Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Forum Thread A note about the site and any replies from other users.
Porn Users Forum » Upcoming Movie Thread
1151-1188 of 1188 Posts < Previous Page 1 2 7 12 17 23 Page 24 25
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

08-14-13  03:33am - 245 days #1176
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^It's not that unusual that you might have forgotten that he has a son since I think the last time you would have seen any indication that he has kids was in the first movie.

I didn't see this one and everything that I read about it told me that I wasn't missing much. Long live the Brown Coats.

08-18-13  11:50am - 241 days #1177
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,510
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Has anyone seen "The Bourne Legacy?" I have been hesitant to record it on my DVR because the last two Bourne movies were filmed with the infamous shaky camera that is supposed to create more immediacy. Both my wife and I were severely disappointed after having raved over "The Bourne Identity." Please tell me ... no shaky camera in this one!

08-18-13  12:11pm - 241 days #1178
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I have no clue because I never watched it. I know that director is not the same as the other movies so that's a plus. He was the writer for the other movie so that could be a plus as well. I recommend you read a couple of the negative reviews on Rotten tomatoes as this is where you will read any comments on the shaky cam issue. Long live the Brown Coats.

08-18-13  01:49pm - 241 days #1179
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,510
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Originally Posted by pat362:


^I have no clue because I never watched it. I know that director is not the same as the other movies so that's a plus. He was the writer for the other movie so that could be a plus as well. I recommend you read a couple of the negative reviews on Rotten tomatoes as this is where you will read any comments on the shaky cam issue.


Good idea, Pat. Thanks.

P.S. Just came back from Rotten Tomatoes and this is what I read in the very first review I looked at: "If you’re here for some Greengrassian shakey-cam action and some quick-thinking hand-to-hand combat however, you won’t be disappointed."

PASS!!!! Edited on Aug 18, 2013, 01:59pm

08-20-13  05:51pm - 239 days #1180
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,539
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Legendary Writer Elmore Leonard Dead at 87

11 hours ago | Variety - Film News | See recent Variety - Film News news »

Elmore Leonard — the novelist whose works have been turned into countless TV shows and movies — died Tuesday from complications he had from a stroke. He was of 87.

Leonard had suffered the stroke last month and had been recovering in a Detroit-area hospital. Leonard’s long-time researcher, Gregg Sutter, told the Detroit News that Leonard was home and surrounded by family when he passed.

Sutter had previously told the paper Leonard had been hard at work on his 46th novel.

His works were adapted into movies such as “Out of Sight,” “3:10 to Yuma,” “Jackie Brown,” “Get Shorty” and the TV show “Justified.”

08-20-13  06:20pm - 239 days #1181
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,539
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
messmer, I've seen all the Bourne movies.
I think I even saw the made for TV movie with Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith back in the 1980s, though I hardly remember any details from that film.

The Jason Bourne novels, written by Robert Ludlum (who died before the Matt Damon movies came out), are far different from the Matt Damon movies.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the first Matt Damon Bourne movie.
Like you, I was bothered by the "shaky camera effect" that was displayed in the next two Matt Damon Bourne movies.

The Bourne Legacy does not star Matt Damon.
It stars Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz.
Both of them are fine actors.

But I didn't enjoy it anywhere near as much as I did the first Matt Damon Bourne movie.

Actually, they are using the title, "The Bourne Legacy", as a marketing gimmick, to help sell the movie.

The movie itself has very little direct connection to the Bourne movies with Matt Damon.

If you can see the movie for free, I think it's worth watching. As long as you don't expect a masterful movie. It's a good, commercial movie, not great, but OK.

I don't think there is a huge amount of "shaky camera work" in this movie. Certainly not like there was in the 2nd and 3rd Matt Damon Bourne movies.

The love story between Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz isn't as effective or compelling as the relationship Matt Damon had with Franka Potente.

And you don't root for Jeremy Renner in the same way you were involved in the Matt Damon character. Matt Damon just seems as someone you just bond with, far more than Jeremy Renner.

