Customer Discussions > Movie forum

Agree Or Disagree


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 509 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 7, 2013 5:16:01 PM PST
Oz le Fou says:
Agree. I prefer Guffman over Best in Show, but I also feel it it mocks its targets a little better. I've known couples who wear matching tracksuits! Still, I enjoy all the Guest mockumentaries.

Statement: There is some old-fashioned class stereotypes going on in Jackson's Lord of the Rings. The high and mighty all speak well, with a posher accent, and as we go down the scale (Elf/Wizard to Hobbit to Orc) the accents get more and more cockney-fied. Forget the war of the ring, this is class war!

Posted on Jan 7, 2013 4:15:47 PM PST
Disagree: His best is still his first: Waiting for Guffman. Coming from a theatre background, Guffman will always be my favorite. It was very funny and had great performances. Exagerated, yes, but real. I imagine dog show people feel the same way about Best in Show, but for me, it's Guffman.

Posted on Jan 7, 2013 11:04:14 AM PST
AJA says:
Disagree: Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein were much better spoofs than Spaceballs. Then there is Woody Allen's What's Up Tiger Lily? where he took a Japanese-language secret agent movie and applied his own dubbed script. Talk about a hilarious spoof . . . .

Statement: Best in Show is Christopher Guest's best mockumentary.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 7, 2013 7:46:45 AM PST
El Emmarino says:
RE: "There is literally nothing like A Rocky Horror Picture Show that has come out before or after, and as such could very well be the single most original film of the 1970's."

Agreed. But I feel its important to note, half the fun is actually attending the theater. For those who have not seen a midnight showing... run to your nearest art theater ASAP!!!

RE: "Statement: "Start The Revolution Without Me" is a very funny film, one of Gene Wilder's and Donald Sutherland's best efforts. "

Good movie... but then again Gene Wilder is a god. I think `Everything you Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask' is the only Wilder movie I haven't enjoyed. And yes that includes `Haunted Honeymoon'.

STATEMENT: `Spaceballs' is by far the greatest spoof movie ever made.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 2, 2013 2:43:29 PM PST
Oz le Fou says:
;)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 2, 2013 2:39:04 PM PST
Damnit.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 2, 2013 2:37:32 PM PST
Oz le Fou says:
Re: GETTING BACK TO MOVIES NOW, PLEASE!!!!

We were talking about movies, or to be precise, the depiction of aliens in film and what is deemed realistic or not.

!!!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 2, 2013 2:35:54 PM PST
Oz le Fou says:
Re: crop circles

Maybe these aliens are just a roving gang of graffiti artists?

Posted on Jan 2, 2013 12:46:36 PM PST
Larry Kelley says:
Agreed: It might be one of the most original films ever. I have a Horror (ible) fascination for the film--I watch it every time it comes on TV--which, thankfully isn't that often. Delving into the past: Statement: "Start The Revolution Without Me" is a very funny film, one of Gene Wilder's and Donald Sutherland's best efforts.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 2, 2013 8:31:28 AM PST
PoM: Agreed. And I'd probably group it with the likes of Ruthless People, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Airplane! (Back to the Future is a great movie, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's one of the funniest films of the decade). Plenty of solid comedies in 1980 and 1984 if I do say so myself.

Statement: There is literally nothing like A Rocky Horror Picture Show that has come out before or after, and as such could very well be the single most original film of the 1970's.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 2, 2013 5:05:15 AM PST
Agreed. That may be in the top five of the best posts I've seen yet here on this forum.

GETTING BACK TO MOVIES NOW, PLEASE!!!!

Statement: Ghostbusters is one of the five funniest movies of the 80s.

Posted on Jan 2, 2013 2:25:19 AM PST
One thing we can all agree on: Aliens have to have a sense of humor. Why else would any group of beings spend great time, research and resources to travel billions of miles to our planet, wait till it's dark then sneak down to earth and mash a lot of corn and wheat creating crop circles, then take off before the sun rises, and hurry to their home planet, snickering and laughing all the way. To play such an expensive joke on the people of the Earth, you gotta have a great sense of humor.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 2, 2013 12:59:33 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 2, 2013 1:09:27 AM PST
Oz le Fou says:
Gordo: For a sentient alien race to ever come visit our planet, it must follow at least enough of the criteria before one can call it ''realistic.''

Why? I don't get it. An alien with no arms, legs, eyes, etc may still be able to visit us, still be able to conquer us. The need for the visiting alien race to resemble us in any way just doesn't make any sense to me.

Gordo: There is, however, a bit of room for creative ideas like the squid-like aliens so long as they are portrayed more as animalistic. But...that would mean the creatures would cease being sentient.

Ummm, animals are sentient beings, Gordo. But back to the topic, why can't a squid-like alien be smart...or smarter than us. Are arms and legs the universal signature of intelligence? Just coz we have thumbs doesn't mean an alien should.

Gordo: The only thing realistic about the War of the Worlds aliens was the fact that they not only could breathe our atmosphere, but also fell victim to the very diseases in which they never built immunities to.

