And Zombieland was the funniest movie of the year. Way better then the hangover imho. The OP is the silliest of silly gooses for omiting both these movies.
that's geese, goose.
Sam on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
A Serious Man. Unenjoyable. It literally gave me a headache. Technically, I can say I am worse off for having watched it. F**k, it also left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe I'll watch Hangover to help wash it out.
Wow.
I . . . just don't have any words for this.
One figures that display of such magnanimous incorrectness would be accompanied by a singularity or incarnate hellspawn or something equally impossible to reconcile.
Wow.
Atomika on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
And Zombieland was the funniest movie of the year. Way better then the hangover imho. The OP is the silliest of silly gooses for omiting both these movies.
500 days of stupid shit with "oh too cute" endings.
I don't know...I was actually kind of disappointed by 500 days. I thought it was gonna do a better job of straddling the fence between chick flick and comedy. Instead it kind of falls over the side (onto the romance one). Still, Joseph Gordon Levitt is fucking fantastic.
man I thought it was fantastic. A modern day Annie Hall. I didnt really get any chick flick vibes from it at all.
I didn't either. I thought it was totally a guy movie. What chick flick has a Han Solo moment? Every guy in the theater seemed to get that moment.
IDK how Bruno made the OPs list. Where Borat was SBC walking around saying "I hate Jews" and watching other people say "me too", Bruno was him walking around in a leather thong, humping people and then going "OOOOO HOMOPHOBE" when they get pissed at him. Really if he did most the things he did to guys in that movie to women instead, most people would be cheering when one of them beat his ass.
my List:
1. The Hurt Locker(Best Drama)
2. The Hangover(Best Comedy)
3. The Fantastic Mr Fox
4. Inglorious Bastards
5. Up
6. Up in the Air
7. Avatar
8. In the Loop
9. Watchmen
10. District 9
I haven't seen A Serious Man/Moon/Precious/500 Days of Summer/Blindside.
I don't know...I was actually kind of disappointed by 500 days. I thought it was gonna do a better job of straddling the fence between chick flick and comedy. Instead it kind of falls over the side (onto the romance one). Still, Joseph Gordon Levitt is fucking fantastic.
man I thought it was fantastic. A modern day Annie Hall. I didnt really get any chick flick vibes from it at all.
I didn't either. I thought it was totally a guy movie. What chick flick has a Han Solo moment? Every guy in the theater seemed to get that moment.
I'd have loved 500 Days of Summer if it wasn't for the very last line. As it was, I merely think it was very good.
Moon was excellent, but it had a plot hole that was so large it almost ruined the movie for me.
there is no reason that creating an army of clones would be in any way more efficient or cost effective than just hiring people. especially if you can afford what are apparently highly trained strike teams who do coverups.
that was probably my only issue with moon, i really enjoyed it otherwise.
basically this is why sci fi should have a crew of obsessive detail-oriented people thinking about everything waaaayyy too specifically and exhaustively
How is that a plot hole?
They sent a trained strike team once in a possible 15 year period. They had a highly trained employee who could run the operation indefinitely, alone, and for no wages. If something went wrong they didn't have family members at home to ask questions. If something went extra wrong (as it did in the movie) they could then spend the money on a squad to go do some cleanup and the heavy repairs.
I guess from my perspective the use of clones for such an operation made a ton of sense for the corporation that was obviously short on morals.
you're missing the expensive, ridiculous part
creating hundreds of clones, and the technology for cloning, and the facilities for it on the moon - probably a little bit more expensive than just hiring people to do the work. also he was compensated in some way, so i wouldn't say no wages. and why only one person? why not a few people up there, for a shorter duration, leaving communication on, and not building massive armies of clones and elaborate communications blocking towers alongside advanced communication networks? if it's dangerous, having one person up there alone is silly, and if something goes wrong - well that's part of the job. people work dangerous jobs willingly all the time. you can put it in their contract. there's just no logical reason to put a single clone on the moon.
the fact that the movie is still excellent is a testament to its quality.
