Oh My Lord...

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:55 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 04:46 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 11:43 AM) QUOTE (Rushian King @ Dec 29 2008, 08:21 AM) Comparable in storytelling style to Forrest Gump, (I think, it's been years since I've seen FG) especially since both films were written by the same guy. Were they? I couldn't help but think of Forest Gump from time to time while watching this movie, and my wife told me later that she was thinking that too. When I scanned reviews of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, I saw at least two references to Forest Gump.   Mind you, the movie is nothing like Forest Gump in terms of the story, but more in terms of the wider scope of the film, in the aspect of encompassing someone's entire life with a certain romanticism and intensity. There are definite similarities in tone, if not in content. Well Forrest Gump was absolutely worthless and annoying as a film so if this one is anything like that I won't want to go near it, Pitt or no Pitt... Like I said, the movie is probably nowhere near cynical enough for you anyway. I would have been shocked if you had liked Forest Gump even a tiny bit. Too life-affirming? No, you mean it's too sentimental for me...   Forrest Gump wasn't sentimental though it was just f***ing stupid and not at all believable with a very annoying character. Nothing to do with cynical or sentimental.   Don't just make your mind about someone or something Goobs and try to sum them/it up in one word, it's very narrow-minded and not very progressive at all.   I mean would I do that to you, you old prog hippy fool??? See that's four words...   Perhaps unfair. I guess I've just heard you put so much stuff down and I rarely hear you mention what you actually like. You seem to enjoy putting things down continually in a smug and derisive manner. Add to the fact that you seem to get off to the extreme when this actually riles anyone or when people have a go at each other. It just gets a little old and comes off as very cynical. Perhaps that's too narrow a description, but am I really that far off?

Edited December 29, 2008 by rushgoober

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 05:04 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:55 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 04:46 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 11:43 AM) QUOTE (Rushian King @ Dec 29 2008, 08:21 AM) Comparable in storytelling style to Forrest Gump, (I think, it's been years since I've seen FG) especially since both films were written by the same guy. Were they? I couldn't help but think of Forest Gump from time to time while watching this movie, and my wife told me later that she was thinking that too. When I scanned reviews of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, I saw at least two references to Forest Gump.   Mind you, the movie is nothing like Forest Gump in terms of the story, but more in terms of the wider scope of the film, in the aspect of encompassing someone's entire life with a certain romanticism and intensity. There are definite similarities in tone, if not in content. Well Forrest Gump was absolutely worthless and annoying as a film so if this one is anything like that I won't want to go near it, Pitt or no Pitt... Like I said, the movie is probably nowhere near cynical enough for you anyway. I would have been shocked if you had liked Forest Gump even a tiny bit. Too life-affirming? No, you mean it's too sentimental for me...   Forrest Gump wasn't sentimental though it was just f***ing stupid and not at all believable with a very annoying character. Nothing to do with cynical or sentimental.   Don't just make your mind about someone or something Goobs and try to sum them/it up in one word, it's very narrow-minded and not very progressive at all.   I mean would I do that to you, you old prog hippy fool??? See that's four words...   Perhaps unfair. I guess I've just heard you put so much stuff down and I rarely hear you mention what you actually like. You seem to enjoy putting things down continually in a smug and derisive manner. Add to the fact that you seem to get off to the extreme when this actually riles anyone or when people have a go at each other. It just gets a little old and comes off as very cynical. Perhaps that's too narrow a description, but am I really that far off? When it comes to films Goobs, I'm like you are with music, I like the old stuff mostly. The old actors had presence, charisma, true star quality in abundance. Even the good actors of today (Spacey/Penn/Dafoe etc) seem flat by comparison or they need a huge array of silly wigs and bad ass swearing in the case of Sam Jackson, though I do rate Jackson. As for the boy-men actors (Leo/Brad/Matt/Ben and co) they are pale and transparent compared to the greats I grew up watching, they make me cringe and this makes me just want to turn them off and forget the whole thing...   I won't even mention Bruce Willis, oh shit I did...