I find this unrealistic. The idea that they can breathe our air is unrealistic. A more (and I hazard to use the word) realistic angle would be that they can't breathe our air, but rather need suits, or masks to enable their dastardly stroll on Earth. A more realistic angle would be they wear masks, don't catch a cold, and wipe us off the face of the planet.

Gordo: A key factor in realistic aliens is that they have to be capable of breathing in the same kind of atmosphere as us.

I would say the opposite rings truer. They are ALIENS. Not to say they couldn't breathe in our atmosphere, but that it makes more sense that they are of a different atmosphere..as they are...you know...ALIENS.

Gordo: Besides, if they didn't have a mouth, eyes, arms, and/or legs, how could they survive?

Do you mean survive on Earth or "out there"? If Earth, well, technology would offer a plethora of ways, with the simplest, most obvious way being a body suit.
If you mean "out there", or in general, then again, many factors could play a role, including the fact that over time they may have evolved past the need for eyes, arms, etc. Maybe they never had them, as they have developed and evolved in an ALIEN ENVIRONMENT, with different conditions altering their evolutionary process and creating sentient beings that are...well...ALIEN TO US.

Gordo: But all creatures need a mouth of some sort; how could they survive otherwise?

Let's say they have a mouth, but it's under their tentacle pit. Why not? They are ALIENS!!!!!

Re: Statement

Sometimes, Gordo, I just don't know. I worry.

Statement: Any and all aliens depicted in film are outside reality as we know it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 11:41:59 PM PST
No comment, as I wish to steer clear from politics at this time.

And as a continuation, let me refrase this: For a sentient alien race to ever come visit our planet, it must follow at least enough of the criteria before one can call it ''realistic.'' Examples include many of the alien races in Star Trek and Mass Effect (there's a bit of scientific implossibilities in the latter, but the ideas--and the overall package--is compelling). There is, however, a bit of room for creative ideas like the squid-like aliens so long as they are portrayed more as animalistic.

But...that would mean the creatures would cease being sentient. And if that's the case, how can they successfully invade our planet (unless we become stupid enough to bring them down here ourselves)?

Now--and here's the irony about this--if the inclusion of such freaky aliens with platinum wheels and all that were in something more outlandish, there'd be more than plenty of room for suspension of disbelief. But in ''realistic'' alien invasion fair? The only thing realistic about the War of the Worlds aliens was the fact that they not only could breathe our atmosphere, but also fell victim to the very diseases in which they never built immunities to--like we did (after all, wasn't it foreign European diseases that fell the Miyans and claimed Pocahontas's life?). A key factor in realistic aliens is that they have to be capable of breathing in the same kind of atmosphere as us (no matter how one likes to point at evolution, it is literally impossible for any living creature to survive in a radically different atmosphere from our own, alien or not).

But as far as biologically, physically, and psychologically's concerned, no such creature with such designs could ever exist in our realm possessing a strong, firm enough sentience to rival or surpass ourselves. Technologically, it's a different matter entirely and can be forgiven (after all, one of the main ideas behind an alien invasion flick is that humanity must be at a disadvantage in some way, shape or form against the invading forces).

Besides, if they didn't have a mouth, eyes, arms, and/or legs, how could they survive (the latter two unless they're snakes)? Perhaps if they're blind or lost their eyes in some way, but even bats--a whole collection of species in of themselves known for being blind--have eyes. But all creatures need a mouth of some sort; how could they survive otherwise (and please, do not cite any streanious explanations like I made with the eyes)?

So with all that said...

Statement: The one thing we can all safely not have to worry about in Idiocracy is the fact that, even though it reflects that society's getting dumber, we could never sink that low intellectually and not suffer a calamity great enough to reduce our population considerably (and thus, Darwinism kicks in via the Four Horsemen effect).

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 11:12:01 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2013 11:12:58 PM PST
Oz le Fou says:
Gordo: The likelihood of extra terrestrial life existing elsewhere in our Universe appear to be nonexistent.

To our eyes - and telescopes and satellites and space-craft and rovers - yes, but our own existence can be looked at as proof of what is possible. We're here, so why not someone (or something) else elsewhere?

Gordo: They have to have the same bodily structure we have (doesn't have to be identical, but they must have a mouth, eyes, arms, legs, and all the basic features which have came to define our own existence); they must be sentient; they must be capable of speech; they must be knowledgable; and they must be calculating.

Disagree. Why must they have mouth, eyes, arms, legs, and all the basic features which have come to define our own existence? Why not a mouth/nose combination; a merging of sensory tools? Why not tentacles in place of arms? Why not platinum wheels attached to the lower half of the "torso" instead of legs? Why not hearing that serves as eyes (aren't there bats that do this?)? Why *must* they have any of the basic features that define the human form?

Gordo: ...one can willingly suspend their disbelief for thematic purposes in that regards.

An alien is an alien is an alien, whether it resembles us or not, and the suspension of disbelief needed to accept one alien is the same as needed to accept another. No diff, Biff.

Statement: Laura Bush is an alien.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:41:22 PM PST
Disagree on Paths of Glory; it's good, but not among Kubrick's best (if one is to stick to just the 3 best films Kubrick has done, a better third selection would include A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut). I do, however, agree on 2001 and Strangelove.

