Darth Solo's movie i seen last night opinion, be it an old or new filum. — Page 4

So it's just about right?

Yet underrated...Shut up morons!

Your ripping my tread to shit. I hope an appeal to not be serious have an adverse effect from here on in.

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Godfather is overrated. As is Brando's performance in it.

I have to disagree with you there.   Imho,  Godfather one of the best movies ever made.    It places 2nd in my list.   Casablanca is 1st in my list.     Brando is perfect in the role of Vito Corleone.    Al Pacino also gives a great performance.   All the actors in that movie do.   You are of course entitled to your opinion.   I'm curious,  why do you believe it to be overrated? 

 

As for Mel Gibson.   I object to the things he said about Jewish people,  but I try to judge his films on their own.    As for gays in Braveheart,  I didn't see anything wrong.   The film takes place in the 1300s gays were much less acceptable, and prejudice against them and other minorities would be common. 

The film gave a very negative portrayal of gays and used a character being gay as a way of showing him as contemptible. The film also invites you to get a kick out of a gay guy being thrown out a window.

As for his comments about Jews, I think they say something about him and I don't want to be watching a guy like that onscreen.

I have to disagree with you there.   Imho,  Godfather one of the best movies ever made.    It places 2nd in my list.   Casablanca is 1st in my list.     Brando is perfect in the role of Vito Corleone.    Al Pacino also gives a great performance.   All the actors in that movie do.   You are of course entitled to your opinion.   I'm curious,  why do you believe it to be overrated? 

It doesn't have any great emotional depth, which is what you need for a film to be great. And Brando's performance doesn't give us enough. Brando's much better in Don Juan De Marco than he is in his most acclaimed performances. Al Pacino is good in it but his performance only goes so far. Godfather 3 had rather more emotional depth than Godfather.

vote_for_palpatine said:

The film gave a very negative portrayal of gays and used a character being gay as a way of showing him as contemptible.

Is it your opinion that gays should only be portrayed in a positive light? That gays should not ever be shown as evil, lazy, weird, or stupid? Because that's just not reality. Gays are like the rest are world - some are great people, some are terrible, and some just go along unnoticed. Positive stereotypes are no better than the negative ones.

That's twisting the situation. I'm hardly saying gays should only be portrayed in a positive light. In this situation their gayness was a subject of mockery and it was clearly portrayed as being a negative trait.

Darth Solo said:

I hope an appeal to not be serious have an adverse effect from here on in.

C3PX already made reference to this, but let me break this down for you as I read it. 

You've asked us to not be serious = you've asked us to be silly.  No problem.

You hope that asking us to be silly has an adverse effect on the thread.  That remains to be seen.

;-)

I wonder if Darth Solo's jobbies have anything to do with Xhonzi's exploding asses.

I is lost for words for once......

Hang on......yes... did you see a filum last night? Rate it according to my original post glidelines. :-)

Um, Bonanza: Under Attack. I forget what your method was. Tv movie from 1995, sequel to the Bonanza tv show. Watched it because Leonard Nimoy was in it. Nimoy was good. The film was not impressive, but I didn't expect it to be. Dennis Farina was in it and was also good.

I still think you'll have trouble turning your head in that royal guard helmet.

Vaderisnothayden said:

The film gave a very negative portrayal of gays and used a character being gay as a way of showing him as contemptible. The film also invites you to get a kick out of a gay guy being thrown out a window.

but I don't think it invites to get a kick out of it because he was gay.  You get a kick out it because it shows what kind of badass Longshanks is.   I think we would have gotten just as much a kick out of that scene if the guy had been straight.  In fact, when I first watched this movie, way back when it was in the theater,  I didn't get that Longshanks' son was gay and that the guy Longshanks threw out the window was his boyfriend.   I thought he was just Edward jr's friend, and I still got a kick out of the scene.   

Vaderisnothayden said:

As for his comments about Jews, I think they say something about him and I don't want to be watching a guy like that onscreen.

well,  I guess some people can separate his comments from his movies and some us can't.    Its that way with me and Michael Vick.   Some Eagle fans can separate what he did and performance on the field and cheer for him.   I can't.

Vaderisnothayden said:

I have to disagree with you there.   Imho,  Godfather one of the best movies ever made.    It places 2nd in my list.   Casablanca is 1st in my list.     Brando is perfect in the role of Vito Corleone.    Al Pacino also gives a great performance.   All the actors in that movie do.   You are of course entitled to your opinion.   I'm curious,  why do you believe it to be overrated? 

It doesn't have any great emotional depth, which is what you need for a film to be great. And Brando's performance doesn't give us enough. Brando's much better in Don Juan De Marco than he is in his most acclaimed performances. Al Pacino is good in it but his performance only goes so far. Godfather 3 had rather more emotional depth than Godfather.

