logo Sign In

Best movies of 05 — Page 7

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: Jaster Mareel
So why is this one all of a sudden BAD? Because it's about homosexuals?


Yes. It's not about homophobia, though. Some people find it morally offensive, others see it as essentially gay propaganda. Not everyone who dissaproves of homsexuality FEARS them you know.


But it's not quite fear (a reason I belive the term homophobia is incorrect), it's more like absolute intolerance. While you people here will mostly keep your opinions to yourselves and not literally discriminate anyone with different sexualities, some might, in very mean ways. I just hope no one here.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: Jaster Mareel<br So why is this one all of a sudden BAD? Because it's about homosexuals?


Yes. It's not about homophobia, though. Some people find it morally offensive, others see it as essentially gay propaganda. Not everyone who dissaproves of homsexuality FEARS them you know.


But the sure don't want to stop those heterosexual propaganda movies, though, like Casanova!

And I'd be willing to bet that the majority of heterosexual (straight) guys who hate gays or claim they are "morally offensive" sure don't find players like Casanova to be morally opffensive. Hmmm, apparently they are allowed to pick and choose what that book tells them is morally offensive.
Author
Time
I will say nothing further on Brokeback Mountain. I am exercising my right NOT to see it.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: Jaster Mareel<br So why is this one all of a sudden BAD? Because it's about homosexuals?


Yes. It's not about homophobia, though. Some people find it morally offensive, others see it as essentially gay propaganda. Not everyone who dissaproves of homsexuality FEARS them you know.


But the sure don't want to stop those heterosexual propaganda movies, though, like Casanova!

And I'd be willing to bet that the majority of heterosexual (straight) guys who hate gays or claim they are "morally offensive" sure don't find players like Casanova to be morally opffensive. Hmmm, apparently they are allowed to pick and choose what that book tells them is morally offensive.


Um.... "Casanova" sucked

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Nanner Split
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
blah blah blah


Um.... "Casanova" sucked


You're the best fruit-themed icecream desert ever!

4

Author
Time
Anybody else think that some of the CGI/Green Screen in King Kong looked really fake? Especially when the men were running through the legs of the brontos.

It really only stands out because of how good some other of it looked.

4

Author
Time
Originally posted by: sybeman
Who's to say Gundark didn't care to see Titanic or Romeo and Juliet either? Maybe "gay cowboys" isn't the issue for him. Leave the guy alone. He's allowed to voice his opinion just as anyone else. I don't care to see it either, and it's not because of homophopia, but because the film was in developmental hell since the script was written in 1997 (!) because nobody wanted to play a "gay cowboy".

Of course he can voice his opinion, obviously. But, if someone came in here and said "I'm not going to see {insert movie}, because it has a black person in it and I have no interest in watching black people!" don't you think the general populace of this board would think that's a terrible opinion and try to counter argue? That's what I'm doing here. Also, if he's an "all thing film junkie," wouldn't you be willing to bet he's watched, liked, and maybe even BAUGHT a dramatic love story before? I know this is nothing but an assumption, but one with a pretty high margin of correctness.

Looking through Gundark's DVD collection, I found some movies of interest.

1. Austin Powers in Goldmember. This movie is CHALK FULL of sexual innuendo, references, and jokes. He said he didn't like the idea of a "gay cowboy movie" because the attitude seems to be "let's invite everybody into the bedroom to watch!" So it seems like he doesn't want to see it because he has a moral objection to movies putting sex into the public eye. But 75% of Austin Powers is sex jokes.

2. Possession. Genres: Romance.

3. High Fidelity. Genres: Romantic Comedy.

4. Edward Scissorhands. Genres: Dramatic Romance/Fantasy.

5. Clueless. I haven't seen this movie in years, but from what I remember, isn't there a girl going around the whole time bragging about how she's had sex all over the place, and she becomes the popular girl? So... a movie potraying sex as a means of gaining POPULARITY is worth buying, but a movie about a frustrating, confusing, dramatic, romantic relationship between two guys is NO SIR NOT GONNA SEE IT!!!

6. The Virgin Suicides. Now to be fair, I know nothing about this movie, except what I read about it on Gundark's info page. But after reading the story summary, looking at the rating, and taking into account the name... I'm willing to bet there is at least some sex-related moments in the movie.