Statement: The likelihood of extra terrestrial life existing elsewhere in our Universe appear to be nonexistent. With that said, when one freely discusses the possibility of life existing beyond our world--particularly life capable of leading an invasion--one must take into account the following criteria: They have to have the same bodily structure we have (doesn't have to be identical, but they must have a mouth, eyes, arms, legs, and all the basic features which have came to define our own existence); they must be sentient; they must be capable of speech; they must be knowledgable; and they must be calculating. One can even go a step further in which they have to be, at best, just a tad more technologically advanced that we are (simply enough to invade our planet before we can settle on another), but one can willingly suspend their disbelief for thematic purposes in that regards.

Posted on Jan 1, 2013 7:19:13 PM PST
Statement: 2001, Dr. Strangelove, and Paths of Glory are Kubrick's best films.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:09:28 PM PST
Oz le Fou says:
You know, that does explain why my uncle Harry is such a weird fella.

Good point about "realistic". As we have exactly zero reference points when it comes to the reality of aliens, it could be said that all filmic alien creations are equally realistic (or unrealistic, I guess).

The first thought that came to mind when reading Gordo's response was why would a confirmed Christian believe God would make any other creature but ourselves in "His image", thus, I would have thought, making any filmic alien creation that resembles us completely unrealistic (to a Christian, that is).

Tis all supposition.

Posted on Jan 1, 2013 3:55:29 PM PST
Larry Kelley says:
Jeff: I agree with you, in particular about the space ships. That was something I had never seen before, and truthfully the last time I watched the film I was amazed that they could create something that seemed so real in that time period. The movie that really bothered me was one I watched when I was in the third grade--"Invaders from Mars". That one really spooked me--I was 7 years old and after I came out of the movie I kept sneaking around behind people to see if they had that nasty little X mark on the back of their necks!! That movie did not have the awful beauty of George Pal's movie, but it sure had a frightening story. I still find myself looking at the back of some people's neck--their are some very strange people around.

Posted on Jan 1, 2013 3:46:07 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2013 3:49:11 PM PST
Gordo:
Of course Pal's Martians are realistic; they're as realistic as anyone else's concept of what an alien should look like. Do we have to blindly accept the Hollywood version of what an alien should look like? Until War of the Worlds, and long after, aliens were always humans dressed in alien suits, walking upright bipedally with two arms and two eyes. The only difference was whether they were wearing feathers or scales. Is it our collective ego which demands that Martians alway look like us? Because they were so different, I loved Pal's blobs with skinny legs and little skin and the whole everything-in-threes motif. That extended to their armed vehicles with their heat and light rays which destroyed everything. Those ships were beautiful and another departure from the standard flying saucers used by humanoid aliens to kill us. Who is to say how realistic they are but it was an exciting departure from the norm for a little kid who was used to thinking that aliens looked just like his uncle Harry.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 1:29:56 PM PST
Balok says:
@Gordo:

Agree, mainly because the films that I'd pick over All about Eve all seem to have been released in 1951, and I'm not sure that I could justify saying that any of Summer Stock, Born Yesterday, or Stage Fright is superior to All about Eve.

Statement: any film that takes as its premise "A young woman disappears and the hero (or hero and sidekick(s)) spends the rest of the movie looking for her" will be greatly beloved by the Movie Fanboys but in fact will be seriously overrated (at least if the movie is The Searchers, L'Avventura, or The Vanishing). (Note that I'm willing to give "adventure movies in which the hero rescues the heroine from the fortress in which she's being held captive by the bad guy" a pass here)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:58:15 AM PST
Disagree: Any alien designs that look like some sort of weird--looking game cannot be the slightest bit realistic. As far as alien designs go, I'd go with The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951).

Statement: The five best films of 1950 are All About Eve, Sunset Boulevard, Rashomon, Orpheus, and La Ronde, with honorable mentions including the likes of King Solomon's Mines, Gun Crazy, Rio Grande, Winchester '73, and Harvey among many others.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2013 7:53:46 AM PST
Jeff Donaldson: All the more reason the year is the worst in the decade. The only films you mentioned that I have any liking for are Interiors and Autumn Sonata; Grease is borderline, and I haven't seen Last Wave yet.

At least in stark contrast to, say, 1970, there were two genuinely great movies in the form of Patton and MASH. I'm struggling to think of a single standout film beyond Superman and Halloween.

Posted on Jan 1, 2013 12:12:10 AM PST
Disagree. How can any year with titles such as Coming Home, An Unmarried Woman, The End, Heaven Can Wait, Interiors, Grease, Days of Heaven, Comes a Horseman, Movie Movie, The Deer Hunter, The Boys from Brazil, Autumn Sonata and The Last Wave ever be considered the worst year? It may not be 1974 but it's certainly not the worst of the decade.

Statement: The aliens created by George Pal in The War of the Worlds (1953) are the most realistic of all alien invaders in the history of American film.

Posted on Dec 31, 2012 11:34:08 PM PST
Agreed.

Statement: 1978 is the single worst year in movies in the entire decade.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


ARRAY(0xd9de3c14)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  26
Total posts:  509
Initial post:  Oct 30, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 7, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions