• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Movies that have made you cry

ooops I meant Fahrenheit 911 was clearly not a look at the whole picture. :rofl

Movies that made me cry:

Armageddon.....I love Bruce Willis and I have a strange fetish for Steve Buscemi as well.

Jerry Maguire.....I'm a sucker for couples that stay together.

The Notebook......I'm a sucker for guys that fall in love hard.

Legends of the Fall......I love this movie and the ending gets me everytime.

My Girl......I was completely unprepared for how this movie was gonna go down.

Stella....awesome movie....very honest.

Riding in Cars with Boys....too close to home.

ET....first movie that ever made me cry.


Good Will Hunting....great movie

Big Fish.....odd movie that I loved

About a Boy.....I so love this movie.....or is it Hugh Grant....I don't know it gets confusing.
 
Last edited:
nineplus said:
I had such trouble w/ that movie.......I ended up feeling far to *uptight* to cry at any point. it was like torture porn, as opposed to a movie.........or I'm an enormous wimp which is entirely possible :)


I must admit I've been too cowardly to even go see Passion of the Christ yet. :3oops:
 
talloulou said:
Fahrenheit 911 annooyed me.....it didn't make me cry. Some parts actually made me laugh. Michael Moore talented? Hmmm I don't know he goes for the cheap shot alot. Fahrenheit 911 could have been a much better movie if he had gone more into the foreign policy problems and fragile Saudi relationship that has brewing for decades regardless of which political party was in the white house. I also though his pre-war protrayal of Iraq was dangerously oversimplified. Clearly he was going for the propaganda approach vs an informative educational documentary. Nothing wrong with that except alot of simple misguided folks watched the movie and took it as an "education." Bowling for Columbine could have been better too. Michael Moore is talented in that his movies edit and piece together information in a provocative way however unfortunately he doesn't mind if the editing gives the viewer misguided or false impressions. I find Moore's books as equally entertaining as his movies. However he often uses half truths to make shocking dramatic points. I've researched many different things because Michael Moore initially got me thinking about them. Often after researching on my own I realized the claim I initially had trouble believing was drastically over-simplified and intentionally misleading. In a way it's good that Moore promotes research and thinking. However the idea that some people take his words as truth without further investigation is sort of frightening. Fahrenheit 911 certainly was a look at the "whole" picture.

Well, if you read my post, you would see that there is one piece in particular that made me cry. I guess I am still overly sentimental about the horror people went through on 9/11. :roll:

Michael Moore is a good film craftsman. That is my point and my only point. If there were ANY conservatives with such skills I would recognize them, too. But there doesn't seem to be that kind of talent on the right. Go figure.
 
talloulou said:
Fahrenheit 911 annooyed me.....it didn't make me cry. Some parts actually made me laugh. Michael Moore talented? Hmmm I don't know he goes for the cheap shot alot. Fahrenheit 911 could have been a much better movie if he had gone more into the foreign policy problems and fragile Saudi relationship that has brewing for decades regardless of which political party was in the white house. I also though his pre-war protrayal of Iraq was dangerously oversimplified. Clearly he was going for the propaganda approach vs an informative educational documentary. Nothing wrong with that except alot of simple misguided folks watched the movie and took it as an "education." Bowling for Columbine could have been better too. Michael Moore is talented in that his movies edit and piece together information in a provocative way however unfortunately he doesn't mind if the editing gives the viewer misguided or false impressions. I find Moore's books as equally entertaining as his movies. However he often uses half truths to make shocking dramatic points. I've researched many different things because Michael Moore initially got me thinking about them. Often after researching on my own I realized the claim I initially had trouble believing was drastically over-simplified and intentionally misleading. In a way it's good that Moore promotes research and thinking. However the idea that some people take his words as truth without further investigation is sort of frightening. Fahrenheit 911 certainly was a look at the "whole" picture.

No one's claiming he's perfect, however he is talented, and I think Farenheit and Bowling were important films. They touched on those two very sensitive subjects in a way that was necessary.
 
Last edited:
mixedmedia said:
Michael Moore is a good film craftsman. That is my point and my only point. If there were ANY conservatives with such skills I would recognize them, too. But there doesn't seem to be that kind of talent on the right. Go figure.

Hey I said his stuff is entertaining didn't I? :rofl I just think "documentary" isn't necessarily the right label for his work.

Also on the crying thing.....The movie didn't make me cry but all the liberals clapping and going nuts in the theatre scared the life out of me. :mrgreen:
 
mixedmedia said:
Michael Moore is a good film craftsman. That is my point and my only point. If there were ANY conservatives with such skills I would recognize them, too. But there doesn't seem to be that kind of talent on the right. Go figure.

