The Last Movie You Watched (no spoilers)

[Omar 382]

maybe you should read up on bell curves my friend.

Replace "person" with "reviews." My point was that most of my reviews are in the 2/5 through 3.5/5 star range, so 2/5 star is not all that bad. I understand that it may not meet the distribution requirements for a bell curve, but the point remains.

 

[chf]

If you don't like 2/5 stars, what do you think of 1/4 stars- from a top critic, no less?

View attachment 176314

Heh. See now I KNOW you don't understand bell curves.

The exception is the rule eh?

C'mon now. Don't bullshit a BS'er.

 

[chf]

And I dont' give a flying fuck if you LIKE a particular movie or not. But hyperbole gets you nowhere, except if you're trolling. Perhaps I'm giving you more credit than you deserve for not being a troll?

 

[chf]

And rather than just be a critic of what you're putting out Omar, I'll give you an example from my perspective. I'm a Kubrick fan. For years and years I had Clockwork Orange as my avatar. But Kubrick ain't perfect. I LOVE science fiction, and I think 2001 is one of the most overhyped movies ever. Indulgent, pretending it's saying a lot, when it's not saying much.

Still would I give it a 2 out of 5 rating (or a 4 out of ten?) Nope.

Kubrick in his sleep, still makes technically amazing films. He's STILL taking chances, and pushing the envelope.

Would I give it a 3? Yep. WAAAAY over-rated, but at its worst, it's still an excellently made movie.

YRMV. And do vary.

 

[Omar 382]

Heh. See now I KNOW you don't understand bell curves.

The exception is the rule eh?

C'mon now. Don't bullshit a BS'er.

You want to get into a dick-swinging contest with me with statistics? I'm not an expert, but fine by me.

You stance is that movies are objectively good or objectively not good/bad. You use the word "technically" quite a bit in an attempt to substantiate your claims.

If something is OBJECTIVELY good or bad, then everyone will agree that object x is OBJECTIVELY good or bad. Example: Adolph Hitler. MOST people agree that Hitler was a fucked up dude, but some people like him. Others apologize for him. Others fucking worship the guy. Therefore, Adolph Hitler is not an OBJECTIVELY bad/immoral person because MORALITY itself is completely SUBJECTIVE.

People love to say "Every culture views murder as wrong." Really? Every fucking culture? Americans seem to be ok with killing animals. They seem to largely be ok with killing babies/embryo's. They seem to be ok with killing people who killed others in some brutal way. The population of Iraq, as a whole, deems it ok to kill "infidels." But this is all missing the point. It doesn't take one society dissenting to break objective morality. It takes one PERSON. One Charles Manson. One Jack The Ripper. One Austin bomber.

By definition, something cannot be objectively (blank) if a single person dissents. You could say that I'm getting into semantics, but no, fuck you- words have a meaning and most all definitions of objective (in the topic of objectivity/subjectivity) are something like this:

objective- of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Existing independent of thought? Someone could be fucking braindead, watch that shitty 2001: A Space Odyssey (2/5 stars), and know that it's inherently a good film? Fuck you.

As for your fucking technical aspects bullshit, get the fuck out of here. That shit is one piece of the entire film- THE FILM WHOSE VALUE/QUALITY IS FUCKING SUBJECTIVE.

Are you saying that music isn't subjective? That lighting, its aesthetical enjoyment, isn't subjective? Everyone agrees song A is the greatest; everyone agrees painting A is the greatest? Again, fuck you.

You want to talk about outliers? That's completely irrelevant to our discussion. I only need one person to dislike a film to prove that the enjoyment of films is subjective. I could find numerous ones for Out of Sight (2/5 stars), including multiple professional movie reviewers who write for city newspapers, but I'll give you one right here:

It's all in the game

 

[Omar 382]

\ He's STILL taking chances, and pushing the envelope.

Oh, he takes chances (STILL). He pushes the envelope. That's totally specific and objective criteria by which I can say that 2001: A Space Odyssey is a good film.

Oh wait, no it isn't. Because that movie sucks.

 

[chf]

You want to get into a dick-swinging contest with me with statistics? I'm not an expert, but fine by me.

You stance is that movies are objectively good or objectively not good/bad. You use the word "technically" quite a bit in an attempt to substantiate your claims.

If something is OBJECTIVELY good or bad, then everyone will agree that object x is OBJECTIVELY good or bad. Example: Adolph Hitler. MOST people agree that Hitler was a fucked up dude, but some people like him. Others apologize for him. Others fucking worship the guy. Therefore, Adolph Hitler is not an OBJECTIVELY bad/immoral person because MORALITY itself is completely SUBJECTIVE.