The Jeremy Renner movie is a pale imatation of the original Matt Damon/Jason Bourne movie.

But if the movie is free, or even a $1 rental from Redbox, it's a better choice than a lot of the other movies that are out there.

08-20-13  06:22pm - 239 days #1182
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by messmer:


P.S. Just came back from Rotten Tomatoes and this is what I read in the very first review I looked at: "If you￿re here for some Greengrassian shakey-cam action and some quick-thinking hand-to-hand combat however, you won￿t be disappointed."

PASS!!!!


I may not always agree with some of the reviews on RT but I like that you get many different perspectives on a movie that it generates a kind of overall consensus. Long live the Brown Coats.

12-22-13  11:17am - 115 days #1183
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
I finally saw the mess that is The Lone Ranger. Wow where to start. This little gem clocks in at nearly 2 and a half hour long. That is at least half an hour too long but in my opinion is more like 3/4 of an hour too long. There are so many scenes that make no sense because that add nothing to the story and must have cost a lot of money to shoot.

I'm still scratching my head as to why Helena Bonham Carter is in this movie because she has one of these characters that doesn't add anything to the story except that she is the only other female character with any serious dialogue or screen time in the all male movie.

The plot is so stupid and convoluted that you need to take notes just so you don't get lost with the overall plot. I haven't figured out why the movie is being told to a little kid by an old Tonto. If anyone knows then please let me know because that is one of those things that might explain some of the other stuff.

There is a love interest but again that makes absolutely no sense and worse she is used to move the story along when it didn't need moving in the first place. You know you are in for a serious mess of a movie when within the first 30 or so minutes of the movie you have been introduced to most of the players but you never understand the relationship they have with each other. Possibly one of the better example is the love interest. We find out early on that she is married to the brother of the Lone Ranger but it's clear to everyone that she was in love with the Lone Ranger before he went to learn the Law. We are never told what happened to break them up or why she would marry and have a child with his brother.

This is the type of movie that could end the career of most movie actors, producers and directors Long live the Brown Coats.

12-22-13  01:26pm - 115 days #1184
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,539
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Johnny Depp and Tim Burton are friends and colloborators. And Johnny Depp is probably friends with Helena Bonham Carter, who is Tim Burton's girlfriend, fiance, wife (some sites say they are married, other sites say they are not married), and the mother of his two children.

So Depp and Helena Bonham Carter have appeared in numerous films together:

The Lone Ranger
Alice in Wonderland
Sweeney Todd
Dark Shadows
Corpse Bride
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Alice in Wonderland was the film I enjoyed the most out of those listed.

I haven't seen The Lone Ranger. I'm waiting for when it comes on cable.

12-23-13  02:00pm - 114 days #1185
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I am sure that Depp and Carter are friends if only because of what you wrote. My comment is meant more in regards to her character than the producers choice of actress to play that role. Read below if you want to know why I wrote that.

***Spoiler alert***Spoiler Alert****

All right if you or anyone else is reading this then you don't care to know some plot points from the movie. There are two main bad guys in the movie but one is a lot more obvious. At least that's what the producer and director were going for(they failed). The, for lack of a better, word main bad guy is Butch Cavendish. He's a disfigured man with a taste for human flesh(never really explained) but we at least know that he cut out and ate the heart of the Lone Rangers brother. I guess killing him and all his deputy wasn't enough to make the audience hate him. It's sort of implied that he ate the leg of Helena Bonham and that is why she hates him. She is on screen for a very short amount of time. Once when TLR(the lone Ranger) and Tonto go to a whorehouse that she owns to get some clues as to the whereabouts of Butch and his gang. Tonto knows her but that is also not really explained but who cares since so many other plot points aren't. She also makes another appearance toward the end to help TLR and Tonto with their plan to steal the silver from the other bad guy.

You could probably write her entire screen time out of the movie and you'd lose almost nothing in story development.

I like her as an actress and she has talent but she is wasted in this turkey. Long live the Brown Coats.