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 03:17 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 05:04 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:55 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 04:46 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 11:43 AM) QUOTE (Rushian King @ Dec 29 2008, 08:21 AM) Comparable in storytelling style to Forrest Gump, (I think, it's been years since I've seen FG) especially since both films were written by the same guy. Were they? I couldn't help but think of Forest Gump from time to time while watching this movie, and my wife told me later that she was thinking that too. When I scanned reviews of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, I saw at least two references to Forest Gump.   Mind you, the movie is nothing like Forest Gump in terms of the story, but more in terms of the wider scope of the film, in the aspect of encompassing someone's entire life with a certain romanticism and intensity. There are definite similarities in tone, if not in content. Well Forrest Gump was absolutely worthless and annoying as a film so if this one is anything like that I won't want to go near it, Pitt or no Pitt... Like I said, the movie is probably nowhere near cynical enough for you anyway. I would have been shocked if you had liked Forest Gump even a tiny bit. Too life-affirming? No, you mean it's too sentimental for me...   Forrest Gump wasn't sentimental though it was just f***ing stupid and not at all believable with a very annoying character. Nothing to do with cynical or sentimental.   Don't just make your mind about someone or something Goobs and try to sum them/it up in one word, it's very narrow-minded and not very progressive at all.   I mean would I do that to you, you old prog hippy fool??? See that's four words...   Perhaps unfair. I guess I've just heard you put so much stuff down and I rarely hear you mention what you actually like. You seem to enjoy putting things down continually in a smug and derisive manner. Add to the fact that you seem to get off to the extreme when this actually riles anyone or when people have a go at each other. It just gets a little old and comes off as very cynical. Perhaps that's too narrow a description, but am I really that far off? When it comes to films Goobs, I'm like you are with music, I like the old stuff mostly. The old actors had presence, charisma, true star quality in abundance. Even the good actors of today (Spacey/Penn/Dafoe etc) seem flat by comparison or they need a huge array of silly wigs and bad ass swearing in the case of Sam Jackson, though I do rate Jackson. As for the boy-men actors (Leo/Brad/Matt/Ben and co) they are pale and transparent compared to the greats I grew up watching, they make me cringe and this makes me just want to turn them off and forget the whole thing...   I won't even mention Bruce Willis, oh shit I did...     I've tried a lot of older (pre-late 60's / early 70's) movies, but I just can't seem to get into most of them. I can appreciate the artistry to an extent, but am continually overwhelmed by how dated everything is in terms of dialogue, outmoded ways of thinking and cultural mores. I just have a very difficult time relating to it. Ironically, I love period piece movies.   Anyway, I find it all very subjective.   I just looked at a list I made of my top 50 movies of all time. There are fewer movies from the 2000's than other decades, but all of my fave films are from the 70's to the present.   And I think there are tons of great actors and actresses working today, including some of the ones that are more popular and that people love to put down. To me a great performance is a great performance, even if that actor/actress has been in crappy movies before or have crazy or ridiculous stuff going on in their personal lives.