I got the impression that the clones were in a storage system on the moon. So big initial investment, but not much after that. If something goes wrong and someone is horribly injured with a normal (non cloned) staff then you have to have medical crew. You have to find a way to get the person back to earth. You have the potential PR nightmare. If something goes wrong under the current system you trash the clone, and get a new one. People work highly dangerous jobs all the time. If we had a means of producing workers that fulfilled the job for free, were highly trained, and incredibly expendable ..they might not. I understand that you won't agree, but I am not sure just because you disagree with the premise then it is automatically a plot hole. ...now the "jamming towers," that was a little silly and I assumed their addition was for dramatic effect.
I thought the point was that the workers got cancer from radiation poisoning while working on the moon. So no one could work up there for more than a couple of years, thus anyone they hired would be on a suicide mission. Thats what I understood it to mean anyway.
Moon was excellent, but it had a plot hole that was so large it almost ruined the movie for me.
there is no reason that creating an army of clones would be in any way more efficient or cost effective than just hiring people. especially if you can afford what are apparently highly trained strike teams who do coverups.
that was probably my only issue with moon, i really enjoyed it otherwise.
basically this is why sci fi should have a crew of obsessive detail-oriented people thinking about everything waaaayyy too specifically and exhaustively
How is that a plot hole?
They sent a trained strike team once in a possible 15 year period. They had a highly trained employee who could run the operation indefinitely, alone, and for no wages. If something went wrong they didn't have family members at home to ask questions. If something went extra wrong (as it did in the movie) they could then spend the money on a squad to go do some cleanup and the heavy repairs.
I guess from my perspective the use of clones for such an operation made a ton of sense for the corporation that was obviously short on morals.
you're missing the expensive, ridiculous part
creating hundreds of clones, and the technology for cloning, and the facilities for it on the moon - probably a little bit more expensive than just hiring people to do the work. also he was compensated in some way, so i wouldn't say no wages. and why only one person? why not a few people up there, for a shorter duration, leaving communication on, and not building massive armies of clones and elaborate communications blocking towers alongside advanced communication networks? if it's dangerous, having one person up there alone is silly, and if something goes wrong - well that's part of the job. people work dangerous jobs willingly all the time. you can put it in their contract. there's just no logical reason to put a single clone on the moon.
the fact that the movie is still excellent is a testament to its quality.
I got the impression that the clones were in a storage system on the moon. So big initial investment, but not much after that. If something goes wrong and someone is horribly injured with a normal (non cloned) staff then you have to have medical crew. You have to find a way to get the person back to earth. You have the potential PR nightmare. If something goes wrong under the current system you trash the clone, and get a new one. People work highly dangerous jobs all the time. If we had a means of producing workers that fulfilled the job for free, were highly trained, and incredibly expendable ..they might not. I understand that you won't agree, but I am not sure just because you disagree with the premise then it is automatically a plot hole. ...now the "jamming towers," that was a little silly and I assumed their addition was for dramatic effect.
I thought the point was that the workers got cancer from radiation poisoning while working on the moon. So no one could work up there for more than a couple of years, thus anyone they hired would be on a suicide mission. Thats what I understood it to mean anyway.
He was dying because clones degrade over time, not because of radiation poisoning.
District 9 I really liked, and I enjoyed how Wikus was a silly goose all the way through, perhaps less so at the end.
When they get to the ship with the fluid, and then he hits the alien over the head, I was almost jumping up and down in horror, hate moments like that, with the baby trying to check on its father. I think it would perhaps have been more powerful to have the father killed, but ultimately I enjoyed the way the story played out. I don't like that there aren't particular thoughts for the sequel yet, but I am impressed that Blomkamp would rather tell a prequel than just go all 28 Weeks Later and blow some crap up.
Not sure how I felt about Moon. My sister was complaining about watching it and that always spoils a film, so I might watch it again once I've gone through some of the Wire and Inglorious Basterds. It was definitely an interesting concept, I think I just felt that very little happened in the time, and that if the story had developed over three hours or so it could have been so much more compelling. Which isn't to say I didn't enjoy the quiet atmosphere building, ( I loved the music, especially in the first ten minutes with the beautiful piano, basically the first song on the soundtrack), and it was certainly more interesting than for example 2001, I just really think that an extra hour and a half could change things for the better.