12-25-13  02:09pm - 112 days #1186
biker (3)
Active User



Posts: 221
Registered: May 03, '08
Location: milwaukee, wi
I know I'm getting old now. I read Pat's post and thought, "Didn't they recently make a Lone Ranger film and I looked it up and that was way back in the 80's. It was also a flop. Apparently Lone Ranger doesn't translate well to the big screen or the producers image doesn't do it justice. I aim to misbehave

12-26-13  01:27pm - 111 days #1187
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I don't think the reasons why TLR (The Lone Ranger) failed has anything to do with not well translating to the big screen because at it's heart it's still basically a masked hero cowboy who saves the day. I put the blame for TLR's bad box office takes squarely on the shoulder of producers who were trying to create another cash cow starring Johnny Depp but didn't actually bother with an actual story or even bother with writing well developed characters.

I get it. Pirates of the Caribbean was a gigantic cash cow but I maintain that without Orlando Bloom (the actual star of the movie) and his quest to rescue Keira Knightley then I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie. A large part of why I own 3 of the movies but only watch the first is because it does everything perfect and JD's Jack Sparrow character is there mostly to move the story along and add comic relief.

Once the weird and bizarre joker of the movie becomes the protagonist in subsequent films then you have a problem. You keep having to add semi-normal characters so that the audience can have someone to root for who they can sort of feel for.

Now back to TLR and why it bombed. I was born quite a few years after it went off the air so any episode I saw were already old but I have read about it over the years so I at least know the basics. The one undisputable fact that the idiot producers failed to grasp when they were imagining all the money that would come their way when their baby broke the billion dollars at the box office is that in a movie called The Lone Ranger. TLR is the main character and not is sidekick Tonto. There is no going around that fact but I guess if you are well known producer then you can. Of course that is until you look at the money this mess cost and how little it will make back. Good Luck getting Disney to sign off on future movies. I hope the next installment of Pirates bombs so that we can also put that mess to rest. Long live the Brown Coats.

12-26-13  01:28pm - 111 days #1188
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I don't think the reasons why TLR (The Lone Ranger) failed has anything to do with not well translating to the big screen because at it's heart it's still basically a masked hero cowboy who saves the day. I put the blame for TLR's bad box office takes squarely on the shoulder of producers who were trying to create another cash cow starring Johnny Depp but didn't actually bother with an actual story or even bother with writing well developed characters.

I get it. Pirates of the Caribbean was a gigantic cash cow but I maintain that without Orlando Bloom (the actual star of the movie) and his quest to rescue Keira Knightley then I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie. A large part of why I own 3 of the movies but only watch the first is because it does everything perfect and JD's Jack Sparrow character is there mostly to move the story along and add comic relief.

Once the weird and bizarre joker of the movie becomes the protagonist in subsequent films then you have a problem. You keep having to add semi-normal characters so that the audience can have someone to root for who they can sort of feel for.

Now back to TLR and why it bombed. I was born quite a few years after it went off the air so any episode I saw were already old but I have read about it over the years so I at least know the basics. The one undisputable fact that the idiot producers failed to grasp when they were imagining all the money that would come their way when their baby broke the billion dollars at the box office is that in a movie called The Lone Ranger. TLR is the main character and not is sidekick Tonto. There is no going around that fact but I guess if you are well known producer then you can. Of course that is until you look at the money this mess cost and how little it will make back. Good Luck getting Disney to sign off on future movies. I hope the next installment of Pirates bombs so that we can also put that mess to rest. Long live the Brown Coats.

12-26-13  01:29pm - 111 days #1189
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
I`m adding this lovely link to an IO9 article discussing what went wrong with so many sci/fi movies this year. it's not overly long and hits most of the key elements. Long live the Brown Coats.

12-26-13  01:32pm - 111 days #1190
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
In case anyone was thinking of seeing 47 Ronin then let me save you some cash. Don't bother because it's a mess that no amount of CGI or editing could fix. I could go on a rant but instead I'm adding another io9 link since they do a far better job then I ever could.

http://io9.com/keanu-reeves-new-movie-ha...the-ronin-1489456200 Long live the Brown Coats.