Edited December 29, 2008 by rushgoober

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 05:33 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 03:17 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 05:04 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:55 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 04:46 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 11:43 AM) QUOTE (Rushian King @ Dec 29 2008, 08:21 AM) Comparable in storytelling style to Forrest Gump, (I think, it's been years since I've seen FG) especially since both films were written by the same guy. Were they? I couldn't help but think of Forest Gump from time to time while watching this movie, and my wife told me later that she was thinking that too. When I scanned reviews of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, I saw at least two references to Forest Gump.   Mind you, the movie is nothing like Forest Gump in terms of the story, but more in terms of the wider scope of the film, in the aspect of encompassing someone's entire life with a certain romanticism and intensity. There are definite similarities in tone, if not in content. Well Forrest Gump was absolutely worthless and annoying as a film so if this one is anything like that I won't want to go near it, Pitt or no Pitt... Like I said, the movie is probably nowhere near cynical enough for you anyway. I would have been shocked if you had liked Forest Gump even a tiny bit. Too life-affirming? No, you mean it's too sentimental for me...   Forrest Gump wasn't sentimental though it was just f***ing stupid and not at all believable with a very annoying character. Nothing to do with cynical or sentimental.   Don't just make your mind about someone or something Goobs and try to sum them/it up in one word, it's very narrow-minded and not very progressive at all.   I mean would I do that to you, you old prog hippy fool??? See that's four words...   Perhaps unfair. I guess I've just heard you put so much stuff down and I rarely hear you mention what you actually like. You seem to enjoy putting things down continually in a smug and derisive manner. Add to the fact that you seem to get off to the extreme when this actually riles anyone or when people have a go at each other. It just gets a little old and comes off as very cynical. Perhaps that's too narrow a description, but am I really that far off? When it comes to films Goobs, I'm like you are with music, I like the old stuff mostly. The old actors had presence, charisma, true star quality in abundance. Even the good actors of today (Spacey/Penn/Dafoe etc) seem flat by comparison or they need a huge array of silly wigs and bad ass swearing in the case of Sam Jackson, though I do rate Jackson. As for the boy-men actors (Leo/Brad/Matt/Ben and co) they are pale and transparent compared to the greats I grew up watching, they make me cringe and this makes me just want to turn them off and forget the whole thing...   I won't even mention Bruce Willis, oh shit I did...     I've tried a lot of older (pre-late 60's / early 70's) movies, but I just can't seem to get into most of them. I can appreciate the artistry to an extent, but am continually overwhelmed by how dated everything is in terms of dialogue, outmoded ways of thinking and cultural mores. I just have a very difficult time relating to it. Ironically, I love period piece movies.   Anyway, I find it all very subjective.   I just looked at a list I made of my top 50 movies of all time. There are fewer movies from the 2000's than other decades, but all of my fave films are from the 70's to the present.   And I think there are tons of great actors and actresses working today, including some of the ones that are more popular and that people love to put down. To me a great performance is a great performance, even if that actor/actress has been in crappy movies before or have crazy or ridiculous stuff going on in their personal lives. Well although I refer to eras it's not because of the time a film was made that I like it. It's just a coincidence that most of my faves are from the 50s-80s. And when it comes to judging performances I just tell it how I see it film by film, performance by peformance.   I didn't even mention Keanu Reeves in the other post but he's another one...he's a joke to 90% of cinemagoers but everyone just shrugs and puts up with him and he goes on getting plum roles, I don't get that...obviously the powers that be like him as he helps to dumb down the audiences...

