Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/19/14 01:44 AM, Natick wrote: overreact more, goddamn

Gnaw on a dick, Natick.

At 3/19/14 01:49 AM, Profanity wrote:

At 3/19/14 01:44 AM, Natick wrote: overreact more, goddamn

Gnaw on a dick, Natick.

ok

At 3/19/14 02:00 AM, Natick wrote:

At 3/19/14 01:49 AM, Profanity wrote:

At 3/19/14 01:44 AM, Natick wrote: overreact more, goddamn

Gnaw on a dick, Natick.

ok

Wait, did you watch Rubber? What do you think of it?

At 3/19/14 01:35 AM, Patcoola wrote: dude are these just the movies you own?
I personally watch 2 - 6 movies a week and I disagree with your rates, like seriously how and what are you basing these movie ratings on.

I just listed those I already rated on IMDB. And they are based on my personal tastes and criteria, which I'm very open to discuss.

anyways, quick notice, how is Home Alone 3 worst than 2 or 4 which are even worst.

I don't remember ever watching the fourth one, but the third was laughable. What really made the first movie was the actors and the novelty. It wasn't an awesome movie by any means, but it was enjoyable and entertaining. The third movie was unnecessary and the acting was just too much, there was no kind of credibility to it.

At 3/19/14 01:44 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: But there are plenty of other works with similar subject matter that accomplish this with black characters who are actual human beings with their own wants and needs and not just victims or symbols or plot devices who exist solely to effect the redemption or condemnation of white people.

Alright, can you name a few. Maybe they just aren't popping in my mind right now, or I just didn't watch them.

I'm not unfamiliar with contemporary race-themed French cinema, I wrote a term paper on how Cache and Entre les murs explore racial and ethnic issues in postcolonial France (both are good examples of films that actually explore these sorts of issues in nuanced, complex ways), I just haven't seen the particular films you mentioned so I didn't comment on them.

Then don't just start with this annoying assumption that I'm stuck in my colonial and ethnocentric views of the world. If this is an actual issue, it's not a presumption you can just make on anybody.

That movie has the same sorts of problems I'm talking about though. It doesn't even come close to approaching the reality* of the Holocaust, so how can it be said to legitimately comment or reflect on it in any serious way?

The sole purpose of the movie was to approach the Holocaust through this character that is trying to hide the horror of the concentration camps.

At 3/19/14 02:00 AM, Profanity wrote:

At 3/19/14 02:00 AM, Natick wrote:

At 3/19/14 01:49 AM, Profanity wrote:

At 3/19/14 01:44 AM, Natick wrote: overreact more, goddamn

Gnaw on a dick, Natick.

ok

Wait, did you watch Rubber? What do you think of it?

no and i don't really plan to for reasons i'll probably copy-paste after i get some sleep

Avatar

At 3/19/14 02:03 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: I just listed those I already rated on IMDB. And they are based on my personal tastes and criteria, which I'm very open to discuss.
I don't remember ever watching the fourth one, but the third was laughable. What really made the first movie was the actors and the novelty. It wasn't an awesome movie by any means, but it was enjoyable and entertaining. The third movie was unnecessary and the acting was just too much, there was no kind of credibility to it.

If you thought Home Alone 3 was laughable then it did it's job, some movies are not made to be realistic much like the philosophy of animation, it's all about entertainment. HA3 is the second most played movie of the franchise because children love it, as far as a child is concern the plot is dream come true. This movie was a success not a failure if you're going to rate it based on credibility and how necessary then Raiders of the lost ark should get the same rating.

At 3/18/14 08:04 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: It actually hurts my soul to watch this movie. It is so unfaithful to the book, I'm surprised they called it "Bram Stoker's Dracula". It really doesn't have anything to do with the book. It's filled with tits and sex, while the book is so prude it hurts.

Whaaaaaa? Prudish? You can't be serious... When I was young I'd jack off to Dracula. There are parts that are incredibly erotic.