12-30-13  01:46pm - 107 days #1191
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,539
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I rented 2 Guns from Red Box. Thought it was a good movie. Not great, but good. Offhand, I can't think of a single Denzel Washington movie that was really bad.

12-31-13  09:20am - 106 days #1192
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I also saw that movie but I just found it okay. The story is way too convoluted with some serious plot holes and a hodgepodge of characters that don't make much sense. I'm really glad that I didn't see this in a theater because I would have felt cheated out of my money.

It's basically disposable entertainment that you watch and quickly pass onto the next thing. The only thing that I'm still scratching my head about is the title. Why 2 Guns? Long live the Brown Coats.

01-03-14  10:04am - 103 days #1193
graymane (29)
Active User



Posts: 1,285
Registered: Feb 20, '10
Location: Virginia
I rarely post in this thread, but I do visit it from time to time because I find the exchange between the few avid PU regulars who post here, and keep it humming, to be more entertaining than what the movie industry itself churns out.

I used to be a big fan of the late critics Siskel and Ebert.-- Would'nt miss their weekly TV show for the world.

Happily, I find they're still alive and well in the order of Pat and lK2fireone ..... two savvy guys I'd almost swear are capable of writing the encyclopedia on the entirety of Stardom, Hollywood antics and their living and dying dynasties.

01-03-14  10:25am - 103 days #1194
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^Siskel and Hebert were the masters of the review and you can tell that because everybody tried to emulate their styles.

I love talking about movies and TV shows because that is something that I am passionate about. It is too bad that so few want to do that but that's okay at least a few do. Long live the Brown Coats.

01-03-14  06:41pm - 103 days #1195
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,875
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


I rented 2 Guns from Red Box. Thought it was a good movie. Not great, but good. Offhand, I can't think of a single Denzel Washington movie that was really bad.


I didn't particularly care for Flight. Even for a Robert Zemekis film, it was way too syrupy for me, and not in a straightforward way, but in an almost goofy spiritualist manner. The one character I somewhat enjoyed in the story, played by Washington, is still an egotistical, coke-snorting alcoholic, and apparently not going to church is still high on the rest of cast's list of his problems (while already being well aware of the flaws I mentioned above).

In general I don't like films that feel like they would be too shallow even for a TV movie. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-03-14  11:05pm - 102 days #1196
graymane (29)
Active User



Posts: 1,285
Registered: Feb 20, '10
Location: Virginia
Lemme ask any of you guys who've for so long given us all this enlightening and interesting information on the movie industry, and particularity the stars who perform, as well as all the films flowing out of the major studios ......

My question is: are you still buying tickets and viewing these movies in a genuine, bona fide, local, or an in-town theater? I ask because I haven't darkened the door of one in over twenty years....... even though I love movies.

Otherwise, where do you get all this info?


PS ..........while I'm warm ......
Would you agree with me on who's one of the hottest, and best "stacked" woman ever doing movies.
She was once married to ladies-man Larry King ... who has the keenest eye for great bodies (esp. the legs) than all the glamor-boys of Hollywood.

Answer: The unassuming, queen of gams .....Angie Dickerson

03-11-14  09:34am - 36 days #1197
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I'm a bit late in replying to your question so sorry about that. I still go to a movie theater about once a month but I can go more than one month without going to the movies in part because I'm finding that I just don't enjoy the stuff most studios put out these days. That and the fact that I buy so many movies on DVD/Blu-ray and I only have to wait a few weeks to a couple of months before a new release winds up on video that I'll wait for the video. If I really like a movie than I will watch it multiple times and I may even watch it a few times if it's average. My only problem with doing that is that I take for granted that the movie will appeal when in fact it won't. See my next post for some examples.

I didn't know that she dated Larry but I have to agree that Angie was a really hot woman. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-11-14  10:07am - 36 days #1198
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
It's been such a long time since I have been to the movies that I didn't actually remember the last ones I saw. I had to look it up and it was 47 Ronin and the latest Hobbit movie. The first one was a gigantic turd that anyone with brains should avoid while the other was not bad but then again not great.