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 03:41 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 05:33 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 03:17 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 05:04 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:55 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 04:46 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 11:43 AM) QUOTE (Rushian King @ Dec 29 2008, 08:21 AM) Comparable in storytelling style to Forrest Gump, (I think, it's been years since I've seen FG) especially since both films were written by the same guy. Were they? I couldn't help but think of Forest Gump from time to time while watching this movie, and my wife told me later that she was thinking that too. When I scanned reviews of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, I saw at least two references to Forest Gump.   Mind you, the movie is nothing like Forest Gump in terms of the story, but more in terms of the wider scope of the film, in the aspect of encompassing someone's entire life with a certain romanticism and intensity. There are definite similarities in tone, if not in content. Well Forrest Gump was absolutely worthless and annoying as a film so if this one is anything like that I won't want to go near it, Pitt or no Pitt... Like I said, the movie is probably nowhere near cynical enough for you anyway. I would have been shocked if you had liked Forest Gump even a tiny bit. Too life-affirming? No, you mean it's too sentimental for me...   Forrest Gump wasn't sentimental though it was just f***ing stupid and not at all believable with a very annoying character. Nothing to do with cynical or sentimental.   Don't just make your mind about someone or something Goobs and try to sum them/it up in one word, it's very narrow-minded and not very progressive at all.   I mean would I do that to you, you old prog hippy fool??? See that's four words...   Perhaps unfair. I guess I've just heard you put so much stuff down and I rarely hear you mention what you actually like. You seem to enjoy putting things down continually in a smug and derisive manner. Add to the fact that you seem to get off to the extreme when this actually riles anyone or when people have a go at each other. It just gets a little old and comes off as very cynical. Perhaps that's too narrow a description, but am I really that far off? When it comes to films Goobs, I'm like you are with music, I like the old stuff mostly. The old actors had presence, charisma, true star quality in abundance. Even the good actors of today (Spacey/Penn/Dafoe etc) seem flat by comparison or they need a huge array of silly wigs and bad ass swearing in the case of Sam Jackson, though I do rate Jackson. As for the boy-men actors (Leo/Brad/Matt/Ben and co) they are pale and transparent compared to the greats I grew up watching, they make me cringe and this makes me just want to turn them off and forget the whole thing...   I won't even mention Bruce Willis, oh shit I did...     I've tried a lot of older (pre-late 60's / early 70's) movies, but I just can't seem to get into most of them. I can appreciate the artistry to an extent, but am continually overwhelmed by how dated everything is in terms of dialogue, outmoded ways of thinking and cultural mores. I just have a very difficult time relating to it. Ironically, I love period piece movies.   Anyway, I find it all very subjective.   I just looked at a list I made of my top 50 movies of all time. There are fewer movies from the 2000's than other decades, but all of my fave films are from the 70's to the present.   And I think there are tons of great actors and actresses working today, including some of the ones that are more popular and that people love to put down. To me a great performance is a great performance, even if that actor/actress has been in crappy movies before or have crazy or ridiculous stuff going on in their personal lives. Well although I refer to eras it's not because of the time a film was made that I like it. It's just a coincidence that most of my faves are from the 50s-80s. And when it comes to judging performances I just tell it how I see it film by film, performance by peformance.   I didn't even mention Keanu Reeves in the other post but he's another one...he's a joke to 90% of cinemagoers but everyone just shrugs and puts up with him and he goes on getting plum roles, I don't get that...obviously the powers that be like him as he helps to dumb down the audiences... I don't think Keanu Reeves is a GREAT actor by any means, but often his roles don't call for fantastic acting chops. Take the Matrix (the first one). That's one of my favorite movies ever, and I thought Keanu was great in it, but it's not like it was a role demanding extreme emotional depth and complexity either. For what it demanded, he did just fine in it. I feel that way about other movies he's been in too, and then there's ones like Much Ado About Nothing which he was notably horrible in. Could he come up with an academy award nominated performance at some point? Maybe. I'm not holding my breath, but neither am I pre-judging his performances either. I'll see a movie that looks good if he's in it.