it worked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Jun 25, 2004 13:01:13 GMT -5
To me, it didn't.  At the end of the day, you're left with a movie that either entertains you or not. I didn't feel entertained by Bowling For Columbine - the middle part bored me and the ending pissed me. We can't have the same opinion about all movies, Smitty - I mean, we both support Scorpion King and Men In Thighs so we're similar enough. I'll maybe check another Moore film when my current irritation decreases a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Jun 25, 2004 14:25:06 GMT -5
Sorry to get off topic, but Bart, why do you keep calling ROBIN HOOD: MEN IN TIGHTS, MEN IN THIGHS??
I've noticed you've done this a few times. Is it a typo, a subliminal message, or is this what it was called in Poland? And if so, why??
Again, sorry to be O.T., but I have to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Jun 25, 2004 14:36:42 GMT -5
Sorry to get off topic, but Bart, why do you keep calling ROBIN HOOD: MEN IN TIGHTS, MEN IN THIGHS?? I've noticed you've done this a few times. Is it a typo, a subliminal message, or is this what it was called in Poland? And if so, why?? Again, sorry to be O.T., but I have to know. ;D Subliminal message, most probably. It's definitely NOT how it's called in Poland and a typo... well... hasty typing, maybe? I do know the difference between tights and thighs so I can't blame this one on my not-yet-perfect use of English... Anyway, I hope it appears no more.  |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Jun 25, 2004 14:49:56 GMT -5
Hasty typing. Okay, mystery solved.
Thanks! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Jun 25, 2004 15:09:02 GMT -5
And thanks for telling me, too! I wouldn't notice it before typing 'thighs' for a hundredth time, probably. |
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Jun 26, 2004 2:24:22 GMT -5
I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11, and let me tell you, that is one brilliant, sobering movie. One of the most important movies ever released, and everyone should take a look at it with an open mind. The audience in the theater APPLAUDED the movie. How often do you see an audience applaud a movie?
IMHO, the greatest movie this year since the Passion.
Anyone-But-Bush for president, 2004.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Jun 26, 2004 13:38:03 GMT -5
I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11, and let me tell you, that is one brilliant, sobering movie. One of the most important movies ever released, and everyone should take a look at it with an open mind. The audience in the theater APPLAUDED the movie. How often do you see an audience applaud a movie? Not very often, that's true. It opens in Poland next month so... maybe. Maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Jun 27, 2004 18:25:17 GMT -5
I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11, and let me tell you, that is one brilliant, sobering movie. One of the most important movies ever released, and everyone should take a look at it with an open mind. The audience in the theater APPLAUDED the movie. How often do you see an audience applaud a movie? Anyone-But-Bush for president, 2004. Ditto everything Smitty said there, including the part about the audience applauding at the end of it. This film is a real eye opener. You laugh, you cry and you get pissed off. I highly recommend it. And if you're a U.S. citizen of voting age, you need to get your ass to a voting booth come November. And that's as political as I'm gonna get. Promise.  |
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Jun 28, 2004 1:12:09 GMT -5
I had just seen the Notebook, and once again, critics have proven that they are INCAPABLE of liking a good movie.
First of all, both Gena Rowlands and James Garner deserve Oscars. They're performances were brilliant, beautiful, tear-jerkers. Sure, McAdams and Gosling were good, but let's face it, Rowlands and Garner act circles around those two.
The story was very interesting, powerful, and most importantly, something many people can relate to.
One of the best films of the year? In the same respect that Monster was one of the best films of 2003, yes. A film that really gives the PERFORMERS a chance to shine. If you like to see a movie with some strong performances in it, bring some tissue, and go see the Notebook.
I'm going to see Two Brothers tomorrow; I'll tell you how that ended up being.
|
|