I was interested in seeing I, Frankenstein in January but it got so many horrendous reviews on RT(Rotten Tomatoes) that I skipped spending 12$ for a movie that I will probably buy on dvd.

My wish list for February was bigger because it included The Lego movie, 3 days to kill, Pompeii, Winter's tale and Non-Stop. Of these only the Lego movie will probably make it on my buy list when it comes to dvd/Blu-ray because the reviews for all the others aren't stellar or are just bad.


I had better luck with my video purchases but I still wound up buying movies that I wanted to see in theater but chose not to or was unable to see. I bought Riddick and it was okay but it felt too much like a mixture of the first two movies and the ending was not that good, Escape Plan was okay but should remain a rental and Thor 2 which I was so sure would be as good as the first if not better but it was actually very disappointing on all fronts.

All is not lost because Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 was very good and well worth a buy for me and a rental for anybody else. Catching Fire was excellent and if you already have Hunger Games than get this one and my last great purchase is Ender's Game. That is an amazing movie with some great acting from the main star as well as the other players. I know that there are other novels in the series but I don't think they will wind up on screen if only because I can't how they could bring them to the screen. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-11-14  12:28pm - 36 days #1199
Micha (1)
Active User

Posts: 292
Registered: Jul 04, '10
Location: san jose ca
twelve bucks for a movie? A date who likes popcorn? make that $35

Blue ray at redbox? $1.63 microwave kettle corn $.40

If you miss a line and there's no one there to ask what'ed he say?
(That happens more and more) .............

Just rewind. Gotta pee? there's a pause button

With my 4 foot Sony, I don't miss the Cineplex

I paid to see Atlas Shrugged 1&2 because I'd been waiting since 1964 and didn't want to wait 4 weeks for the disk

Atlas Shrugged ? part 1 was great Part 2? (and 3).... not a single cast member was carried over to the sequels. For me, that's a severe continuity problem.

GM wrote: Angie Dickerson I think I'd change that R to an N though I agree with the thought. unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck. Edited on Mar 14, 2014, 12:25am

03-11-14  01:31pm - 36 days #1200
biker (3)
Active User



Posts: 221
Registered: May 03, '08
Location: milwaukee, wi
After five years I finally went to a movie. It was "Monument Men". Not bad. It's a fictional account of a group of volunteers who searched out the art stolen by the Nazis as the allied armies crossed Europe. It is rather fanatical that the Germans used trucks and trains to move art, when they needed every form of mobility to move troops and equipment. That was Hitlers orders.

I would recommend "The Train" with Burt Lancaster. It was much more personal.

My friend got free passes and I have never bought popcorn at a theater, so it only cost me gas to go. Otherwise I have would waited and rented it. I aim to misbehave

03-11-14  06:12pm - 36 days #1201
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^Monument Men didn't get very good reviews on RT and that is part of why I didn't go see it. The other reason is that I don't think it needs to be told on the big screen. There is a documentary about the real life Monument Men coming soon and that is a far better medium for these types of movies.

I don't want to offend my American friends but I find that most Americans can't tell a true story without rewriting it in such a way that Americans become the heroes of those stories. Now when it's not an historical story then that isn't much of an issue but it's an altogether different thing when an American movie decides to rewrite history by inserting Americans in the place of the real heroes. I know they do it to help sell the movie to Americans but it doesn't make it right. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-11-14  06:23pm - 36 days #1202
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by Micha:


twelve bucks for a movie? A date who likes popcorn? make that $35



I often take my nephew with me because we're the only two in the family who like science fiction/fantasy movies so 2 tickets for a standard movie comes out to about 21$ because he's still only 13. If the movie is in 3D then that number is closer to 25$ and if it's in the new AVX theater then we are talking over 26$. I get scene point that accumulate and I get one free movie for every 10 that I see.