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 05:50 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 03:41 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 05:33 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 03:17 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 05:04 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:55 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 04:46 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 11:43 AM) QUOTE (Rushian King @ Dec 29 2008, 08:21 AM) Comparable in storytelling style to Forrest Gump, (I think, it's been years since I've seen FG) especially since both films were written by the same guy. Were they? I couldn't help but think of Forest Gump from time to time while watching this movie, and my wife told me later that she was thinking that too. When I scanned reviews of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, I saw at least two references to Forest Gump.   Mind you, the movie is nothing like Forest Gump in terms of the story, but more in terms of the wider scope of the film, in the aspect of encompassing someone's entire life with a certain romanticism and intensity. There are definite similarities in tone, if not in content. Well Forrest Gump was absolutely worthless and annoying as a film so if this one is anything like that I won't want to go near it, Pitt or no Pitt... Like I said, the movie is probably nowhere near cynical enough for you anyway. I would have been shocked if you had liked Forest Gump even a tiny bit. Too life-affirming? No, you mean it's too sentimental for me...   Forrest Gump wasn't sentimental though it was just f***ing stupid and not at all believable with a very annoying character. Nothing to do with cynical or sentimental.   Don't just make your mind about someone or something Goobs and try to sum them/it up in one word, it's very narrow-minded and not very progressive at all.   I mean would I do that to you, you old prog hippy fool??? See that's four words...   Perhaps unfair. I guess I've just heard you put so much stuff down and I rarely hear you mention what you actually like. You seem to enjoy putting things down continually in a smug and derisive manner. Add to the fact that you seem to get off to the extreme when this actually riles anyone or when people have a go at each other. It just gets a little old and comes off as very cynical. Perhaps that's too narrow a description, but am I really that far off? When it comes to films Goobs, I'm like you are with music, I like the old stuff mostly. The old actors had presence, charisma, true star quality in abundance. Even the good actors of today (Spacey/Penn/Dafoe etc) seem flat by comparison or they need a huge array of silly wigs and bad ass swearing in the case of Sam Jackson, though I do rate Jackson. As for the boy-men actors (Leo/Brad/Matt/Ben and co) they are pale and transparent compared to the greats I grew up watching, they make me cringe and this makes me just want to turn them off and forget the whole thing...   I won't even mention Bruce Willis, oh shit I did...     I've tried a lot of older (pre-late 60's / early 70's) movies, but I just can't seem to get into most of them. I can appreciate the artistry to an extent, but am continually overwhelmed by how dated everything is in terms of dialogue, outmoded ways of thinking and cultural mores. I just have a very difficult time relating to it. Ironically, I love period piece movies.   Anyway, I find it all very subjective.   I just looked at a list I made of my top 50 movies of all time. There are fewer movies from the 2000's than other decades, but all of my fave films are from the 70's to the present.   And I think there are tons of great actors and actresses working today, including some of the ones that are more popular and that people love to put down. To me a great performance is a great performance, even if that actor/actress has been in crappy movies before or have crazy or ridiculous stuff going on in their personal lives. Well although I refer to eras it's not because of the time a film was made that I like it. It's just a coincidence that most of my faves are from the 50s-80s. And when it comes to judging performances I just tell it how I see it film by film, performance by peformance.   I didn't even mention Keanu Reeves in the other post but he's another one...he's a joke to 90% of cinemagoers but everyone just shrugs and puts up with him and he goes on getting plum roles, I don't get that...obviously the powers that be like him as he helps to dumb down the audiences... I don't think Keanu Reeves is a GREAT actor by any means, but often his roles don't call for fantastic acting chops. Take the Matrix (the first one). That's one of my favorite movies ever, and I thought Keanu was great in it, but it's not like it was a role demanding extreme emotional depth and complexity either. For what it demanded, he did just fine in it. I feel that way about other movies he's been in too, and then there's ones like Much Ado About Nothing which he was notably horrible in. Could he come up with an academy award nominated performance at some point? Maybe. I'm not holding my breath, but neither am I pre-judging his performances either. I'll see a movie that looks good if he's in it. Why do you always use your own experiences or whatever it is you use to jump to conclusions and make assumtions? Like people are cynical or are pre-judging. Don't keep making assumptions Goobs. I don't pre-judge Keanu, I just watch him and he does the rest. It's dead simple. Same with the other people I've mentioned. All my criticism is based on films that I've seen. However once you've seen several films by one actor it's highly unlikely that they'll suddenly go up several levels out of the blue, which some of them need to do. You can only give people so many breaks...   Like you said Reeves is best when he's in films that feature superior actors taking the weight or taking the lead, or feature shitloads of special effects and he doesn't really have to do anything except deliver lines. How much credit can you really give him for that though?