You know Media, I'm not trying to insult you or start a fight with you but it's stuff like this you say that really is just arrogant and ignorant. What gives you the vast insight to be able to know everyone's personal political views? Do you actually know anyone in Hollywood? If you really think everyone in Hollywood is a flaming liberal, than all that does is prove that you've never been in the Hollywood scene. No offense but it's the truth. You simply can't judge a person's political views by the career that they are in. Howard Hughes had conservative leanings and it could be argued that he was one of the best filmmakers in history. If you honestly that Michael Moore's documentaries could hold water to real films like those of Hughes or Mel Gibson, than I just can't help but laugh. Comparing Bowling for Columbine to Braveheart is ludicrious. It would also be laughable to compare that silly man to Mario Puzo, who wrote the Godfather films and who was also a Catholic with conservative leanings. Anybody who knew Jimmy Stuart knew that he was a staunch conservative. George Lucas, Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, Joe Pesci, Red Skelton, John Wayne, Gary Cooper, and there has also been talk of Steve Spielberg being conservative on economic issues. And let's not forget the great Walt Disney.

Nobody in their right mind would ever compare Michael Moore's talent to the likes of Walt Disney, Howard Hughes, Mario Puzo, or Mel Gibson. It doesn't matter what your political views are, it just wouldn't be done. But I would really like to see Moore proclaim himself to be as talented as Howard Hughes. That would be the funniest thing ever. Conservatives and liberals alike would laugh. Say what you will about Mel Gibson's films but Moore doesn't have one eighth of the Hollywood influence that Gibson has. Gibson was rated the number one celebrity by Forbes magazine a year or two ago. Moore couldn't even hope to have this kind of success.
 
George_Washington said:
You know Media, I'm not trying to insult you or start a fight with you but it's stuff like this you say that really is just arrogant and ignorant. What gives you the vast insight to be able to know everyone's personal political views? Do you actually know anyone in Hollywood? If you really think everyone in Hollywood is a flaming liberal, than all that does is prove that you've never been in the Hollywood scene. No offense but it's the truth. You simply can't judge a person's political views by the career that they are in. Howard Hughes had conservative leanings and it could be argued that he was one of the best filmmakers in history. If you honestly that Michael Moore's documentaries could hold water to real films like those of Hughes or Mel Gibson, than I just can't help but laugh. Comparing Bowling for Columbine to Braveheart is ludicrious. It would also be laughable to compare that silly man to Mario Puzo, who wrote the Godfather films and who was also a Catholic with conservative leanings. Anybody who knew Jimmy Stuart knew that he was a staunch conservative. George Lucas, Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, Joe Pesci, Red Skelton, John Wayne, Gary Cooper, and there has also been talk of Steve Spielberg being conservative on economic issues. And let's not forget the great Walt Disney.

Nobody in their right mind would ever compare Michael Moore's talent to the likes of Walt Disney, Howard Hughes, Mario Puzo, or Mel Gibson. It doesn't matter what your political views are, it just wouldn't be done. But I would really like to see Moore proclaim himself to be as talented as Howard Hughes. That would be the funniest thing ever. Conservatives and liberals alike would laugh. Say what you will about Mel Gibson's films but Moore doesn't have one eighth of the Hollywood influence that Gibson has. Gibson was rated the number one celebrity by Forbes magazine a year or two ago. Moore couldn't even hope to have this kind of success.

You know, George, I'm really tired right now. But let me just say this. I have been watching and reading about movies since before you were even born. I already know where you stand on artistry. I remember a conversation we had before regarding the relevance of a pair of shoes compared to a Rembrandt painting.

You have your opinions on great filmmaking and I have mine. But to say that Howard Hughes might be one of the greatest filmmakers in history is not only strange but ludicrous.

And once again, cause we've been over this before, it makes absolutely NO difference to me how rich or powerful or famous someone is. And I didn't make the comparison, but I think Michael Moore is every bit as good a documentarian as Mel Gibson is a narrative filmmaker.

And Clint Eastwood, although a Republican, is hardly conservative.
 
Platoon
Cast Away
Schindler's List
Saving Private Ryan
Shoreshank Redemption
Million Dollar Baby
A.I
Thin Red Line

Strangely enough the movie that get's me the most is Heat, the end sequence when Moby's God moving over water is so spooky and powerful.....
 
mixedmedia said:
You know, George, I'm really tired right now. But let me just say this. I have been watching and reading about movies since before you were even born. I already know where you stand on artistry. I remember a conversation we had before regarding the relevance of a pair of shoes compared to a Rembrandt painting.