Zombieland was imo streaks ahead of the Hangover. I was laughing throughout the former, whereas I felt some laughs being forced in the latter. Maybe I'm too mature (probably not...) but I couldn't find the hilarity in the chinese guy at all, whereas my friends thought he was amazing. Best part of the film was the photos at the end really.
Zombieland though, so many good moments, with a main character I completely related to, even down to the way we look, mostly. One of my favourite comedies I'd say.
Also hilarious is the Thick of it, upon which In the Loop is based. Haven't seen it yet but the thick of it is fantastic, and I would recommend it.
Moon was excellent, but it had a plot hole that was so large it almost ruined the movie for me.
there is no reason that creating an army of clones would be in any way more efficient or cost effective than just hiring people. especially if you can afford what are apparently highly trained strike teams who do coverups.
that was probably my only issue with moon, i really enjoyed it otherwise.
basically this is why sci fi should have a crew of obsessive detail-oriented people thinking about everything waaaayyy too specifically and exhaustively
How is that a plot hole?
They sent a trained strike team once in a possible 15 year period. They had a highly trained employee who could run the operation indefinitely, alone, and for no wages. If something went wrong they didn't have family members at home to ask questions. If something went extra wrong (as it did in the movie) they could then spend the money on a squad to go do some cleanup and the heavy repairs.
I guess from my perspective the use of clones for such an operation made a ton of sense for the corporation that was obviously short on morals.
you're missing the expensive, ridiculous part
creating hundreds of clones, and the technology for cloning, and the facilities for it on the moon - probably a little bit more expensive than just hiring people to do the work. also he was compensated in some way, so i wouldn't say no wages. and why only one person? why not a few people up there, for a shorter duration, leaving communication on, and not building massive armies of clones and elaborate communications blocking towers alongside advanced communication networks? if it's dangerous, having one person up there alone is silly, and if something goes wrong - well that's part of the job. people work dangerous jobs willingly all the time. you can put it in their contract. there's just no logical reason to put a single clone on the moon.
the fact that the movie is still excellent is a testament to its quality.
I got the impression that the clones were in a storage system on the moon. So big initial investment, but not much after that. If something goes wrong and someone is horribly injured with a normal (non cloned) staff then you have to have medical crew. You have to find a way to get the person back to earth. You have the potential PR nightmare. If something goes wrong under the current system you trash the clone, and get a new one. People work highly dangerous jobs all the time. If we had a means of producing workers that fulfilled the job for free, were highly trained, and incredibly expendable ..they might not. I understand that you won't agree, but I am not sure just because you disagree with the premise then it is automatically a plot hole. ...now the "jamming towers," that was a little silly and I assumed their addition was for dramatic effect.
I thought the point was that the workers got cancer from radiation poisoning while working on the moon. So no one could work up there for more than a couple of years, thus anyone they hired would be on a suicide mission. Thats what I understood it to mean anyway.
He was dying because clones degrade over time, not because of radiation poisoning.
Does it definitively state that somewhere? I'm not saying that's not what what happens, I'd just like to know where I missed it stating thats what was happening to them.
I don't know...I was actually kind of disappointed by 500 days. I thought it was gonna do a better job of straddling the fence between chick flick and comedy. Instead it kind of falls over the side (onto the romance one). Still, Joseph Gordon Levitt is fucking fantastic.
man I thought it was fantastic. A modern day Annie Hall. I didnt really get any chick flick vibes from it at all.
It was fantastic. Haters can suck a silly goose.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
And Zombieland was the funniest movie of the year. Way better then the hangover imho. The OP is the silliest of silly gooses for omiting both these movies.
500 days of stupid shit with "oh too cute" endings.
When people say this sort of thing I cant help but spittake.
I mean you knew what kind of movie this is right? And yet it's incredibly realistic, people fall in love, fall out of love, learn lessons. Easily my favorite part of the whole movie is when
(not really a spoiler but what the hell)
where he's in the liquor store in his bathrobe buying a handfull of twinkies and a handle of jack daniels
. And yet i'm not surprised a bunch of geeks on a video game forum dont appreciate it.