[Stormtron]

LOL, Keanu is the worst actor alive. It's easy to pre-judge him. Remember him in that Dracula movie? Holy shit, I can cry from laughing just thinking about it.

 

Wyld Stallions still rule though.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ Dec 29 2008, 07:00 PM)

LOL, Keanu is the worst actor alive. It's easy to pre-judge him. Remember him in that Dracula movie? Holy shit, I can cry from laughing just thinking about it. Wyld Stallions still rule though.

 

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 04:07 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 05:50 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 03:41 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 05:33 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 03:17 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 05:04 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:55 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 04:46 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Dec 29 2008, 02:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2008, 11:43 AM) QUOTE (Rushian King @ Dec 29 2008, 08:21 AM) Comparable in storytelling style to Forrest Gump, (I think, it's been years since I've seen FG) especially since both films were written by the same guy. Were they? I couldn't help but think of Forest Gump from time to time while watching this movie, and my wife told me later that she was thinking that too. When I scanned reviews of this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, I saw at least two references to Forest Gump.   Mind you, the movie is nothing like Forest Gump in terms of the story, but more in terms of the wider scope of the film, in the aspect of encompassing someone's entire life with a certain romanticism and intensity. There are definite similarities in tone, if not in content. Well Forrest Gump was absolutely worthless and annoying as a film so if this one is anything like that I won't want to go near it, Pitt or no Pitt... Like I said, the movie is probably nowhere near cynical enough for you anyway. I would have been shocked if you had liked Forest Gump even a tiny bit. Too life-affirming? No, you mean it's too sentimental for me...   Forrest Gump wasn't sentimental though it was just f***ing stupid and not at all believable with a very annoying character. Nothing to do with cynical or sentimental.   Don't just make your mind about someone or something Goobs and try to sum them/it up in one word, it's very narrow-minded and not very progressive at all.   I mean would I do that to you, you old prog hippy fool??? See that's four words...   Perhaps unfair. I guess I've just heard you put so much stuff down and I rarely hear you mention what you actually like. You seem to enjoy putting things down continually in a smug and derisive manner. Add to the fact that you seem to get off to the extreme when this actually riles anyone or when people have a go at each other. It just gets a little old and comes off as very cynical. Perhaps that's too narrow a description, but am I really that far off? When it comes to films Goobs, I'm like you are with music, I like the old stuff mostly. The old actors had presence, charisma, true star quality in abundance. Even the good actors of today (Spacey/Penn/Dafoe etc) seem flat by comparison or they need a huge array of silly wigs and bad ass swearing in the case of Sam Jackson, though I do rate Jackson. As for the boy-men actors (Leo/Brad/Matt/Ben and co) they are pale and transparent compared to the greats I grew up watching, they make me cringe and this makes me just want to turn them off and forget the whole thing...   I won't even mention Bruce Willis, oh shit I did...     I've tried a lot of older (pre-late 60's / early 70's) movies, but I just can't seem to get into most of them. I can appreciate the artistry to an extent, but am continually overwhelmed by how dated everything is in terms of dialogue, outmoded ways of thinking and cultural mores. I just have a very difficult time relating to it. Ironically, I love period piece movies.   Anyway, I find it all very subjective.   I just looked at a list I made of my top 50 movies of all time. There are fewer movies from the 2000's than other decades, but all of my fave films are from the 70's to the present.   And I think there are tons of great actors and actresses working today, including some of the ones that are more popular and that people love to put down. To me a great performance is a great performance, even if that actor/actress has been in crappy movies before or have crazy or ridiculous stuff going on in their personal lives. Well although I refer to eras it's not because of the time a film was made that I like it. It's just a coincidence that most of my faves are from the 50s-80s. And when it comes to judging performances I just tell it how I see it film by film, performance by peformance.   I didn't even mention Keanu Reeves in the other post but he's another one...he's a joke to 90% of cinemagoers but everyone just shrugs and puts up with him and he goes on getting plum roles, I don't get that...obviously the powers that be like him as he helps to dumb down the audiences... I don't think Keanu Reeves is a GREAT actor by any means, but often his roles don't call for fantastic acting chops. Take the Matrix (the first one). That's one of my favorite movies ever, and I thought Keanu was great in it, but it's not like it was a role demanding extreme emotional depth and complexity either. For what it demanded, he did just fine in it. I feel that way about other movies he's been in too, and then there's ones like Much Ado About Nothing which he was notably horrible in. Could he come up with an academy award nominated performance at some point? Maybe. I'm not holding my breath, but neither am I pre-judging his performances either. I'll see a movie that looks good if he's in it. Why do you always use your own experiences or whatever it is you use to jump to conclusions and make assumtions? Like people are cynical or are pre-judging. Don't keep making assumptions Goobs. I don't pre-judge Keanu, I just watch him and he does the rest. It's dead simple. Same with the other people I've mentioned. All my criticism is based on films that I've seen. However once you've seen several films by one actor it's highly unlikely that they'll suddenly go up several levels out of the blue, which some of them need to do. You can only give people so many breaks...   Like you said Reeves is best when he's in films that feature superior actors taking the weight or taking the lead, or feature shitloads of special effects and he doesn't really have to do anything except deliver lines. How much credit can you really give him for that though? It seemed like you were pre-judging this movie because of Brad Pitt being in it, but if I misread you on that I apologize. Really, it's no big deal. I guess I'd rather you see the movie before discounting it entirely, but it's no biggie. Sorry to cause a fuss.

[Necromancer]

Geez Ducky... and you have the nerve to say that I start shit over silly things? WOW!!!

 

I mean... this is about KEANU REEVES now??? I mean, it was bad enough when we were discussing Pitt's acting, but hey... at least he's in the movie in question eh?

 

Carry on Ducky... you're amusing the rest of us now, like you say we amuse you.

 

:sheesh:

[Tick]

Be forwarned folks. Not everyone was thrilled with this movie. I just came from a gathering where a couple I know just saw it and hated it. They said, the movie was an hour and a half too long, and if they had not paid so much to see it, they would have walked out on it. They also said some people did. I will see it on Netflix and judge for myself. I don't trust reviews all that much, unless there atrosious. I do like Pitt, so i'll see it at some point.

[Necromancer]

QUOTE (tick @ Dec 29 2008, 09:07 PM)

Be forwarned folks. Not everyone was thrilled with this movie. I just came from a gathering where a couple I know just saw it and hated it. They said, the movie was an hour and a half too long, and if they had not paid so much to see it, they would have walked out on it. They also said some people did. I will see it on Netflix and judge for myself. I don't trust reviews all that much, unless there atrosious. I do like Pitt, so i'll see it at some point.

That's an awesome sig you got there Tick.

 

I was gonna take Riv's advice and see this in the theaters, but I think I'll wait for DVD or ppv. I don't get to go to the actual movies much, so I don't want to take a chance here. Unless CeeJ really wants to see it... then i have no say.