At 3/18/14 10:10 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: The Green Mile is one of the more flagrantly racist films of recent memory, to the point where it serves as the most literal textbook example of the "magical black man" trope.

I understand why a lot of people make this argument, but I think it's based on a wrong-headed reading of the Green Mile, at least in terms of the original text (I think a lot of the subtelty and Stephen King-ness is lost in the movie, which does change things). Every character on death row in the Green Mile is broken, because you don't end up on death row if you're a competent functioning human being (at least in the Green Mile - Stephen King looks at a different universe in Shawshank ofc). Given this, it doesn't make much sense to me to point out that Coffey's an idiot, because to end up on the green mile you'd either have to be an idiot or a murderer.

To me at least, the Green Mile is just about restored faith in humanity. A prison officer finds salvation in a death row inmate (who is favoured over Wetmore by a distinctly christian god). Coffey's blackness is just there a) to make him even more vilified and potentially inaccessible than he would be as a white guy, and b) to act as a mechanism to get him on death row despite being completely innocent. He's not really a magical negro so much as a good samaritan, at least for me.

At 3/19/14 02:37 AM, Patcoola wrote: If you thought Home Alone 3 was laughable then it did it's job, some movies are not made to be realistic much like the philosophy of animation, it's all about entertainment. HA3 is the second most played movie of the franchise because children love it, as far as a child is concern the plot is dream come true. This movie was a success not a failure if you're going to rate it based on credibility and how necessary then Raiders of the lost ark should get the same rating.

Laughable doesn't mean funny. And if you are using commercial success or popularity to calculate if a movie was good or not, then we aren't talking about the same thing. If a movie was to promote shit ideas, and that kids still liked it because they can't perceive these things, then there are still issues with the movie. Also, kids are in a socialization process. We can't just say that whatever they like is good (on whatever criteria) just because they like it. I'm no talking about this movie specifically, but just in general terms.

I also didn't like the movie as a kid. The villains were stock, and so was the kid. I remember feeling disappointed that it wasn't the same kid and bad guys as in the previous movie. These characters never established a connection with me. And as far as the plot goes, it's pretty much more of the same. At least HA2 tried to change things up a bit. HA3 is basically HA1, minus the authenticity, novelty value and good characters.

At 3/19/14 02:52 AM, AxTekk wrote:

At 3/18/14 08:04 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: It actually hurts my soul to watch this movie. It is so unfaithful to the book, I'm surprised they called it "Bram Stoker's Dracula". It really doesn't have anything to do with the book. It's filled with tits and sex, while the book is so prude it hurts.

Whaaaaaa? Prudish? You can't be serious... When I was young I'd jack off to Dracula. There are parts that are incredibly erotic.

The movie, yes. Not the book. That's the issue. Shitty adaptation for so many reasons... and that's one of the main reasons.

I haven't watched that dracula film but i don't think film adaptations need to be as faithful to the source material as possible. besides the book definitely had some sexually charged content.

At 3/18/14 05:53 PM, OmegaweaponV5 wrote:

At 3/18/14 05:50 PM, wolfe wrote: Harry Potter is shit!

Which harry potter?

All of them, apart from the chamber of secrets.

At 3/19/14 09:29 AM, SCTE3 wrote: Avatar: The Last Airbender
DragonBall Evolution
DooM

Those are all terrible movies...

I agree with you on Avatar. They were silly to think they could condense an entire TV series into a two-hour long film. They had to leave out a lot of important scenes.

This, along with the god-awful name pronunciations easily puts Avatar: TLA on my list of shittiest films of all time.

At 3/19/14 02:03 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Then don't just start with this annoying assumption that I'm stuck in my colonial and ethnocentric views of the world. If this is an actual issue, it's not a presumption you can just make on anybody.

All the problems I've talked about are problems I have with middlebrow Important Issue movies, not you personally. I don't recall making any of the assumptions you're talking about and I don't know where you're getting this from.

Unless you're conflating criticizing the pop culture a person likes/doesn't like with criticizing the person himself, which would be kinda funny because isn't that exactly what bothered you about Profanity's posts?