Yeah, the typical line, "I was doing this before you were born so therefore I know more about it than you do." A person's age doesn't mean they are automatically more knowledgeable about a subject. I get that all the time from older people who I debate with and usually it's because they feel threatened by a smart and youthful person challenging their fragile egos. I recall you made the assertion that fashion designers were not artists, which would fly in the face of virtually every art school in the world. Art changes, Media. Rembrandt and all those painters were good for their time but that doesn't mean they all sit on some kind of a pedestal that can never be moved. Art comes in many different forms from writing to painting, to architecture.


You have your opinions on great filmmaking and I have mine. But to say that Howard Hughes might be one of the greatest filmmakers in history is not only strange but ludicrous.

Ludicrious? Do you not realize that Hell's Angelsand Scarface were created and produced by Howard Hughes? Howard Hughes made some of the greatest contributions to film in the American history of the subject. I'm sorry Media but Hughes is widely regarded as a great filmmaker by virtually everyone in the industry, including Martin Scorcesse, the director that you claim to admire so much. Howard Hughes was a temendously creative individual who was talented at not just filmmaking but also business, aviation, and electronics.


And once again, cause we've been over this before, it makes absolutely NO difference to me how rich or powerful or famous someone is. And I didn't make the comparison, but I think Michael Moore is every bit as good a documentarian as Mel Gibson is a narrative filmmaker.

You had said:

"If there were ANY conservatives with such skills I would recognize them, too. But there doesn't seem to be that kind of talent on the right. Go figure."

That is such a narrow minded view and really quite immature for somebody who claims a superior level of maturity and such a greater knowledge of film. I was trying to point out you that there have always been talented people in Hollywood with conservative political views. Someone's views on politics doesn't have to be the, "driving force" to what they do for a living. That is the point I was trying to make to you. And really, I wouldn't say Moore is really a true documentary maker. His stuff is grossly biased, distorted, embellished, etc. You can't compare the stuff he makes with stuff say, from the BBC. But look Media, I don't want to argue with you anymore. I just wish you would give Republicans more of a chance but I realize you just don't like us and at your age you'll probably never change. I bet you never even watched Larry Elder's documentary that I had mentioned to you. Uh huh. At least I can say that I watched Moore's documentaries before making up my mind.
 
George_Washington said:
Yeah, the typical line, "I was doing this before you were born so therefore I know more about it than you do." A person's age doesn't mean they are automatically more knowledgeable about a subject. I get that all the time from older people who I debate with and usually it's because they feel threatened by a smart and youthful person challenging their fragile egos. I recall you made the assertion that fashion designers were not artists, which would fly in the face of virtually every art school in the world. Art changes, Media. Rembrandt and all those painters were good for their time but that doesn't mean they all sit on some kind of a pedestal that can never be moved. Art comes in many different forms from writing to painting, to architecture.

I recall making the claim that fashion design was not as relevant an art form as the fine arts. You think that flies into the face of what is thought at art schools? Really now? Have you ever been to art school? Are you an artist? Anyone who has even a passing knowledge of art knows that they are entirely different forms. My daughter was attending art school and you know what the head of the art department said to her while thumbing through her portfolio? "The design dept. is going to want to steal you away from us." Complete with eye roll.

And yes Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Vermeer, Hopper, Klimt, Goya, Manet, Michelangelo, Rodin....these artists are on a pedestal. And they will tower above the accomplishments of design for the ages. I don't seek to lessen the significance of good design and those who devote their lives to it. You, on the other hand, for whatever reason - your immaturity, your lack of vision, imagination, your total immersion in popular culture - choose to lessen the significance of artists, living and dead, who have devoted their lives to a higher calling. Yeah, I take exception to that. And so would most artists.

And anyhow, considering your infatuation with monetary value, surely you would think that a painting that sells for $3m is far more worthy as a piece of art than a vintage Chanel dress that sells for a measly $100k. :roll:

And no it is not my age, it is my knowledge that makes me more knowledgeable than you.


Ludicrious? Do you not realize that Hell's Angelsand Scarface were created and produced by Howard Hughes? Howard Hughes made some of the greatest contributions to film in the American history of the subject. I'm sorry Media but Hughes is widely regarded as a great filmmaker by virtually everyone in the industry, including Martin Scorcesse, the director that you claim to admire so much. Howard Hughes was a temendously creative individual who was talented at not just filmmaking but also business, aviation, and electronics.

