George_Washington said:What the heck was wrong with those films? They were all pretty good.
The Piano- I hated this film. Boring, boring, boring. It wouldn't have been so bad if you could have seen how the woman was built but she was constantly all covered up. This movie gets a half a star.
The English Patient- This is possibly the worst movie ever. Super extremely absolutely infinitely boring. I didn't understand a lick of it because I was too bored. This movie was so bad, it doesn't even get a star.
West Side Story- God, I can't STAND this movie. Has there ever been a movie with a gayer group of gangsters? Who ever heard of gangsters dancing and flaunting their arms like belle dancers? Talk about flaming gay. They must have been a gang from West Hollywood or something. Hated it. Plus, I thought the singing sucked, too. Half a star.
The Sum of All Fears- Tom Clancy really took a nose dive with this crappy story. I literally left before the movie was over. One star at the most.
The African Queen- I thought Humphrey Bogart was cool but I liked him better when he would play gangster roles. I thought this movie was well, pretty boring. For one thing, the scenes of Bogart and Catherine Hepburn sitting in that row boat or whatever the hell it was, were SO fake. I mean you could just tell there was a screen behind them. And Hepburn's accent was SO irritating. I mean, did she really have to talk like that? It was like someone scratching their nails on a chalk board for 2 hours or however long the movie lasted. This movie gets a half a star.
alphamale said:You're wrong there. The movie was filmed on location.
jallman said:Arthur--Where the hell did they draw that legend from? Makes me almost rabid when I see our beautiful legends so watered down that they are hardly even recognizable. There wasnt even an archetypal theme present to pull that movie out of the realm of pathetic.
George_Washington said:I suppose you mean the new one with Keira Knightly? Yeah, it kind of sucked. Wasn't accurate at all. If you want to watch a better movie concerning the Arthurian Legend, watch, "First Knight" with Richard Gere. I thought that one was a lot better. You might want to also check out the TV movie, "Merlin." Neither one of these films were 100% accurate to any text concerning the Legend but they were a lot better than the new one.
Also, if you're into history movies around the time of King Arthur, check out the TV movie, "Attila the Hun". It came out about 4 years ago. It was REALLY good. It was excellent, actually. A lot better than the new King Arthur movie. I remember I was in England when that movie came out and one guy over there told me how much he thought it sucked, too. lol
The movie itself sucked. HOWEVER, the soundtrack by Peter Gabriel "Passions" kicked major butt. It was enjoyed with a couple bowls in college.jallman said:The Passion of the Christ--tried so hard to maintain the appearance of spirituality that it undermined every mystery of faith it miserably attempted to relate. It has to be the only movie in the history of cinema that had no redeeming quality whatsoever.
jallman said:Merlin is actually one of my favorites...its just an all around good story. I love the whole conflict between paganism and christianity and how they played that up.
George_Washington said:Same here. My favorite part was at the end when Merlin was reunited with what's her name and then he was like, "That's it. No more magic."
Actually, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth's version of the Arthurian Legend, it didn't end anything like the TV show. Merlin was locked away in a tower, FOREVER, and he never got out! Makes you think, doesn't it.
jallman said:Well, I had a little more to keep me interested than the plot, so maybe I cant say it was so bad. :rofl
GySgt said:Jallman, the way Marines have to live when deployed, you would absolutely love to be one of those "Don't ask, don't tell" kind of guys for a month.
It would be like Me and 'Cherokee' hanging out in the girl's locker room and shower and nobody noticing.
jallman said:hey now...think about it from my perspective. I would probably be a bit uncomfortable in that real situation. I would not want to feel like a skulking peeping tom so I would have the decency to avoid such intensive and arousing situations. Eyes down in the shower, think of Margaret Thatcher naked on the beach...thats how I got through after-soccer-practice showers without being a total skank, anyway.
That's what I'm talking about. You gay guys have such an incredible gift. The same goes for gay women. It's us heteros that have to resort to peeping and being arrested.
jallman said:but its really not a gift, man. You know that feeling you get when a girl is checking you out...and you have that one moment of doubt when you suck your gut in just a little tighter? Imagine having that same doubt in a shower full of naked chicks and the added pressure of actively avoiding checking them out.
GySgt said:Frustrating, but you still get an eye full. It would be easier for women, because there is no obvious physical feature that would change.