The movie, yes. Not the book. That's the issue. Shitty adaptation for so many reasons... and that's one of the main reasons.

Dude, the entire book is, like, primarily about sexuality, and there are plenty of highly sexually charged passages throughout (especially for the time period). Obviously a modern film adaptation is going to be more explicit than a Victorian novel, but it's hardly off-base from the source material.

Like you said, there are lots of reasons to dislike that movie. But this is kind of a weird one.

At 3/19/14 03:07 AM, AxTekk wrote: He's not really a magical negro so much as a good samaritan, at least for me.

Yeah, that's a reasonable reading, and probably closer to what the filmmakers were going for. I just don't think it's successfully borne out in the execution, in part because of the film's ham-fistedness and self-importance.

I've never read the original story so I don't know what might have been lost in translation.

At 3/19/14 10:30 AM, Vinnyy wrote: I agree with you on Avatar. They were silly to think they could condense an entire TV series into a two-hour long film. They had to leave out a lot of important scenes.

No, that's actually all they had to do to make it a decent movie. There was more than enough fat to trim in the first season of that show for them to cover the highlights and make a straightforward adaptation.

Which is what any passable journeyman director would have done, but no, they had to hire Visionary Auteur M. Night Shyamalan, who insisted on fixing things that weren't broken and forged ahead seemingly without actually ever watching or understanding the thing he was adapting.

At 3/19/14 03:21 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: I also didn't like the movie as a kid. The villains were stock, and so was the kid. I remember feeling disappointed that it wasn't the same kid and bad guys as in the previous movie. These characters never established a connection with me. And as far as the plot goes, it's pretty much more of the same. At least HA2 tried to change things up a bit. HA3 is basically HA1, minus the authenticity, novelty value and good characters.

As an artist there is a big difficulty to find a line or right combination between likable and prefect formula. You could make Home Alone or you could make Home Alone Die Hard, but if you turn Home Alone into Die Hard then you failed in our goal and target audience. Once all the obstacles making the movie is done with and our in the theater watching the crowds reactions, go in and out of a panic attack; at the end of the day if a few people liked it you did your job. If you look at Indiana Jones which are bad movies the propose is to sell the idea of begin Indiana Jones, and that's fine.

HA3 is better than HA2 in likability directing and cinematography, although HA2 had established characters it also had the most complex writing in the series, poor directing, poor scene transitions, long dragged out scenes, often darker settings, they tried to make a comedy thought provoking and failed. Note: HA3 was second most played outside the theater aka long jeopardy.

At 3/19/14 03:21 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: The movie, yes. Not the book. That's the issue. Shitty adaptation for so many reasons... and that's one of the main reasons.

No, I'm saying the book is like that. Are you telling me you didn't find the bit with all the random female vampires in Dracula's mansion remotely erotic? Something about the power play between them and the narrator was so hot to me.

At 3/19/14 03:04 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Yeah, that's a reasonable reading, and probably closer to what the filmmakers were going for. I just don't think it's successfully borne out in the execution, in part because of the film's ham-fistedness and self-importance.

I've never read the original story so I don't know what might have been lost in translation.

I agree about the film trying too hard to be social commentary. It's funny, because if they tried less to make race a big subject in the film, the racial side of the film would be way more poignant. Coffey's story doesn't really make for a fantastic symbol of race relations, but it should shock us that Coffey's story wouldn't be impossible in the times the film is set in.

At 3/19/14 03:04 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: All the problems I've talked about are problems I have with middlebrow Important Issue movies, not you personally. I don't recall making any of the assumptions you're talking about and I don't know where you're getting this from.

All right then, my bad. Since Profanity was going full retard on me, I might have interpreted very negatively your post when you addressed the problem of racial discrimination yourself.

Dude, the entire book is, like, primarily about sexuality, and there are plenty of highly sexually charged passages throughout (especially for the time period). Obviously a modern film adaptation is going to be more explicit than a Victorian novel, but it's hardly off-base from the source material.

There are some erotic moments, yes, but nothing compared to the softcore porn this horrible adaptation was. And I don't see how it should be obvious that a modern film adaptation would fail to represent the historical context and ways of the time.

At 3/19/14 03:15 PM, Patcoola wrote: As an artist there is a big difficulty to find a line or right combination between likable and prefect formula. You could make Home Alone or you could make Home Alone Die Hard, but if you turn Home Alone into Die Hard then you failed in our goal and target audience. Once all the obstacles making the movie is done with and our in the theater watching the crowds reactions, go in and out of a panic attack; at the end of the day if a few people liked it you did your job. If you look at Indiana Jones which are bad movies the propose is to sell the idea of begin Indiana Jones, and that's fine.

With this approach we just fall back to personal preferences. It kind of defies the purpose of discussing and reviewing the movie, don't you think?

HA3 is better than HA2 in likability directing and cinematography, although HA2 had established characters it also had the most complex writing in the series, poor directing, poor scene transitions, long dragged out scenes, often darker settings, they tried to make a comedy thought provoking and failed. Note: HA3 was second most played outside the theater aka long jeopardy.

I wouldn't say that HA2 was a great movie by any means, but it tried to be a little different then the first movie, which is okay. To be honest, I haven't watched HA3 in ages, so I can't go in any kind of deep analysis when it comes to directing or whatever. I just remember that the characters were not very likable and that I didn't feel any kind of attachment to them.

At 3/19/14 08:54 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 3/19/14 03:21 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: The movie, yes. Not the book. That's the issue. Shitty adaptation for so many reasons... and that's one of the main reasons.

No, I'm saying the book is like that. Are you telling me you didn't find the bit with all the random female vampires in Dracula's mansion remotely erotic? Something about the power play between them and the narrator was so hot to me.

Yes. But that's about it, right? I mean, in the book, it was just Dracula and other "foul" creatures that were like that. They represented lust and desire. But the human characters were, well, very much representative of the Victorian era. In the movie, the redhead friend of Mina was just hardcore. She was there just so we could see more tits in the movie.

You forgot "The Master of Disguise", that movie gave me cancer.

At 3/19/14 09:26 PM, JackFrost23 wrote: You forgot "The Master of Disguise", that movie gave me cancer.

Hahaha! This movie didn't even pass the trailer test for me. Just the advertisement for it gave me headaches. I don't think I'll ever feel the need to watch this...

At 3/19/14 09:16 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: I wouldn't say that HA2 was a great movie by any means, but it tried to be a little different then the first movie, which is okay. To be honest, I haven't watched HA3 in ages, so I can't go in any kind of deep analysis when it comes to directing or whatever. I just remember that the characters were not very likable and that I didn't feel any kind of attachment to them.

Are you saying you based your review strictly on the characters and their ability to relate as a real person to the audience? So you didn't even consider the factors of what makes a movie like directing, cinematography, scene direction, technical production, music composing, sound mixing, sound effects, sound track, stunt men, stunt coordinators, animal trainer. Do you even remember the parrot in HA3.

Rule of thumb, if the name of the movie ends in 'movie', then chances are it's a shit movie.

Epic Movie, Scary Movie, Disaster Movie, Date Movie

etc.

At 3/20/14 02:49 PM, Patcoola wrote: Are you saying you based your review strictly on the characters and their ability to relate as a real person to the audience? So you didn't even consider the factors of what makes a movie like directing, cinematography, scene direction, technical production, music composing, sound mixing, sound effects, sound track, stunt men, stunt coordinators, animal trainer. Do you even remember the parrot in HA3.

I specifically said that I haven't watched the movie in ages. That's a personal rating I gave to the movie, not an university paper on the artistic values of HA3.

At 3/20/14 06:49 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: I specifically said that I haven't watched the movie in ages. That's a personal rating I gave to the movie, not an university paper on the artistic values of HA3.

So basically you admit you rate your movie reviews based on how much you like or dislike a movie and you do not put any real thought or consideration to a film.