I love how people you are "into" all of a sudden become the best at whatever it is that they do. Howard Hughes was a megalomaniac who decided to buy his way into Hollywood and he made some films. Some good, some awful. Notice you didn't mention The Outlaw. Have you seen Hell's Angels and Scarface? I have. Yes, of the thousands of filmmakers who have worked in Hollywood, it is ludicrous to say that Howard Hughes was one of the best. "One" being of completely relative significance, though.

You had said:

"If there were ANY conservatives with such skills I would recognize them, too. But there doesn't seem to be that kind of talent on the right. Go figure."

That is such a narrow minded view and really quite immature for somebody who claims a superior level of maturity and such a greater knowledge of film. I was trying to point out you that there have always been talented people in Hollywood with conservative political views. Someone's views on politics doesn't have to be the, "driving force" to what they do for a living. That is the point I was trying to make to you. And really, I wouldn't say Moore is really a true documentary maker. His stuff is grossly biased, distorted, embellished, etc. You can't compare the stuff he makes with stuff say, from the BBC. But look Media, I don't want to argue with you anymore. I just wish you would give Republicans more of a chance but I realize you just don't like us and at your age you'll probably never change. I bet you never even watched Larry Elder's documentary that I had mentioned to you. Uh huh. At least I can say that I watched Moore's documentaries before making up my mind.

The comment I made about conservatives was tongue-in-cheek. You are the one who decided to jump on that and make a federal case about it. I never said that politics have to be a driving force in someone's career. Sorry your poor sensibilities have to get so bent out of shape by one little comment. I get liberal claptrap thrown at me everyday around here, but do you see me breaking down about it? Maybe you are the one with the thin skin and the fragile ego. Conservatives in the film industry are a minority. Extraordinarily talented ones even more so. It is a fact.

Moore is a true documentary filmmaker, all documentarians come to work with a point of view and a foregone conclusion. It is about form, not content.
 
mixedmedia said:
I recall making the claim that fashion design was not as relevant an art form as the fine arts. You think that flies into the face of what is thought at art schools? Really now? Have you ever been to art school? Are you an artist? Anyone who has even a passing knowledge of art knows that they are entirely different forms. My daughter was attending art school and you know what the head of the art department said to her while thumbing through her portfolio? "The design dept. is going to want to steal you away from us." Complete with eye roll.

And yes Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Vermeer, Hopper, Klimt, Goya, Manet, Michelangelo, Rodin....these artists are on a pedestal. And they will tower above the accomplishments of design for the ages. I don't seek to lessen the significance of good design and those who devote their lives to it. You, on the other hand, for whatever reason - your immaturity, your lack of vision, imagination, your total immersion in popular culture - choose to lessen the significance of artists, living and dead, who have devoted their lives to a higher calling. Yeah, I take exception to that. And so would most artists.

And anyhow, considering your infatuation with monetary value, surely you would think that a painting that sells for $3m is far more worthy as a piece of art than a vintage Chanel dress that sells for a measly $100k. :roll:

And no it is not my age, it is my knowledge that makes me more knowledgeable than you.




I love how people you are "into" all of a sudden become the best at whatever it is that they do. Howard Hughes was a megalomaniac who decided to buy his way into Hollywood and he made some films. Some good, some awful. Notice you didn't mention The Outlaw. Have you seen Hell's Angels and Scarface? I have. Yes, of the thousands of filmmakers who have worked in Hollywood, it is ludicrous to say that Howard Hughes was one of the best. "One" being of completely relative significance, though.



The comment I made about conservatives was tongue-in-cheek. You are the one who decided to jump on that and make a federal case about it. I never said that politics have to be a driving force in someone's career. Sorry your poor sensibilities have to get so bent out of shape by one little comment. I get liberal claptrap thrown at me everyday around here, but do you see me breaking down about it? Maybe you are the one with the thin skin and the fragile ego. Conservatives in the film industry are a minority. Extraordinarily talented ones even more so. It is a fact.

Moore is a true documentary filmmaker, all documentarians come to work with a point of view and a foregone conclusion. It is about form, not content.

I don't agree, Moore has certainly been exposed time and again as a propagandist, from Wiki.............

"Propagandist tradition

Leni Reifenstahl filming Triumph of the Will in Nuremburg in 1934.The propagandist tradition consisted of films made with the explicit purpose of persuading an audience of a point. One of the most notorious propaganda films is Leni Riefenstahl's film Triumph of the Will. Why We Fight was explicitly contracted as a propaganda newsreel series in response to this, covering different aspects of World War II, and had the daunting task of persuading the US public to go to war. The series has been selected for preservation in the United States' National Film Registry. In Britain, Humphrey Jennings succeeded in blending propaganda with a poetic approach to documentary."

