scenes for cold read
argue about movies/
sign in, tell us your thoughts :)
| I'll grant you that we, as American's take our freedom for granted WAY WAY too much, and that Private Ryan was good in a LOT of senses. Never the less, Shakespeare in Love was EXREMELY clever and far more entertaining. There, winning the Oscar, was certainly a matter of opinion which both sides could make a convincing case for. But How dare you (Adam Carolla) state that reservoir dogs was "kickass." You know what was KICKASS about it, the opening scene. That kicked ass. Yes, I agree that Casino was bloody violent, but it was violence based on anger. Resevoir Dogs was anger based on SICKNESS. SICKNESS. I mean, the Simpsons even did a rendition of it in an Itchy and Scratchy episode. If that doesn't prove my point I don't know what would. as for totall recall, it is unbelievable violence. In the sense that, it's like, yeah right, laughable.
Okay, I have absolutely proven my point here. Any one who liked reservoir dogs, in my opinion, which is naturally correct, is a "philistine" -------------------------------------
Subject: Reply to a reply.
Okay, first off, to be BLUNT, as you put it, you are a hypocrite. How can I
be wrong in voicing my opinion on "Reservoir Dogs"? It was a kickass movie
and I happened to have loved it, you didn't, okay.(I do agree with you on
your opinion of "Dogma", it was a shitty movie)
But I seem to remember you
complaining about how "Reservoir Dogs" was too violent. Well, let's take a
look at "Total Recall", which graphically was a hell of a lot more violent
then "Reservoir Dogs". Let's keep in mind that in "Reservoir Dogs" the ear
hacking scene happened off-screen and much of the shooting violence happened
so fast that if you blinked your eye you would miss it.
Let's also take a
look at another movie that you LOVED, "Casino". Now this was a kickass flick,
but there is a level of hypocracy here. It also happened to be a hell of a
lot more violent than "Reservoir Dogs". Have you forgotten the guy getting
his head squeazed in a vice until his eye popped out? Or Joe Pesci stabbing
the guy in the throat with the pen? Or Joe Pesci and his brother getting
beaten to death by baseball bats? Pretty violent stuff.
Then there is the
point you made on "Shakespeare in Love", or the point that you failed to make
which is that it is a complete fabrication of crap that should have never
seen the Oscars. I mean, you have "Saving Private Ryan", which is a story
about men, our grandfathers, fighting and dying to defend the freedom that
unfortunately most Americans take for granted today, and then you have
"Shakespeare in Love", a movie that re-writes history so much it would make
Oliver Stone blush.
Now which do you really think is a more significant movie
for this day in age? And which one really deserved the Oscar? Think about
that.
Now back to my original point, think about how you bash "Reservoir
Dogs" for being too violent when you praise other flicks that are much more
violent. I mean, isn't that just a tad hypocritical? If you're going to bash
a Tarantino movie, bash "Four Rooms" for God's sake! That was a piece of
crap. So, to put it bluntly, "Reservoir Dogs" good, "Shakespeare in Love"
bad, and you are WRONG!
|