People love to say "Every culture views murder as wrong." Really? Every fucking culture? Americans seem to be ok with killing animals. They seem to largely be ok with killing babies/embryo's. They seem to be ok with killing people who killed others in some brutal way. The population of Iraq, as a whole, deems it ok to kill "infidels." But this is all missing the point. It doesn't take one society dissenting to break objective morality. It takes one PERSON. One Charles Manson. One Jack The Ripper. One Austin bomber.

By definition, something cannot be objectively (blank) if a single person dissents. You could say that I'm getting into semantics, but no, fuck you- words have a meaning and most all definitions of objective (in the topic of objectivity/subjectivity) are something like this:

objective- of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Existing independent of thought? Someone could be fucking braindead, watch that shitty 2001: A Space Odyssey (2/5 stars), and know that it's inherently a good film? Fuck you.

As for your fucking technical aspects bullshit, get the fuck out of here. That shit is one piece of the entire film- THE FILM WHOSE VALUE/QUALITY IS FUCKING SUBJECTIVE.

Are you saying that music isn't subjective? That lighting, its aesthetical enjoyment, isn't subjective? Everyone agrees song A is the greatest; everyone agrees painting A is the greatest? Again, fuck you.

You want to talk about outliers? That's completely irrelevant to our discussion. I only need one person to dislike a film to prove that the enjoyment of films is subjective. I could find numerous ones for Out of Sight (2/5 stars), including multiple professional movie reviewers who write for city newspapers, but I'll give you one right here:

It's all in the game

Dude waaaaay too many words to essentially say that no-one can disagree with you. That because your opinion is subjective that it can't be disagreed with.

Which is of course bullshit.

Let's take your ridiculous Hitler example.

Someone LIKING Hitler because he was anti-Jew like them, doesn't change what he objectively was. He had people MURDERED. He had people RAPED. He engaged in GENOCIDE. Those are objective lines that society says can't be crossed.

The people that 'defend,' Hitler from that, play semantical, bullshit games like coming up with elaborate conspiracy theories (that can't hold up their own weight logically) so that Hitler never COMMITTED THOSE CRIMES. They say that the crimes were 'hoaxes.' Well, 'meh', to quote you.

Getting back to movies, the reason that I use things like technical expertise to back up my opinions, is because at least they're SOMETHING TO JUDGE THINGS BY.

Kind of like me (and history) judging Hitler for actual ACTS he committed or ordered.

Whether you or I or the queen of fucking Sheba LIKE Hitler makes no matter. We can have fun discussions about it, but the judgment has already been made. 6 million Jews exterminated. Nations and cities, and homes and art and possessions seized. Gays and lesbians citizens murdered. Gypsies shot in the head in front of shallow graves. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

I want you to back up your argument. 'Out of Sight,' is a well made film. It has a consistent tone, the dialogue is faithfully adapted from the best writer of dialogue in modern American literature (my opinion). It's mostly a character study, but has fun elements of crime noir and thrillers rolled in there too.

If you want to criticize it, CRITICIZE the fucker beyond vague assertions of 'meh, I didn't like it much.' WHAT didn't you like?

I don't expect you to agree with me. Hell half the fun is people NOT agreeing with people in forums like these. But base it on something. And if called on it when you don't, don't get all pissy.

 

[chf]

Oh, he takes chances (STILL). He pushes the envelope. That's totally specific and objective criteria by which I can say that 2001: A Space Odyssey is a good film.

Oh wait, no it isn't. Because that movie sucks.

<sigh>

Don't be a troll. Or, fuck man, DO be a troll if you want. But just let me know, so I can quit wasting time responding to you.

 

[chf]

And dick swinging on stats?

Heh.

I'm a grower not a show-er.

 

[beardown07]

That was an easy one to rate. And I could give the film a 0/5 for all it's worth if I wanted to, and I would be write (I would rate the movie 0/5 stars). But Out of Sight's quality was that of a 2/5 star film. Lopez was a piece of ass, Clooney might have aroused me if I was gay when he took his shirt off, but otherwise, meh.

Fucking. MEH.

Pretty sure this means you're gay.

 

[Omar 382]

Dude waaaaay too many words to essentially say that no-one can disagree with you. That because your opinion is subjective that it can't be disagreed with.

Which is of course bullshit.

Let's take your ridiculous Hitler example.

Someone LIKING Hitler because he was anti-Jew like them, doesn't change what he objectively was. He had people MURDERED. He had people RAPED. He engaged in GENOCIDE. Those are objective lines that society says can't be crossed.

