[jico.]

the colored version of night of the living dead

[Green Magnesium]

If someone's already mentioned this, I apologize, but... Halloween is one that instantly springs to miind.

I do love the film, I just don't like the fact that it gets a lot of praise that it doesn't deserve. Films like Black Christmas and Alice, Sweet Alice were around before Halloween, so I just can't agree that it's the "first slasher film."
Not to mention that Black Christmas, IMO, is miles ahead of Halloween on every level, even if BC did borrow many of it's ideas from a weaker, yet similar, earlier film.

[jico.]

não me fodas tu também.

[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

eh, brother, while i bow to you knowledge of musical things, i believe you're the victim of several misconceptions here:

1) how can you lump together "all three godfather movies"? 1&2 are a world apart. it's like saying that "daydream nation and rather ripped are meh". godfather 1 & 2 are true masterpieces of film. you can't dispute that with any seriousness. godfather 3, you can shit on it all you want as far as i'm concerned. i think it's better than it's been given credit for, yes, and so it is underrated in my eyes, but it's in no way up to part with the 1st two.

2) "every adam sandler movie EXCEPT..."? well i don't know if there are exceptions. happy gilmore is barely above forrest gump. my problem w/ adam sandler movies is that he's ALWAYS the same goddamn character-- the good guy who's oh just one of the guys, you know, a regular dude, who is good natured, and maybe a little dense, but so nice, well, he always triumphs. gack. i haven't seen a couple of them but i can tell you wholeheartedly happy gilmore is forgettable pap.

3) lost in translation is a beautiful movie. maybe you watched it on a small tv or something. crap all you want on marie antoinette but hands off lost in translation. how is this movie overrated? please explain.

sin city, i liked it, maybe you think people make too much fuzz about it, ok. i have no strong loyalties to this film.

1) i really can't see why everyone is so enthralled with this movies as the end all be all of cinema...i mean, i can't get past brando, he's such a shitty actor, i mean, the part where he says "well, you should act like a man!!" i never fail to laugh at that, the horse head scene...fucking hysterical, but it's not like an entrancing thing. sorry, i don't buy the acting (except perhaps pacino). the third one is one of the best unintentional comedy movies of all time.

2) well yeah!! he always plays the goofball who gets the girl and wins, i mean, do you listen to the ramones for variety and dynamism? i was talking about this the other day (the point rised because of him recently replacing letterman) dude was always the supporting type, look snl, he was always in the back of a farley sketch and his own shit wasn't that good, he's not someone to be a lead and yes, the same character becomes tiresome, that's why i can only stand a couple of his movies; and the ones i like are in big part because of the supporting actors who add their own brand of comedy to the movie...hell! i think my favorite is airheads and he is third bananas in there! ps re: forrest gump: fg was an oscar driven drama fest, complewtely manufactured and pathetic to the point of nausea, it's not overrated, it's downright shitty, happy gilmore is a lighthearted comedy, they probably didn't think someone would watch it (unlike sandlers most recent movies 'comedy blockbuster of the year!')

and on that not: tom hanks comedy movies are very underrated.

3) every person thinks it's an amazing beautiful movie when it's just 2 hours of scarlett johanssen and bill murray having dull faces like they are bored out of their fucking skulls, how is that beautiful? they don't change their faces during the whole fucking movie and the best part of the movie is when the genius director has a sequence made out so she can put all of 'just like honey' into the movie...everybody in lost in translation have the same dull face sofia coppola had in the godfather III

4) sin city...i never made it to the whole film because it gets so damn boring, it shifts so fast from scene to scene, not to mention it seems the violence is just there to be shocking, that you can't really get into the stories, i kept thinking "i don't care what happens to any of these people" the whole time, plus it's like it's devoid of any emotions...and when that guy's decapitated head started talking i thought i'd seen enough. amazing photography, it looks gorgeous, but it's just pretty pictures and no story.


and let me add:

EVERY WOODY ALLEN FILM IS OVERRATED.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

EVERY WOODY ALLEN FILM IS OVERRATED.

no, i just have to give up on you, really!