And Zombieland was the funniest movie of the year. Way better then the hangover imho. The OP is the silliest of silly gooses for omiting both these movies.
500 days of stupid shit with "oh too cute" endings.
When people say this sort of thing I cant help but spittake.
I mean you knew what kind of movie this is right? And yet it's incredibly realistic, people fall in love, fall out of love, learn lessons.
i loved the shit out of this movie, and this was honestly the best part for me. it was such an honest portrayal
and yeah joseph gordon-levitt is awesome
I don't know how a person hates District 9. I didn't know it was possible unless you're just the kind of person who hates movies where alien weaponry makes people explode.
I don't know how a person hates District 9. I didn't know it was possible unless you're just the kind of person who hates movies where alien weaponry makes people explode.
I hated the story/gaping plot holes. I know he was trying to make it a pseudodocumentary but it was just so stupid. I mean I don't need explanations shoved in my face, but nothing made any sense.
I thought the graphics/fight scenes were mediocre.
As for people popping, it looked like a video game from 1998.
I don't know how a person hates District 9. I didn't know it was possible unless you're just the kind of person who hates movies where alien weaponry makes people explode.
I hated the story/gaping plot holes. I know he was trying to make it a pseudodocumentary but it was just so stupid. I mean I don't need explanations shoved in my face, but nothing made any sense.
I thought the graphics/fight scenes were mediocre.
As for people popping, it looked like a video game from 1998.
What kind of awesome fucking video game system did you have in 1998?
A Serious Man. Unenjoyable. It literally gave me a headache. Technically, I can say I am worse off for having watched it. F**k, it also left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe I'll watch Hangover to help wash it out.
Wow.
I . . . just don't have any words for this.
One figures that display of such magnanimous incorrectness would be accompanied by a singularity or incarnate hellspawn or something equally impossible to reconcile.
Wow.
Huh? How can my unenjoyment be incorrect?
Also, I was completely disassociated from the movied, because of the heavy Jewish undertones. I think I understood two words. The rest was jibberish.
I don't know how a person hates District 9. I didn't know it was possible unless you're just the kind of person who hates movies where alien weaponry makes people explode.
I hated the story/gaping plot holes. I know he was trying to make it a pseudodocumentary but it was just so stupid. I mean I don't need explanations shoved in my face, but nothing made any sense.
I thought the graphics/fight scenes were mediocre.
As for people popping, it looked like a video game from 1998.
What kind of awesome fucking video game system did you have in 1998?
I had an Nintendo64.
I meant the idea of people popping. Not my cup of tea. Leave like half a corpse with flesh hanging over that is more something I could get behind.
Katholic on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also, I was completely disassociated from the movied, because of the heavy Jewish undertones. I think I understood two words. The rest was jibberish.
The Judaism on display wasn't all that complex, but I guess I can see how someone totally unfamiliar with it might get a bit lost.
But your original post seemed to state utter disdain without any context. "I didn't enjoy this film because it was confusing and I lacked understanding of requisite context" is quite different from absolutist statements like "Unwatchable . . . I am worse off for having watched it."
It's one of the best films the Coens have ever made, if not THE best. Now, in the context that you called possibly the best film from arguably the best directors working "Unwatchable," your judgment on the issue is called into question, at the very least.
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I don't know how a person hates District 9. I didn't know it was possible unless you're just the kind of person who hates movies where alien weaponry makes people explode.
I hated the story/gaping plot holes. I know he was trying to make it a pseudodocumentary but it was just so stupid. I mean I don't need explanations shoved in my face, but nothing made any sense.
I thought the graphics/fight scenes were mediocre.
As for people popping, it looked like a video game from 1998.
What kind of awesome fucking video game system did you have in 1998?
I had an Nintendo64.
I meant the idea of people popping. Not my cup of tea. Leave like half a corpse with flesh hanging over that is more something I could get behind.
So District 9 didn't have enough decaying half corpses for you?
I don't know how a person hates District 9. I didn't know it was possible unless you're just the kind of person who hates movies where alien weaponry makes people explode.