Anyway, that's actually all I could find... I was surprised, I thought there'd be a lot more, but most of it was just cartoons. Although, I did find Run Lola Run, and that surprised me. That's a really cool movie.

Moving on to the second half of your post, sybeman.

Originally posted by: sybeman
Now, Jake and Heath take it on, and they're getting heaps of praise and Oscar attention for "having the balls to be gay." I don't disagree that "it's actually a good thing that films like this are being made," as you say, but I don't think it's a big deal. It's just a movie.

It shouldn't be a big deal, but it is. Some day, hopefully, we'll get to a point in our society where going to see a movie about two guys or two girls, will just be... going to see a movie. It won't be different. It won't be weird. It'll just be going to see a movie. But, that doesn't change the fact that, CURRENTLY, in our current society, going to see a movie about two homosexuals is a BIG DEAL. And the reason it's a big deal? Because of people like Gundark or Darth Chaltab who don't want to see it, JUST BECAUSE it's about homosexuals. They haven't listed ANY OTHER REASON not to see it, other than the fact that it's about homosexuals. If people keep having attitudes like that, then we're never gonna get to the point of where going to see a movie about two guys or two girls, will just be going to see a movie.

Yes. It's not about homophobia, though. Some people find it morally offensive, others see it as essentially gay propaganda. Not everyone who dissaproves of homsexuality FEARS them you know.

Like ricarleite said, it's not quite fear, but an absolute intolerance. The word homophobia is usually used to describe someone who looks down upon, thinks differently of, or in general doesn't like, homosexuals.
Author
Time
People seem to want to drag me back into this and find out why I have no desire to see Brokeback Mountain, and if those reasons have homophobic underpinnings.

#1. I am not homophobic. I have had several gay friends, one of whom came out of the closet while I was in high school. We've lost contact since then, and I last heard he had committed suicide. Another died of AIDS-related pneumonia.
#2. For me, sexuality is a very personal thing. If a person decides to proclaim their sexuality to the world, that's their decision. I prefer to let my actions speak rather than to make some sort of proclamation.
#3. As I said before, I am disturbed by this trend of "ripping the bedroom doors off." Sexuality is not only a personal thing, it is a private thing. It is no one's business but mine and my wife's what goes on behind our bedroom doors. When you invite the public in, you are just asking for trouble, because no one's relationship can withstand that sort of scrutiny. Just ask Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher... the list goes on.
#4. I am a religious person, but that cannot be equated with homophobia. Just because my religion preaches against homosexual practices does not mean I hate gays and lesbians. Christ taught to love the sinner and not the sin, and I along with many others think that so-called Christian fundamentalists could learn a lot from practicing what they preach. Telling gays and lesbians they're going to rot in hell for the way they live their lives is just nonsensical. If people can understand that I appreciate them for who they are rather than what they define themselves as, I have succeeded in making my point.


One last thing: as a lawyer, consider this my cease-and-desist warning. Do not drag me into this again. My reasons for not seeing Brokeback Mountain should be abundantly clear now.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
#4. I am a religious person, but that cannot be equated with homophobia. Just because my religion preaches against homosexual practices does not mean I hate gays and lesbians. Christ taught to love the sinner and not the sin, and I along with many others think that so-called Christian fundamentalists could learn a lot from practicing what they preach. Telling gays and lesbians they're going to rot in hell for the way they live their lives is just nonsensical. If people can understand that I appreciate them for who they are rather than what they define themselves as, I have succeeded in making my point.


Amen to that.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
#4. I am a religious person, but that cannot be equated with homophobia. Just because my religion preaches against homosexual practices does not mean I hate gays and lesbians. Christ taught to love the sinner and not the sin, and I along with many others think that so-called Christian fundamentalists could learn a lot from practicing what they preach. Telling gays and lesbians they're going to rot in hell for the way they live their lives is just nonsensical. If people can understand that I appreciate them for who they are rather than what they define themselves as, I have succeeded in making my point.


Jerry Falwell could learn a thing or two from you.

Seriously, there need to be more of the Christians with your track of thought about homosexuals. It is sad when some of them outright wish for the gays to go to hell like people like Jerry Falwell and those fundamentalists do. I wonder what Christ would have to say about that?
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Jaster Mareel
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I can't believe some of what I just read.