Home Alone 3 came out when I was a child and even then, I could still tell it was awful.

At 3/20/14 05:27 PM, ChaRee wrote: Rule of thumb, if the name of the movie ends in 'movie', then chances are it's a shit movie.

Epic Movie, Scary Movie, Disaster Movie, Date Movie

etc.

Scary Movie 1 and 2 were pretty funny to me as a kid at least.

I know fifth element is kind of a love or hate film, but personally i thought it was quite good. Everyone keeps saying that fifth element stole stuff from star wars, but to be fair, the prequel trilogy took quite a bit from the fifth element (hover car chase scenes in futuristic city ring any bells?), and some of the aliens were quite original. And stylistically, it was in no way like star wars, they have VERY different feels (which isn't good nor bad).

I also like the expendables in sort of a guilty pleasure way. It was exactly what it was meant to be: a fun action flick that didn't ask you to think too much.

Terminator 3 and the Harry Potter films were no masterpieces (though some would make a case for the more recent installments), but I don't think they were all that bad.

In regards to Nolan................... go away.

At 3/20/14 10:29 PM, DaAtheno wrote: I also like the expendables in sort of a guilty pleasure way. It was exactly what it was meant to be: a fun action flick that didn't ask you to think too much.

I'm a big action fan, so of course I liked the Expendables 1 and 2. Those were badass movies. And it was cool to see Scott Adkins have a prominent role in a big mainstream movie.

NO FUCKING SHIT I love these movies:
Dracula
Knowing
Alien Resurrection (fucking underrated)
Rocky IV
Terminator 3 (not as good as the 2 before, but not as bad as the fourth)
Transformers (the only decent movie in the series)
Doom (also fucking underrated, great action movie)

At 3/20/14 09:09 PM, Patcoola wrote:

At 3/20/14 06:49 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: I specifically said that I haven't watched the movie in ages. That's a personal rating I gave to the movie, not an university paper on the artistic values of HA3.

So basically you admit you rate your movie reviews based on how much you like or dislike a movie and you do not put any real thought or consideration to a film.

That's a pretty dumb simplification. I said these were movie ratings I gave on IMDB. So for some of these movies I have more complex and well argued reviews, and for some others it's simpler. HA3 had boring characters, and over-done (read copy-paste) script with slight modifications to make it feel like a new movie, and it was overly grotesque. So these are my reasons as to why I didn't like the movie. This isn't a fucking essay I'm writing, this is an opinion I'm sharing on the BBS.

If you read my previous posts, you know that some of the movies we discussed, I have a more structured argumentation as to why I do not like them. Don't be a douche.

At 3/20/14 09:46 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Home Alone 3 came out when I was a child and even then, I could still tell it was awful.

This.

Scary Movie 1 and 2 were pretty funny to me as a kid at least.

Well, the first one, anyway. The idea of making a parody for teenage horror flicks was a good idea, until it became a gimmick and a fucking parody of itself.

At 3/20/14 10:29 PM, DaAtheno wrote: I know fifth element is kind of a love or hate film, but personally i thought it was quite good. Everyone keeps saying that fifth element stole stuff from star wars, but to be fair, the prequel trilogy took quite a bit from the fifth element (hover car chase scenes in futuristic city ring any bells?), and some of the aliens were quite original. And stylistically, it was in no way like star wars, they have VERY different feels (which isn't good nor bad).

The prequels do not count :P But the two universes are very different stylistically, indeed.

Terminator 3 and the Harry Potter films were no masterpieces (though some would make a case for the more recent installments), but I don't think they were all that bad.

I liked the Harry Potter movies, except for The Order of The Phoenix and The Half-Blood Prince. These were very poor adaptations of the books and sucked hard. As for Terminator 3, it's just a very bad sequel. Arnold is nothing as cool as he was in the second movie, and Nick Stalh who plays Connor is a pain. He doesn't have any kind of charisma, at least not in that role. Also, Robert Patrick was far more awesome as the T-1000 than Kristanna Loken was as the T-X. The second movie was all-around better.