I hated the story/gaping plot holes. I know he was trying to make it a pseudodocumentary but it was just so stupid. I mean I don't need explanations shoved in my face, but nothing made any sense.
I thought the graphics/fight scenes were mediocre.
As for people popping, it looked like a video game from 1998.
What kind of awesome fucking video game system did you have in 1998?
I had an Nintendo64.
I meant the idea of people popping. Not my cup of tea. Leave like half a corpse with flesh hanging over that is more something I could get behind.
So District 9 didn't have enough decaying half corpses for you?
I don't know...I was actually kind of disappointed by 500 days. I thought it was gonna do a better job of straddling the fence between chick flick and comedy. Instead it kind of falls over the side (onto the romance one). Still, Joseph Gordon Levitt is fucking fantastic.
Not to mention that they kept insisting that a relationship between a passive-aggressive dead-ender and a sociopath is more realistic just because they end up breaking up.
I don't know...I was actually kind of disappointed by 500 days. I thought it was gonna do a better job of straddling the fence between chick flick and comedy. Instead it kind of falls over the side (onto the romance one). Still, Joseph Gordon Levitt is fucking fantastic.
Not to mention that they kept insisting that a relationship between a passive-aggressive dead-ender and a sociopath is more realistic just because they end up breaking up.
great anaylasis there, do you goose everything up or are you just this silly about movies?
I don't know...I was actually kind of disappointed by 500 days. I thought it was gonna do a better job of straddling the fence between chick flick and comedy. Instead it kind of falls over the side (onto the romance one). Still, Joseph Gordon Levitt is fucking fantastic.
Not to mention that they kept insisting that a relationship between a passive-aggressive dead-ender and a sociopath is more realistic just because they end up breaking up.
great anaylasis there, do you goose everything up or are you just this silly about movies?
You might like Naruto. Sasuke knows how you hurt inside.
I don't know...I was actually kind of disappointed by 500 days. I thought it was gonna do a better job of straddling the fence between chick flick and comedy. Instead it kind of falls over the side (onto the romance one). Still, Joseph Gordon Levitt is fucking fantastic.
Not to mention that they kept insisting that a relationship between a passive-aggressive dead-ender and a sociopath is more realistic just because they end up breaking up.
I don't know...I was actually kind of disappointed by 500 days. I thought it was gonna do a better job of straddling the fence between chick flick and comedy. Instead it kind of falls over the side (onto the romance one). Still, Joseph Gordon Levitt is fucking fantastic.
Not to mention that they kept insisting that a relationship between a passive-aggressive dead-ender and a sociopath is more realistic just because they end up breaking up.
Wait, which one's the sociopath? Why now?
Well, the first tip-off was the statement "she took pride in two things: her beautiful dark hair, and the fact that she could cut it off without feeling anything." Her disregard for other people for the rest of the movie just supported the impression that she was nuts.
I don't know...I was actually kind of disappointed by 500 days. I thought it was gonna do a better job of straddling the fence between chick flick and comedy. Instead it kind of falls over the side (onto the romance one). Still, Joseph Gordon Levitt is fucking fantastic.
Not to mention that they kept insisting that a relationship between a passive-aggressive dead-ender and a sociopath is more realistic just because they end up breaking up.
Wait, which one's the sociopath? Why now?
Well, the first tip-off was the statement "she took pride in two things: her beautiful dark hair, and the fact that she could cut it off without feeling anything." Her disregard for other people for the rest of the movie just supported the impression that she was nuts.
Wasn't that mentioned in the context of her parents going through their divorce? It was foreshadowing how she would come to view relationships.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
psychoanalyzing characters in movies never really appealed to me... I don't know how you can enjoy anything that way.
but we also have people watching the hangover to get over watching a coen brothers movie so maybe I don't know anything at all.
alright i feel like i really didn't get A Serious Man, especially the ending. i mean i can see the broad themes and such but i don't really see the usual thematic arc that is present in their films.
Posts
that's geese, goose.
Wow.
I . . . just don't have any words for this.
One figures that display of such magnanimous incorrectness would be accompanied by a singularity or incarnate hellspawn or something equally impossible to reconcile.