Actually, yes I can.


Hahahaha, that's exactly what I was thinking. Honestly YIYF, I'm glad I've finally found someone at this forum who's on the same page as me.

Stick with me, kid

Because of the recent 'gay marriage' laws that have come into effect in the UK, there's been a lot of discussion of how increased acceptance of homosexuality will affect the moral fibre of society. Personally, the only problem I have with Brokeback Mountain is it's directed by the hugely overated Ang Lee, and Gay people are fine by me - I don't really get how a man can find another man attractive, but I certainly don't find it 'disgusting' or 'offensive', just different. However, I do understand Gundark's concerns, and am glad that he is able to voice them in a considered and eloquent manner instead of 'The only good Gay Cowboy is a dead Gay Cowboy and when that Gay cowboy is dead, he's gonna burn in gay hell'.

I am also concerned with the way society is heading, but I think gays and this movie are the least of our worries (plus I happen to like both Jake Gyllenhal and Heath Ledger as actors).

P.S Seeing as everyone here seems to have been smoking crack when they watched the new King Kong and thought it was excellent, I take it none of you have a problem with love between a woman and a 50ft ape?

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Ah so we finally got ourselves completely out of topic, that's the magic behind the off topic session on this forum


Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
People seem to want to drag me back into this and find out why I have no desire to see Brokeback Mountain, and if those reasons have homophobic underpinnings.

#1. I am not homophobic. I have had several gay friends, one of whom came out of the closet while I was in high school. We've lost contact since then, and I last heard he had committed suicide. Another died of AIDS-related pneumonia.
#2. For me, sexuality is a very personal thing. If a person decides to proclaim their sexuality to the world, that's their decision. I prefer to let my actions speak rather than to make some sort of proclamation.
#3. As I said before, I am disturbed by this trend of "ripping the bedroom doors off." Sexuality is not only a personal thing, it is a private thing. It is no one's business but mine and my wife's what goes on behind our bedroom doors. When you invite the public in, you are just asking for trouble, because no one's relationship can withstand that sort of scrutiny. Just ask Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher... the list goes on.
#4. I am a religious person, but that cannot be equated with homophobia. Just because my religion preaches against homosexual practices does not mean I hate gays and lesbians. Christ taught to love the sinner and not the sin, and I along with many others think that so-called Christian fundamentalists could learn a lot from practicing what they preach. Telling gays and lesbians they're going to rot in hell for the way they live their lives is just nonsensical. If people can understand that I appreciate them for who they are rather than what they define themselves as, I have succeeded in making my point.


One last thing: as a lawyer, consider this my cease-and-desist warning. Do not drag me into this again. My reasons for not seeing Brokeback Mountain should be abundantly clear now.


I clearly see your point of view, but as I said, I don't belive anyone here is really committed of the so *quotes with fingers* "homophobia", a term I dislike because it's misleading. While you have your own opinions and views and I fully understand and respect those, I'm absolutely sure you wouldn't do anything to harm someone or act in prejudice ways towards homosexuals. Unfortunally, some people don't think that way, and discrimination between this minority is still pretty brutal.

You say that people should keep their sexual opinions and views for themselves, and strongly agree. There are two things I don't discuss to people, and one of them is my sexual life, and I belive people shouldn't be talking about it. But that goes for homosexuals and heterosexuals as well. If there's a couple kissing on the street, I don't care if it's two guys, two girls, or a guy or a girl, I'll say the same thing to any of them: "Hey you two, get a room! Please!"

About the whole "gays are going to rot in hell" thing... well first I don't know if there's any heaven or hell (agnostic), but if there is a God and His judgement decides who goes to hell, well that would be one mean God if he sent gay people to hell just because they love each other... Based on that very same logic, shouldn't he also send budhists to hell too, as they don't accept the God we do? Or even jews?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
BACK ON TOPIC

So, now my top five movies of the year are:

Batman Begins
Serenity
Narnia
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
King Kong.

No particular order, just depends on my mood.