The people that 'defend,' Hitler from that, play semantical, bullshit games like coming up with elaborate conspiracy theories (that can't hold up their own weight logically) so that Hitler never COMMITTED THOSE CRIMES. They say that the crimes were 'hoaxes.' Well, 'meh', to quote you.

Getting back to movies, the reason that I use things like technical expertise to back up my opinions, is because at least they're SOMETHING TO JUDGE THINGS BY.

Kind of like me (and history) judging Hitler for actual ACTS he committed or ordered.

Whether you or I or the queen of fucking Sheba LIKE Hitler makes no matter. We can have fun discussions about it, but the judgment has already been made. 6 million Jews exterminated. Nations and cities, and homes and art and possessions seized. Gays and lesbians citizens murdered. Gypsies shot in the head in front of shallow graves. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

I want you to back up your argument. 'Out of Sight,' is a well made film. It has a consistent tone, the dialogue is faithfully adapted from the best writer of dialogue in modern American literature (my opinion). It's mostly a character study, but has fun elements of crime noir and thrillers rolled in there too.

If you want to criticize it, CRITICIZE the fucker beyond vague assertions of 'meh, I didn't like it much.' WHAT didn't you like?

I don't expect you to agree with me. Hell half the fun is people NOT agreeing with people in forums like these. But base it on something. And if called on it when you don't, don't get all pissy.

I didn't like Out of Sight's plot. The whole thing was building up to some grand heist/stolen jewels event (whose promise of excitement I knew would never be filled), and then the final shootout scene sucks. They go in, Cheadle's creepy henchman harasses the wife, Clooney finds the jewels, Clooney is left for dead fucking TWICE (one of which ends with a guy literally tripping on the fucking stairs and shooting himself, whereupon Clooney says "Oh," which was supposed to be funny, but wasn't), then the second time Lopez saves him. Oh, that was a surprise.

BORING. BORING. BORING.

The buildup was decent. Clooney robbing the bank to begin the movie was cool, and they did some halfway decent character motivation for both Clooney and Lopez's characters. Clooney never wanted to go back to prison, and Lopez was in love with Clooney but had a job to do as LEO. Not exactly groundbreaking stuff, but whatever.

The movie was a lot like True Romance (4/5 stars) in that I was let down by the final shootout scene. But TR's shootout was better, and it had amazing dialogue in nearly every scene up until that point, including two of the more iconic and great scenes of the '90s with two of the best character actors ever (Oldman and Walken).

Where was the snappy dialogue in Out of Sight? I sure as fuck can't recall one interaction between two characters that made me laugh. The scenes with Buddy about him praying with his sister were funny, but that's one bit. Tarantino shits out better snappy/hilarious/interesting dialogue after his morning cup of coffee.

And if this movie's main purpose was to function as a character study (in reality, it shared that purpose along with attempting to be a slick heist thriller), it failed to bring about interesting aspects from its characters. At the end of the day, I was pretty indifferent to whether or not Clooney went back to prison, DESPITE knowing that he really didn't want to go. I also didn't really care whether or not Lopez and him got back together. Spider-Man 3 (3.5/5 stars) was a better character study of Peter after inheriting the Venom symbiote.

I didn't hate the film. Like I said, one of the better middle of the road films that ultimately kinda sucks. But it fully deserved the 2/5 stars it earned.

 

[Omar 382]

Dude waaaaay too many words to essentially say that no-one can disagree with you. That because your opinion is subjective that it can't be disagreed with.

Which is of course bullshit.

Let's take your ridiculous Hitler example.

Someone LIKING Hitler because he was anti-Jew like them, doesn't change what he objectively was. He had people MURDERED. He had people RAPED. He engaged in GENOCIDE. Those are objective lines that society says can't be crossed.

The people that 'defend,' Hitler from that, play semantical, bullshit games like coming up with elaborate conspiracy theories (that can't hold up their own weight logically) so that Hitler never COMMITTED THOSE CRIMES. They say that the crimes were 'hoaxes.' Well, 'meh', to quote you.

Getting back to movies, the reason that I use things like technical expertise to back up my opinions, is because at least they're SOMETHING TO JUDGE THINGS BY.

Kind of like me (and history) judging Hitler for actual ACTS he committed or ordered.

Whether you or I or the queen of fucking Sheba LIKE Hitler makes no matter. We can have fun discussions about it, but the judgment has already been made. 6 million Jews exterminated. Nations and cities, and homes and art and possessions seized. Gays and lesbians citizens murdered. Gypsies shot in the head in front of shallow graves. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

I want you to back up your argument. 'Out of Sight,' is a well made film. It has a consistent tone, the dialogue is faithfully adapted from the best writer of dialogue in modern American literature (my opinion). It's mostly a character study, but has fun elements of crime noir and thrillers rolled in there too.