If we both have a slushie and a large popcorn then that's another 14$ and that's because my scene card gives me a 10% discount at the counter.

The cost of going to the movies is getting to be so high that I now really try to make sure that I will enjoy the movie otherwise an average movie will be more disappointing because it cost so much to see it. Of course it's hard to argue that some movies are so much better when seen on a large movie screen. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-11-14  09:53pm - 35 days #1203
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,875
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by pat362:


I don't want to offend my American friends but I find that most Americans can't tell a true story without rewriting it in such a way that Americans become the heroes of those stories. Now when it's not an historical story then that isn't much of an issue but it's an altogether different thing when an American movie decides to rewrite history by inserting Americans in the place of the real heroes. I know they do it to help sell the movie to Americans but it doesn't make it right.


No offense taken. Sometimes the truth hurts, a lot, and that in and of itself shouldn't be offensive, regardless how deeply held a particular myth is in one's heart.

Monument Men, whatever its other faults, sounds pretty mild compared to other recent cinematic retelling of history. The straight-up jingoism of Zero Dark Thirty and Argo (especially concerning Canada's role in the real event) are quite revealing about what passes for historical accuracy in Hollywood blockbusters. And the might-is-right philosophy of films like Black Hawk Down and Captain Phillips is so over the top that it's cringe worthy at some points.

So Hollywood is forever accused of being "liberal" by social conservatives, yet it continually spends big bucks portraying American foreign policy and its military--even the fuck ups--in a practically hagiographic light? Oh, the irony. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

03-12-14  01:14am - 35 days #1204
slutty (111)
Active User

Posts: 459
Registered: Mar 02, '09
Location: Pennsylvania
Originally Posted by pat362:


I don't want to offend my American friends but I find that most Americans can't tell a true story without rewriting it in such a way that Americans become the heroes of those stories. Now when it's not an historical story then that isn't much of an issue but it's an altogether different thing when an American movie decides to rewrite history by inserting Americans in the place of the real heroes. I know they do it to help sell the movie to Americans but it doesn't make it right.


I assume this comment was primarily aimed at Argo, which I agree was definitely a bit light on the Canadian love, but to be fair to Hollywood, they aren't necessarily targeting Canadians in their business. Pretty much any story out of Hollywood "based" on a true story, seems to take that basis quite liberally (American Hustle as a good example), so I don't necessarily hold that against them. It is a movie after all, which they are trying to make money on. Although I for some reason cannot seem to forgive glaring scientific inaccuracies in films, I guess I can only suspend belief so far.

Also, someone actually paid to see Atlas Shrugged (both parts) in the theater! Shocking! (I kid). Some of the reviews of that movie were hilarious, reminded me of the Travolta Scientology movie reviews.

I am looking forward to the new Wes Anderson movie, hopefully can catch it this weekend. Also, the Veronica Mars movie is intriguing, the first season of that TV show was probably one of the best seasons of any show in the aughts. But I doubt it will get a wide release, so I probably wont get to see it in the theater. I only go to like two movies in the theater a year, like Micha it just seems like too much money to me unless I am certain I will like the film or that it really requires being seen in the theater. Sort of wish I saw Gravity when it was playing in the ultra-super-duper 3D mega screen or whatever. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

03-12-14  09:57am - 35 days #1205
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^Is it possible that being an American makes you a little bias on the subject and I'd like to add that the fact that American movies are rewriting history doesn't negatively affect Americans.

There is now an entire generation of Americans who believe that Argo is the truth and therefore Canada's part in the Iranian incident is but a bookmark in the history book but the opposite is the truth. Just read what President Carter said on the subject.

In a CNN interview, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter addressed the controversy:


"90% of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian. And the movie gives almost full credit to the American CIA. And with that exception, the movie is very good. But Ben Affleck's character in the film was... only in Tehran a day and a half. And the main hero, in my opinion, was Ken Taylor, who was the Canadian ambassador who orchestrated the entire process."[47]


Don't get me wrong. I completely understand why Hollywood went the way they did because American audiences would never have watched a movie where the heroes are Canadians.