Godfather doesn't have great emotional depth?  Well maybe not,  but it has good emotional depth and it has great performances, great characters  great story,  great soundtrack, great scenes, great lines, .     I think you have to go beyond just how much emotional depth a movie has to measure how great a movie is.     Brando's may not give you enough, but it certainly does give me enough.   I'm not sure what else you could have asked him to do in the role. 

As for Godfather 3,  I'll agree its better than most people think it is.  But is still is not anywhere near as good as the first one.   The emotional depth is the problem.   It doesn't fit with the rest of the series.  I can kind of understand Michael Corleone being weaker in this movie,  but it required Andrew Garcia to step it up a notch and give the great kind of performance that Brando, Pacino, and De De Niro  all gave in the first two movies. It also required  Vincent Corleone's character to be the kind of leader that Michael and Vito Corleone were.  Neither happened.    Also, Sofia Coppola was a terrible pick for Mary Corleone.  No EMOTIONAL DEPTH there.   Pacino over acts, and Coppola does bad job of directing this one.    I think you could kind of say he overdirected it.  

C3PX said:

Casablanca is overrated. And underrated. At the same time. 

I'm not sure I understand you.   Could you please elaborate?  

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

The film gave a very negative portrayal of gays and used a character being gay as a way of showing him as contemptible. The film also invites you to get a kick out of a gay guy being thrown out a window.

but I don't think it invites to get a kick out of it because he was gay.  You get a kick out it because it shows what kind of badass Longshanks is.   I think we would have gotten just as much a kick out of that scene if the guy had been straight.  In fact, when I first watched this movie, way back when it was in the theater,  I didn't get that Longshanks' son was gay and that the guy Longshanks threw out the window was his boyfriend.   I thought he was just Edward jr's friend, and I still got a kick out of the scene.   

Vaderisnothayden said:

As for his comments about Jews, I think they say something about him and I don't want to be watching a guy like that onscreen.

well,  I guess some people can separate his comments from his movies and some us can't.    Its that way with me and Michael Vick.   Some Eagle fans can separate what he did and performance on the field and cheer for him.   I can't.

Vaderisnothayden said:

I have to disagree with you there.   Imho,  Godfather one of the best movies ever made.    It places 2nd in my list.   Casablanca is 1st in my list.     Brando is perfect in the role of Vito Corleone.    Al Pacino also gives a great performance.   All the actors in that movie do.   You are of course entitled to your opinion.   I'm curious,  why do you believe it to be overrated? 

It doesn't have any great emotional depth, which is what you need for a film to be great. And Brando's performance doesn't give us enough. Brando's much better in Don Juan De Marco than he is in his most acclaimed performances. Al Pacino is good in it but his performance only goes so far. Godfather 3 had rather more emotional depth than Godfather.

Godfather doesn't have great emotional depth?  Well maybe not,  but it has good emotional depth and it has great performances, great characters  great story,  great soundtrack, great scenes, great lines, .     I think you have to go beyond just how much emotional depth a movie has to measure how great a movie is.     Brando's may not give you enough, but it certainly does give me enough.   I'm not sure what else you could have asked him to do in the role. 

As for Godfather 3,  I'll agree its better than most people think it is.  But is still is not anywhere near as good as the first one.   The emotional depth is the problem.   It doesn't fit with the rest of the series.  I can kind of understand Michael Corleone being weaker in this movie,  but it required Andrew Garcia to step it up a notch and give the great kind of performance that Brando, Pacino, and De De Niro  all gave in the first two movies. It also required  Vincent Corleone's character to be the kind of leader that Michael and Vito Corleone were.  Neither happened.    Also, Sofia Coppola was a terrible pick for Mary Corleone.  No EMOTIONAL DEPTH there.   Pacino over acts, and Coppola does bad job of directing this one.    I think you could kind of say he overdirected it.  

 

but I don't think it invites to get a kick out of it because he was gay.  You get a kick out it because it shows what kind of badass Longshanks is.  

I disagree. I think we're supposed to despise him because he's gay and get a kick out of his death because he's gay.

Godfather doesn't have great emotional depth?  Well maybe not,  but it has good emotional depth and it has great performances, great characters  great story,  great soundtrack, great scenes, great lines, .  

I don't think it has great performances. It has good performances. And without great performances it cannot have great characters. I don't care about the soundtrack either way. It has some good scenes. I think its lines are overrated. Good emotional depth? I don't know. It didn't much affect me. They never give you much reason to care for these characters. 

I think you have to go beyond just how much emotional depth a movie has to measure how great a movie is.  

I disagree. Emotional depth is the key to art.

   Brando's may not give you enough, but it certainly does give me enough.   I'm not sure what else you could have asked him to do in the role.

A better actor could have made the character more of a full human being and more relatable. He could have given it more emotional depth.