 

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Necromancer @ Dec 29 2008, 08:02 PM)

Carry on Ducky... you're amusing the rest of us now, like you say we amuse you.

http://www.lacoctelera.com/myfiles/chicoviejo/goodfellas%20joe%20pesci.jpg

"You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little f*cked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to f*ckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?"

 

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8590/dancinghl0.gif

 

Any excuse for a pic and quote...

 

 

 

 

[GeddyRulz]

QUOTE

LOL, Keanu is the worst actor alive. It's easy to pre-judge him.

 

Totally agree. I think he's literally the worst actor in America right now. It's bad enough when he's doing his stock "stoner dude" shtick, but when he's given a lead dramatic role... watch out! The guy can't emote convincingly; I think that's his problem there.

 

I suppose it IS possible for an actor you've pre-judged to "go up several levels" with one performance, but that's rare. Stallone impressed the hell out of me with his acting in "Copland," for example. I thought Swayze was amazing in "Ghost" (think of his reaction, early on, when he sees his own dead body), and I once thought Jim Carey was pathetic (all those Ace Ventura type things) until I saw him in "Cable Guy" and a handful of dramatic roles.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2008 by GeddyRulz

[Tick]

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 30 2008, 03:43 AM)

QUOTE LOL, Keanu is the worst actor alive. It's easy to pre-judge him.   Totally agree. I think he's literally the worst actor in America right now. It's bad enough when he's doing his stock "stoner dude" shtick, but when he's given a lead dramatic role... watch out! The guy can't emote convincingly; I think that's his problem there.   I suppose it IS possible for an actor you've pre-judged to "go up several levels" with one performance, but that's rare. Stallone impressed the hell out of me with his acting in "Copland," for example. I thought Swayze was amazing in "Ghost" (think of his reaction, early on, when he sees his own dead body), and I once thought Jim Carey was pathetic (all those Ace Ventura type things) until I saw him in "Cable Guy" and a handful of dramatic roles. In my books, Ben Affleck is worse then Keanu. Ben Affleck blows as an actor !

[Mara]

I've been told by several people that since I didn't like Forrest Gump, I won't like Benjamin Button. 2 or 3 people whose taste coincides closely with mine disliked it (well, my friend Chris actually used the words "loathed" and "sucked ass"), so I'll be skipping it.

[rushgoober]

Has anyone else actually seen the movie?

[Necromancer]

I was gonna see it, but since Keanu Reeves and Ben Affleck suck... i can't, in all good faith.

 

[Turn Me On Dead Man]

QUOTE (tick @ Dec 30 2008, 11:55 AM)

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 30 2008, 03:43 AM) QUOTE LOL, Keanu is the worst actor alive. It's easy to pre-judge him.   Totally agree. I think he's literally the worst actor in America right now. It's bad enough when he's doing his stock "stoner dude" shtick, but when he's given a lead dramatic role... watch out! The guy can't emote convincingly; I think that's his problem there.   I suppose it IS possible for an actor you've pre-judged to "go up several levels" with one performance, but that's rare. Stallone impressed the hell out of me with his acting in "Copland," for example. I thought Swayze was amazing in "Ghost" (think of his reaction, early on, when he sees his own dead body), and I once thought Jim Carey was pathetic (all those Ace Ventura type things) until I saw him in "Cable Guy" and a handful of dramatic roles. In my books, Ben Affleck is worse then Keanu. Ben Affleck blows as an actor ! Ben Affleck's the male equivalent of Meryl Streep compared to Keanu. He's so emotionless and...he's just terrible.

[Necromancer]

QUOTE (Turn Me On Dead Man @ Jan 1 2009, 12:15 PM)

QUOTE (tick @ Dec 30 2008, 11:55 AM) QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 30 2008, 03:43 AM) QUOTE LOL, Keanu is the worst actor alive. It's easy to pre-judge him.   Totally agree. I think he's literally the worst actor in America right now. It's bad enough when he's doing his stock "stoner dude" shtick, but when he's given a lead dramatic role... watch out! The guy can't emote convincingly; I think that's his problem there.   I suppose it IS possible for an actor you've pre-judged to "go up several levels" with one performance, but that's rare. Stallone impressed the hell out of me with his acting in "Copland," for example. I thought Swayze was amazing in "Ghost" (think of his reaction, early on, when he sees his own dead body), and I once thought Jim Carey was pathetic (all those Ace Ventura type things) until I saw him in "Cable Guy" and a handful of dramatic roles. In my books, Ben Affleck is worse then Keanu. Ben Affleck blows as an actor ! Ben Affleck's the male equivalent of Meryl Streep compared to Keanu. He's so emotionless and...he's just terrible. Is he so bad that he affects the movie we're discussing? Just curious?