[Everyneurotic]

again, what's the genius there?

i really can't see it.

ps: do we all have to like the same movies? in my personal opinion back to the future > star wars but i find it that almost everyone disagrees with me and i can live with that, i'm not saying "you don't know anything!!! blah blah"

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

again, what's the genius there?

i really can't see it.

ps: do we all have to like the same movies? in my personal opinion back to the future > star wars but i find it that almost everyone disagrees with me and i can live with that, i'm not saying "you don't know anything!!! blah blah"

ha ha ha, well, i think your brain has specialized in music, but about movies hm *cough cough* err... lal alala. look at it this way: nature & the economy tend to reward specialization. you've got a gift... & that's music.

see, if you dont get the genius of woody allen it's like saying "uh, john zorn? what's the genius?". well sure everyone has different tastes, but you would frown because you know music, right?

[Tokolosh]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the director's cut is a lot better than the original, as i lacks the overbearing narrator's voice over & adds a couple of important scenes (oh, and cuts the happy ending).

It sure is better, not to mention the ending. I don't think it's overrated at all. It deserves the credit it gets for quite a few reasons.

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

blade runner

And don't even think about comparing it to the book.

[jimbrim]

has anybody mentioned Amelie yet?
i like the film but its sooo overated

[jimbrim]

and kill bill

[jon boy]

black hawk down - utter tripe
blade runner i could never sit through until the end because i kept nodding off.

[demonrail666]

Aliens. It's just like watching someone play a shoot-em up game for 2 1/2 hours.

[MellySingsDoom]

"Clockers" - an exercise in how to ruin a perfectly decent book. A Spike Lee joint that is pure roach.

[MellySingsDoom]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Seriously?

I always loved that. But then again you don't like Flaming Creatures or Lucifer Rising, so...

Seriously. "B.S. Freaks" is simply a very poor man's "Wizard Of Gore" with zero charm. As for the rest of your post, you're just trying to make me cry, aren't you? Well, I'm not going to...snifff...sob..boo hoo hoo...

[demonrail666]

B.S is a bit of a poor man's everything. But being a poor man myself it sort of figures that I'd like it.

Do find it seriously weird that you don't like Flaming Creatures though. Never quite managed to get my head around that one.

[jon boy]

summer of sam wasnt all that good.
the jacket was a bit of a let down too.

[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

ha ha ha, well, i think your brain has specialized in music, but about movies hm *cough cough* err... lal alala. look at it this way: nature & the economy tend to reward specialization. you've got a gift... & that's music.

see, if you dont get the genius of woody allen it's like saying "uh, john zorn? what's the genius?". well sure everyone has different tastes, but you would frown because you know music, right?

if you read that thread, i actually expressed how zorn wasn't that much of a genius.

and seriously, since when taste in films or music for that matters is some fascist thing. you probably wouldn't see the genius of a film like can't hardly wait but that doesn't mean i think of you as an idiot...

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

if you read that thread, i actually expressed how zorn wasn't that much of a genius.

and seriously, since when taste in films or music for that matters is some fascist thing. you probably wouldn't see the genius of a film like can't hardly wait but that doesn't mean i think of you as an idiot...

oh i didnt really read that thread ha ha.

no it's not a matter of taste or fascist thing. tastes are tastes. take mike patton, i don't like mike patton, but people say "genius", whatever. i'm not qualified to say otherwise, but i'll just let go.

with the movies you considered boring/underrated/ etc, ive been thinking about it (i actually have!) and i realized what you seem to dislike is movies that have a subtle psychological element, e.g., movies that are about characters & their... conflicts, rather than action/situations, where the important stuff happens in the dialogue & inside a person's head.

woody allen is a master at that; and lost in translation was all about that; and that's exactly what lacks in adam sandler movies-- they are overly simplistic & lack subtlety, not like the ramones but like, i don't know, the clash? ( ha ha). anyway. we shouldn't make these cross-genre metaphors. but yeah i didn't call you an idiot. i have a good ear, but i know little about music, and i'm not an idiot. (or so i think anyway, ha ha). but yeah...

---

ps -- hey!! you just called someone an idiot for liking the new iggy pop!! hm...

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the director's cut is a lot better than the original, as i lacks the overbearing narrator's voice over & adds a couple of important scenes (oh, and cuts the happy ending).

i've only seen the director's cut

[SynthethicalY]

Has anyone seen that movie Breathless?