Wow.
500 days of stupid shit with "oh too cute" endings.
I didn't either. I thought it was totally a guy movie. What chick flick has a Han Solo moment? Every guy in the theater seemed to get that moment.
my List:
1. The Hurt Locker(Best Drama)
2. The Hangover(Best Comedy)
3. The Fantastic Mr Fox
4. Inglorious Bastards
5. Up
6. Up in the Air
7. Avatar
8. In the Loop
9. Watchmen
10. District 9
I haven't seen A Serious Man/Moon/Precious/500 Days of Summer/Blindside.
I'd have loved 500 Days of Summer if it wasn't for the very last line. As it was, I merely think it was very good.
Zombieland was imo streaks ahead of the Hangover. I was laughing throughout the former, whereas I felt some laughs being forced in the latter. Maybe I'm too mature (probably not...) but I couldn't find the hilarity in the chinese guy at all, whereas my friends thought he was amazing. Best part of the film was the photos at the end really.
Zombieland though, so many good moments, with a main character I completely related to, even down to the way we look, mostly. One of my favourite comedies I'd say.
Also hilarious is the Thick of it, upon which In the Loop is based. Haven't seen it yet but the thick of it is fantastic, and I would recommend it.
Does it definitively state that somewhere? I'm not saying that's not what what happens, I'd just like to know where I missed it stating thats what was happening to them.
It was fantastic. Haters can suck a silly goose.
When people say this sort of thing I cant help but spittake.
I mean you knew what kind of movie this is right? And yet it's incredibly realistic, people fall in love, fall out of love, learn lessons. Easily my favorite part of the whole movie is when
(not really a spoiler but what the hell)
i loved the shit out of this movie, and this was honestly the best part for me. it was such an honest portrayal
and yeah joseph gordon-levitt is awesome
Inglorious Bastards
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Hated:
District 9
Transformers 2
MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS HOLY SHIT BORING
is it really not good?
District9
Phobia 2
Up
Sherlock Holmes
Setem
Pirate Baby's Cabana Street Fight
It's, uh, yeah...double stuffed meh'ness.
I hated the story/gaping plot holes. I know he was trying to make it a pseudodocumentary but it was just so stupid. I mean I don't need explanations shoved in my face, but nothing made any sense.
I thought the graphics/fight scenes were mediocre.
As for people popping, it looked like a video game from 1998.
What kind of awesome fucking video game system did you have in 1998?
I had an Nintendo64.
Huh? How can my unenjoyment be incorrect?
Also, I was completely disassociated from the movied, because of the heavy Jewish undertones. I think I understood two words. The rest was jibberish.
I meant the idea of people popping. Not my cup of tea. Leave like half a corpse with flesh hanging over that is more something I could get behind.
The Judaism on display wasn't all that complex, but I guess I can see how someone totally unfamiliar with it might get a bit lost.
But your original post seemed to state utter disdain without any context. "I didn't enjoy this film because it was confusing and I lacked understanding of requisite context" is quite different from absolutist statements like "Unwatchable . . . I am worse off for having watched it."
It's one of the best films the Coens have ever made, if not THE best. Now, in the context that you called possibly the best film from arguably the best directors working "Unwatchable," your judgment on the issue is called into question, at the very least.
*backs out of room slowly . . . . . . .*
So District 9 didn't have enough decaying half corpses for you?
Exactly, and well all of the story.
The aliens looked cool at least.
Not to mention that they kept insisting that a relationship between a passive-aggressive dead-ender and a sociopath is more realistic just because they end up breaking up.
great anaylasis there, do you goose everything up or are you just this silly about movies?
You might like Naruto. Sasuke knows how you hurt inside.
Wait, which one's the sociopath? Why now?
Well, the first tip-off was the statement "she took pride in two things: her beautiful dark hair, and the fact that she could cut it off without feeling anything." Her disregard for other people for the rest of the movie just supported the impression that she was nuts.
Wasn't that mentioned in the context of her parents going through their divorce? It was foreshadowing how she would come to view relationships.
but we also have people watching the hangover to get over watching a coen brothers movie so maybe I don't know anything at all.