[JohnnyBlaze]

QUOTE (tick @ Dec 31 2008, 01:55 AM)

QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 30 2008, 03:43 AM) QUOTE LOL, Keanu is the worst actor alive. It's easy to pre-judge him.   Totally agree. I think he's literally the worst actor in America right now. It's bad enough when he's doing his stock "stoner dude" shtick, but when he's given a lead dramatic role... watch out! The guy can't emote convincingly; I think that's his problem there.   I suppose it IS possible for an actor you've pre-judged to "go up several levels" with one performance, but that's rare. Stallone impressed the hell out of me with his acting in "Copland," for example. I thought Swayze was amazing in "Ghost" (think of his reaction, early on, when he sees his own dead body), and I once thought Jim Carey was pathetic (all those Ace Ventura type things) until I saw him in "Cable Guy" and a handful of dramatic roles. In my books, Ben Affleck is worse then Keanu. Ben Affleck blows as an actor ! Wow. I never thought Affleck was that bad. In fact, I thought he played a pretty decent dickhead in Dazed and Confused. He's not great by any means but I think Keanu's a whole level or 4 up in the league of suckiness.   (trying to steer the thread back on track) I never saw the movie or any ads for it. And Pitt isn't a selling point for me

[Rushian King]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jan 1 2009, 11:29 AM)

Has anyone else actually seen the movie?

It was a pretty full, large capacity theatre I saw it in and I didn't notice any walkouts in my half (people did leave, but they all came back). I didn't hear any negativity from anyone as we were leaving either. Then again the crowd didn't have too many single, young guys. It was mostly couples, older people and young women.

[skyswing]

RockTheCradle and I saw it today. I thought it was very good. I'm not familiar with the original F. Scott Fitzgerald piece on which it's based, but - without going spoiler - I thought it wove significant historical events together well with a solid message of living the life you're given. RTC says this movie should get an Oscar for makeup. Absolutely.

While there are some similarities to Forrest Gump, it is not a replication of that story. While emotion-laden like Forrest, this is much more deep and rich in the way it is done.

I think this is one of the few movies I've seen in some time which breaks the current rut Hollywood finds itself in of a general lack of creativity. This had style, grace and I think overall sets itself up naturally as a future classic.

 

P.S.: There's one scene in the movie which I think will go down as one of those timeless clips, especially in a retrospective on the actor involved. Also, I'm glad they included some specific New Orleans flavor. There's a plug for Community Coffee in the movie - I love their coffee and chicory product.

Edited January 3, 2009 by skyswing

[GeddyRulz]

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Jan 1 2009, 11:54 AM)

QUOTE (tick @ Dec 31 2008, 01:55 AM) QUOTE (GeddyRulz @ Dec 30 2008, 03:43 AM) QUOTE LOL, Keanu is the worst actor alive. It's easy to pre-judge him.   Totally agree. I think he's literally the worst actor in America right now. It's bad enough when he's doing his stock "stoner dude" shtick, but when he's given a lead dramatic role... watch out! The guy can't emote convincingly; I think that's his problem there.   I suppose it IS possible for an actor you've pre-judged to "go up several levels" with one performance, but that's rare. Stallone impressed the hell out of me with his acting in "Copland," for example. I thought Swayze was amazing in "Ghost" (think of his reaction, early on, when he sees his own dead body), and I once thought Jim Carey was pathetic (all those Ace Ventura type things) until I saw him in "Cable Guy" and a handful of dramatic roles. In my books, Ben Affleck is worse then Keanu. Ben Affleck blows as an actor ! Wow. I never thought Affleck was that bad. In fact, I thought he played a pretty decent dickhead in Dazed and Confused. He's not great by any means but I think Keanu's a whole level or 4 up in the league of suckiness.

[Rushian King]

QUOTE (skyswing @ Jan 3 2009, 02:32 AM)

P.S.: There's one scene in the movie which I think will go down as one of those timeless clips, especially in a retrospective on the actor involved.

Which one?