You want another example of where Hollywood rewrote history in favor of the US. How about U-571. It's a great movie but the historical accuracy is way way off on this one. Yeah the Americans did capture an Enigma machine but it was in 1944 which is about 12 years after the first one was captured and the British navy had already captured 13 prior to the Americans getting their hands on one.

Probably the main reason why I avoid any movie that has the words "based on a true story" is because all it usually mean is that most of the story is BS with a sprinkling of truth. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-12-14  10:00am - 35 days #1206
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,875
Registered: Apr 01, '08
I second the unforgivable scientific errors and inaccuracies--even in sci-fi when they're just making shit up! Like how even in the first Terminator film it started messing with the "history" of the future by the Reese's actions in the present (okay, that's the entire plot...but I'm right, damn it!).

A lot of times it's making up rules/physics for a series and then just lazily throwing them out for some "new" discovery later on. The Star Trek films with the original cast (Motion Picture - Episodes VI) seemed to get pretty liberal with what the star ships were capable of, even if it was the same exact ship from the previous film.

Hell, after the Enterprise was self-destructed (uh, spoiler alert?) at the end of Ep. III, Kirk & co. were tried in absentia at the beginning of Ep. IV, using what was basically footage from the previous film as evidence, including wide shots of the ship. Couldn't they have just said "Uh, it was intentionally blown up and Kirk was captain and knew the countdown code"? Or "Hey, anybody notice how this guy's really hard on any ship that he gets near"?

Of course when we try and make a space movie set in the present we end up with Armageddon. Hmm, and like Argo that also stars Ben Affleck... "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

03-12-14  10:18am - 35 days #1207
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,875
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Just remembered, Ben Affleck also did Michael Bay's next movie after Armageddon...Pearl Harbor.

Take that, historical record! "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

03-12-14  06:41pm - 35 days #1208
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


I second the unforgivable scientific errors and inaccuracies--even in sci-fi when they're just making shit up! Like how even in the first Terminator film it started messing with the "history" of the future by the Reese's actions in the present (okay, that's the entire plot...but I'm right, damn it!).



I agree that most movies or TV shows that use time travel in their main plot tend to screw it up pretty badly but most of the past ones used a certain logic while a recent movie completely take a dump on the audience.

I give you.

JJ Abrams Stark Trek. You want a fucked up time travel plot then here is one. The main reason why the bad guy is pissed at the universe is because the Federation with the help of the Vulcans was not able to save his world so he winds up in the past and is in a position to both make his people technologically superior to every other race in the galaxy but also save them all from certain disaster. No our hero instead attacks a Federation starship because they reveal to him that he is in the exact position he would want to be to save his now dead people. Then there is a huge 25 year gap where he disappears without a trace and that is never explained. It was sort of explained if you watched deleted content that he was captured by Klingons and has been imprisoned all that time but that makes even less sense when you consider that it's revealed in a key element of the film that Uhura heard that he destroyed an entire fleet of Klingon ships. Where was his vessel while he was being imprisoned?

I'd add Looper to the list of guilty as charged but it's such a fucked up time travel plot that I can't get my head around all the twist and turns the creators took in this movie. Let's just say that the protagonist killing himself in the present should have made it impossible for his old self to even exist and therefore the movie should never have existed. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-12-14  07:26pm - 35 days #1209
slutty (111)
Active User

Posts: 459
Registered: Mar 02, '09
Location: Pennsylvania
Originally Posted by pat362:


^Is it possible that being an American makes you a little bias on the subject and I'd like to add that the fact that American movies are rewriting history doesn't negatively affect Americans.

There is now an entire generation of Americans who believe that Argo is the truth and therefore Canada's part in the Iranian incident is but a bookmark in the history book but the opposite is the truth. Just read what President Carter said on the subject.