The bolded section describes Moore's work perfectly, and not many can argue his agenda.:roll:
 
Deegan said:
I don't agree, Moore has certainly been exposed time and again as a propagandist, from Wiki.............

"Propagandist tradition

Leni Reifenstahl filming Triumph of the Will in Nuremburg in 1934.The propagandist tradition consisted of films made with the explicit purpose of persuading an audience of a point. One of the most notorious propaganda films is Leni Riefenstahl's film Triumph of the Will. Why We Fight was explicitly contracted as a propaganda newsreel series in response to this, covering different aspects of World War II, and had the daunting task of persuading the US public to go to war. The series has been selected for preservation in the United States' National Film Registry. In Britain, Humphrey Jennings succeeded in blending propaganda with a poetic approach to documentary."

The bolded section describes Moore's work perfectly, and not many can argue his agenda.:roll:

Propaganda can still be documentary filmmaking. I am referring to the use of non-narrative elements to tell a story. This has been done throughout the history of the documentary with varying amounts of editorial, philosophical, political and emotional emphasis. Because one is a documentarian doesn't mean that they cannot choose sides. Most of them do.
 
mixedmedia said:
Propaganda can still be documentary filmmaking. I am referring to the use of non-narrative elements to tell a story. This has been done throughout the history of the documentary with varying amounts of editorial, philosophical, political and emotional emphasis. Because one is a documentarian doesn't mean that they cannot choose sides. Most of them do.


But not many just plain lie, he does, and has been caught in those lies more then enough to ruin any credibility he may have once had.
 
How did this thread turn into a thread about Michael Moore?

Unless you're saying his films made you cry...


I cry in lots of films. I just watched Sommersby last week and I totally cried at the end. It was just so sad when Richard Gere died.

I even cry in Disney films. Heck, I even had to fight back tears when the gigantic Gingerbread Man died in Shrek 2!
 
Rachel said:
How did this thread turn into a thread about Michael Moore?

Unless you're saying his films made you cry...


I cry in lots of films. I just watched Sommersby last week and I totally cried at the end. It was just so sad when Richard Gere died.

I even cry in Disney films. Heck, I even had to fight back tears when the gigantic Gingerbread Man died in Shrek 2!

Well, to be fair, I did say I cried.....but you can't bring up the guy's name without spawning fear and loathing. ;)
 
Super Size Me made me cry. I was so relieved he didn't die in the end. That was a cliffhanger.
 
Sir Alec said:
Aliens when Hudson gets pulled under the floor by the aliens
:smile: Semper Fi.
Korimyr the Rat said:
Not quite a movie, but Metal Gear: Solid, right after the battle with Sniper Wolf. Every single time.
Ha ha ha! And what about Final Fantasy 7? :smile: Nice to meet a gamer.
Enola/Alone said:
As a fat socialist slob, I feel obligated to stick up for…
Yeah right! Your fine, get over it and quit fishing for compliments.:smile:
(Look, I even edited out your misspelling of Michael;) )

I'm a big boy, and I don't cry over silly stories. Last two times I cried were over major issues in my life, years apart, not some overpaid pricks playing dress up on film.
 
Last two times I cried were because:

1. My 15 year-old cousin slammed a Lacrosse stick in my nuts.

2. My ex-girlfriend hurt my back during... well you get the idea.

Before those two, well, a lot of them involve something hitting me in my nuts. I'm very unlucky.
 
Sir_Alec said:
...well, a lot of them involve something hitting me in my nuts. I'm very unlucky.



omg, trying to bite my tongue here :)
 
Love Actually
Field of Dreams (only cause the book was so good)


And im going to see united 93 this week, so....
 
Well, I don't think guys should cry at movies but ..........if they could.

Has anyone seen the movie Cadence

Or Field of Dreams "hey dad, you wanna have a catch?"


And then, these ones didn't make me cry (you know, if I cried) but...........

I was glad someone mentioned The Notebook "that's my sweetheart in there" (movie was better than the book)

And Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind What a great movie, Jim Carey was terrific.
 
RightatNYU said:
Love Actually
Field of Dreams (only cause the book was so good)


And im going to see united 93 this week, so....

I was in the process of posting the above post when you posted this about Field of Dreams. That's awesome, and also a little scary.
 
millsy said:
I was in the process of posting the above post when you posted this about Field of Dreams. That's awesome, and also a little scary.

Wow, that IS scary.

But yea, amazing movie. We read the book for my Baseball as a Road to God class, and watched the movie the next week. so good.
 
Back
Top Bottom