4

Author
Time
Now I'm torn on whether I'll actually see Kong.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
I haven't seen Kong yet but I do want to still see in in the theater (could see it by other means....whistle whistle why would you look at the weather) but I have odd reservations about it going in. I'm sure its very well produced if a tad long but I still question the *need* for the pic. Probably just me.
Author
Time
Heh. I thought it was worth it just to stare at Naomi Watts for three hours.

4

Author
Time
I was lucky. My brother got me the Jurassic Park DVD box set, which had a coupon for a free movie ticket to see Kong, so I did that. I enjoyed it.
Author
Time
I've already explained my views on the disappointing Kong. Narnia was good but only because I have a soft spot for the books from when I was a kid - not sure how it actually rates as a movie or even an adaptation. I haven't seen Serenity, Batman Begins was pretty good but didn't make my willy go as hard as it did some of you guys, and I like Hitchhikers guide a lot, although it seemed a bit rushed and probably didn't make much sense to a lot of people.

I just looked at a list of every movie released in 2005 and of the ones I've seen, which is basiaclly all the major releases and a few not so major, I really can't justify creating a top 5 list. The films I really enjoyed the most were Howl's moving Castle, Wallace and Gromit and Harry Potter 4. The films last year were so awful, ROTS makes my list just because it's Star Wars.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
YIYF-

Yeah 'Curse of the Were-Rabbit' was absolutely one of my top five of the year! I just love Wallace and Grommit anyhow. My favorite line? (has to be heard instead of written though) "I'll tell you what it was... it was arson!" *gasp* "Arson?!?!?" "Yes- one of you has been arsin' about!" Ahahhahahaaaaaaaaa!

On the flip side I HATED 'Hitchhiker's Guide' with a passion. And no not because I didn't 'get it' but because I thought they raped the original works and spirit thereof and only sprinkled in random stuff to try and appease fans. I had to go listen to the original radio dramas twice and re-watch the BBC series on DVD just to get the taste out of my mouth. Typical happy Hollywood endings?!?! WTF was *that* all about???? *sigh*
Author
Time
Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the exception of "no wait, it's on the other end of the universe" line, didn't it end the same way as the book.

(I haven't seen the BBC series or Radio Dramas, so I can't compare those.)

4

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the exception of "no wait, it's on the other end of the universe" line, didn't it end the same way as the book.

(I haven't seen the BBC series or Radio Dramas, so I can't compare those.)

Nope- The dramas and book end with a firefight on Magrathea between our heroes and some space cops, an explosion, some shenanagins and then:

Chapter 35

That night, as the Heart of Gold was busy putting a few light
years between itself and the Horsehead Nebula, Zaphod lounged
under the small palm tree on the bridge trying to bang his brain
into shape with massive Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters; Ford and
Trillian sat in a corner discussing life and matters arising from
it; and Arthur took to his bed to flip through Ford's copy of The
Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Since he was going to live in
the place, he reasoned, he'd better start finding out something
about it.

He came across this entry.

It said: 'The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends
to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of
Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How,
Why and Where phases.

"For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question
How can we eat? the second by the question Why do we eat? and the
third by the question Where shall we have lunch?"

He got no further before the ship's intercom buzzed into life.

"Hey Earthman? You hungry kid?" said Zaphod's voice.

"Er, well yes, a little peckish I suppose," said Arthur.

"OK baby, hold tight," said Zaphod. "We'll take in a quick bite
at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe."


No 'we're back on the new Earth and everyone is alive again and now we can be a happy couple together- the end' stuff. The point of the tale(s) in general are to point out the ridiculous and pointless nature of human existence in the most amusing and non sequitor way possible.
Author
Time
Very true, but when you have Disney underwriting the production, that's what happens. Anyone remember the ending of Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid? FAR from the happy ending in the Disney version.

Personally, I appreciated the film for what it was, although I wouldn't put it on my Best Films of 2005 list.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: greencapt

Nope- The dramas and book end with a firefight on Magrathea between our heroes and some space cops, an explosion, some shenanagins and then:

No 'we're back on the new Earth and everyone is alive again and now we can be a happy couple together- the end' stuff. The point of the tale(s) in general are to point out the ridiculous and pointless nature of human existence in the most amusing and non sequitor way possible.


Right, but the film DOES that, just not as bleakly as the novels, and Earth comes back in the novels anyway even if it is for different reasons.

4