It was well documented at the time in the US press that Canadian involvement was far superior to what was shown in Argo, and most knowledgeable Americans are aware of this fact. While I agree it is a shame that less educated and involved Americans may treat Argo as though it were a historical fact, this is the nature of the beast. Educated people will look into the real story to discover the truth, one shouldn't worry about the idiots. There are, after all, a significant portion of the American population that believes man walked with dinosaurs, Obama is a Kenyan, etc, etc, etc... So I wouldn't worry about it much. Most people I know have vast respect for Canada, my friends and I wore Canadian flags on our backpacks when we toured through Europe during the Bush (Freedom Fries) years.

I would argue that American bias and rewriting of history in movies does affect Americans, it promotes and enhances the common worldview that most Americans think the world exists only for Americans. I would prefer that any movie that was only loosely based on a true story just be referred to as fiction, I am not sure why there is this need to establish these movies as historical as it promotes ignorance and pisses people off if they are not accurately presented (there were several noted inaccuracies in Lincoln, and that movie was pretty much advertised as biographical). Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

03-12-14  07:29pm - 35 days #1210
slutty (111)
Active User

Posts: 459
Registered: Mar 02, '09
Location: Pennsylvania
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


Just remembered, Ben Affleck also did Michael Bay's next movie after Armageddon...Pearl Harbor.

Take that, historical record!


Don't get me started on that nitwit Bay, the man for whom physics just does not exist, or only exists at times when it is convenient for blowing shit up. I don't recall, but they didn't try and pass of Pearl Harbor as historically accurate did they? Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

03-13-14  09:26am - 34 days #1211
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I was thinking the same thing when I read that but didn't want to go look for an answer to confirm it but I suspect that he was closer to historical history only because it's mostly a love story centered around a very long battle scene
and Bay would want to be as accurate as possible on the battle scene. Long live the Brown Coats.

03-13-14  07:11pm - 34 days #1212
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,875
Registered: Apr 01, '08
I'll give Bay credit for getting the gist of the event right, if not the details. (But no credit to Ben Affleck. Fuck Affleck! )

And while some older films have a little more context in their portrayals of historical events they can frequently be slow at points and heavily biased. Tora! Tora! Tora!, the 1970 film about Pearl Harbor is decent but at some points gets practically glacial. As if there used to be some unwritten rule that big budget war epics must have a character realize the gravity of the situation by staring silently into space until the entire audience is asleep.

The Longest Day (about D-Day) and Patton are both guilty of this, along with a healthy dose of filmic patriotism. For the former it's any of the the scenes with John Wayne, though he's like that in almost all of his films, and for the latter it's Patton's opening monologue. But despite their considerable flaws I think they could at least make viewers aware of the general historical events and maybe even get them interested enough to study on their own.

I guess you can never truly have it both ways, at least not that I have ever really seen. Patton, for example, has major technical errors regarding equipment and some of Patton's characteristics (the voice is supposed to be the biggest inaccuracy). But something like Saving Private Ryan, while being somewhat more technically accurate with equipment literally opens with a flag waving in the wind (even before the invasion scene). It felt almost like a cheesy recruiting ad. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

03-14-14  08:38am - 33 days #1213
pat362 (365)
Active User



Posts: 2,839
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I suspect the vast majority of all war movies have their inaccuracies and/or bias and that is fine as long as they don't try to completely rewrite history. If you want to see historical events depicted with the most accuracy as possible then stick to documentaries. Not that some of these aren't guilty of rewriting history but the better ones don't.

I don't have a big hatred for Affleck. I don't think he's a very good actor but the same can be said for so many other actors that it's hard to point to him and say that he's worse than other actors. I think the one word that best describe Affleck's acting talent is bland. He's the white bread of actors. That's why I think he was great in Pearl Harbor because no one should outshine all the slow motion shots and explosions in a Bay movie. Otherwise the director will be pissed at you.

Affleck seems to be a decent director but that's based on what I read since I have never actually seen any of his movies. He has certainly managed to do serious cash from other things than his acting. Long live the Brown Coats.

1151-1188 of 1188 Posts < Previous Page 1 2 7 12 17 23 Page 24 25
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home


Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.14 seconds.