If you want to criticize it, CRITICIZE the fucker beyond vague assertions of 'meh, I didn't like it much.' WHAT didn't you like?

I don't expect you to agree with me. Hell half the fun is people NOT agreeing with people in forums like these. But base it on something. And if called on it when you don't, don't get all pissy.

Hitler had people murdered. This is an objective fact. Hitler being "evil" is not.

This has nothing to do with anything, but out of curiosity, was Christopher Columbus "evil"?

 

[chf]

I didn't like Out of Sight's plot. The whole thing was building up to some grand heist/stolen jewels event (whose promise of excitement I knew would never be filled), and then the final shootout scene sucks. They go in, Cheadle's creepy henchman harasses the wife, Clooney finds the jewels, Clooney is left for dead fucking TWICE (one of which ends with a guy literally tripping on the fucking stairs and shooting himself, whereupon Clooney says "Oh," which was supposed to be funny, but wasn't), then the second time Lopez saves him. Oh, that was a surprise.

BORING. BORING. BORING..

Yeah then you've never read Leonard have you? There's 'action' in his stories, but they're not ACTION stories. He's not Ludlum writing a Bourne novel.

Humor, quirky characters, social commentary, crime. Criminals aren't smart, heroes aren't all that good or noble.

If you were EXPECTING John Wick, why were you?

 

[chf]

Hitler had people murdered. This is an objective fact. Hitler being "evil" is not.

This has nothing to do with anything, but out of curiosity, was Christopher Columbus "evil"?

Heh, if Hitler isn't 'evil,' who the fuck is, or even could be?

Too funny.

 

[Omar 382]

Heh, if Hitler isn't 'evil,' who the fuck is, or even could be?

Too funny.

No one can be objectively evil. That's my whole fucking point. I think Hitler was immoral as fuck, but as I mentioned before, there are lots of people today who think he is the sweetest guy ever (not to mention the whole country of Germany buying into his shit before and during WII).

Do you think slavery is objectively bad? Nearly everyone (in America) pretty much agrees it is today. What about in 1830 South Carolina?

Times change, morals change buddy. We have had (and still have!) a national fucking holiday commemorating and honoring a guy who did basically the same thing as Hitler, albeit on a smaller scale.

 

[Omar 382]

Yeah then you've never read Leonard have you? There's 'action' in his stories, but they're not ACTION stories. He's not Ludlum writing a Bourne novel.

Humor, quirky characters, social commentary, crime. Criminals aren't smart, heroes aren't all that good or noble.

If you were EXPECTING John Wick, why were you?

Ah, one of those annoying "read the books and then you'll understand" douchebags.

Sorry, nope. The film is judged on its own merit. 2/5 stars.

 

[Omar 382]

Yeah then you've never read Leonard have you? There's 'action' in his stories, but they're not ACTION stories. He's not Ludlum writing a Bourne novel.

Humor, quirky characters, social commentary, crime. Criminals aren't smart, heroes aren't all that good or noble.

If you were EXPECTING John Wick, why were you?

I was hoping for a good film. The grand shootout scene I described may have lead to one. The ending they went with sure as shit didn't.

 

[Omar 382]

Apocalypse Now Redux: 5/5 stars. All I will say for now, after finishing the movie 2 hours ago, is that it displaces The Dark Knight (5/5 stars) and is now my current favorite movie of all time.

The one thing I will mention is that this film, while it had (really) great performances from its actors, and a great plot from its screenwriters; would not have been what it was without the direction that Francis Ford Coppola provided. The single best performance from a movie director I have ever seen.

 

[chf]

No one can be objectively evil. That's my whole fucking point. I think Hitler was immoral as fuck, but as I mentioned before, there are lots of people today who think he is the sweetest guy ever (not to mention the whole country of Germany buying into his shit before and during WII).

Do you think slavery is objectively bad? Nearly everyone (in America) pretty much agrees it is today. What about in 1830 South Carolina?

Times change, morals change buddy. We have had (and still have!) a national fucking holiday commemorating and honoring a guy who did basically the same thing as Hitler, albeit on a smaller scale.

Morals change doesn't mean morals don't exist.

Did the same albeit on a smaller scale.

Heh. Too fucking funny.

 

[Omar 382]

Morals change doesn't mean morals don't exist.

Did the same albeit on a smaller scale.

Heh. Too fucking funny.

Columbus committed genocide, but nowhere to the tune of 11 million people, or whatever the fuck Hitler did. And it means there's no universal moral standard. But let's agree to disagree. Are you a fan of Apocalypse Now?