As for Godfather 3,  I'll agree its better than most people think it is.  But is still is not anywhere near as good as the first one.   The emotional depth is the problem.   It doesn't fit with the rest of the series.  I can kind of understand Michael Corleone being weaker in this movie,  but it required Andrew Garcia to step it up a notch and give the great kind of performance that Brando, Pacino, and De De Niro  all gave in the first two movies. It also required  Vincent Corleone's character to be the kind of leader that Michael and Vito Corleone were.  Neither happened.    Also, Sofia Coppola was a terrible pick for Mary Corleone.  No EMOTIONAL DEPTH there.   Pacino over acts, and Coppola does bad job of directing this one.    I think you could kind of say he overdirected it.  

I disagree thoroughly about Sofia Coppola. I think she did a good performance and added to the film. Yes there is emotional depth there. Yes the film doesn't fit with the rest of the series, because it's the only one with much emotional depth. It's a good thing that it does not fit with the series. I don't think Garcia did much of a performance. Nic Cage wanted the part. It should have been given to him. Cage is far more talented than Garcia. But the film works despite the shortcomings of Garcia's performance. Godfather 3 is an interesting film and it's the only Godfather film I would say that about.

The Sopranos was so much better than the Godfather trilogy.

well,  I guess some people can separate his comments from his movies and some us can't.    Its that way with me and Michael Vick.   Some Eagle fans can separate what he did and performance on the field and cheer for him.   I can't.

It's not simply a question of whether you can or not. Rather I think you shouldn't separate his comments from his movies, when his comments are so extreme.

Warbler said:

C3PX said:

Casablanca is overrated. And underrated. At the same time. 

I'm not sure I understand you.   Could you please elaborate?  

Earlier in the thread...

C3PX said:

Casablanca is overrated. And underrated. At the same time

TV's Frink said:

So it's just about right?

C3PX said:

Dude, you're me! You knew what I meant!

How are you enjoying the off-topic section, DS?  Moth3r suggested you come here for comedy, right? ;-)

Well I don't know what C3PX meant and Frink is my sock and C3PX is his sock, so C3PX must be my sock too.

NO MATH IN THIS THREAD PLEASE!

DS, I watched about a third of RedLetterMedia's Star Trek Review Extravaganza last night.  But I guess that doesn't count as a movie.

Did he kill his wife in it?

Vaderisnothayden, I couldn't disagree with you more about the Godfathers film.  But, you're entitled to your opinion.   I guess we just have different tastes when it comes to movies and that's ok.   

As for Gibsom.   Yes his statements are unacceptable, but why let that deprive you from enjoying his movies?   I can perhaps understand not wanting to buy a ticket to his movie and give him money.  But you can still the enjoy his movies when they come on TV.   Even if want to take it as far as not watching his movies and boycotting everything Gibson,  I still don't understand letting his statements affect you opinions how good or bad the movie is.  For instance,  I boycott the Eagles because of Michael Vick.   But  I don't let that affect how I evaluate Vick as a QB nor do I let it affect how I evaluate the quality of the Eagles' team as a whole.    see what I mean?

As for Braveheart,  if we were only supposed to get a kick out of the death  because the guy was gay,  explain I how got a kick out of it without knowing he was gay?

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden, I couldn't disagree with you more about the Godfathers film.  But, you're entitled to your opinion.   I guess we just have different tastes when it comes to movies and that's ok.   

As for Gibsom.   Yes his statements are unacceptable, but why let that deprive you from enjoying his movies?   I can perhaps understand not wanting to buy a ticket to his movie and give him money.  But you can still the enjoy his movies when they come on TV.   Even if want to take it as far as not watching his movies and boycotting everything Gibson,  I still don't understand letting his statements affect you opinions how good or bad the movie is.  For instance,  I boycott the Eagles because of Michael Vick.   But  I don't let that affect how I evaluate Vick as a QB nor do I let it affect how I evaluate the quality of the Eagles' team as a whole.    see what I mean?

As for Braveheart,  if we were only supposed to get a kick out of the death  because the guy was gay,  explain I how got a kick out of it without knowing he was gay?

Because he's portrayed as an eejit. But his being portrayed as an eejit is part of the anti-gay thing. You're supposed to get a kick out of seeing a gay guy go out the window. I'm sorry but that's obvious. Just because you didn't know and got a kick anyway doesn't change it.

As for Gibsom.   Yes his statements are unacceptable, but why let that deprive you from enjoying his movies? 

Well I don't know how anybody could enjoy his movies knowing about his views.

I still don't understand letting his statements affect you opinions how good or bad the movie is. 

Well, as far as I'm concerned having Gibson in a movie is like having a big crap front and center the whole movie. I don't want to watch that and I don't think it's much good.

C3PX said:

Warbler said:

That said, I think the movie is overrated to a good degree. I think it just gets far more credit than any film deserves. It is elevated to the level that for someone to say they don't like it is almost blasphemous. To an extent, I think we are even at the point where proclaiming it one of the, if not the greatest film of all time is a prerequisite to being considered a true film geek. Sometime I wonder if half the people who "love it" don't do so simply because they feel they should, rather than because of their own honest objective viewing of the film. (Don't think I doubt that you genuinely like the movie, Warb. I've no doubt that you do).

A lot of "classics" get that treatment.