Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 116
  1. #61  
    Originally posted by bkbk
    ("Ah, but I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now. B.Dylan [right?]
    "My Back Pages," 1964; best known as performed by the Byrds.

    Not that just because J. Park did $600M [right?] it AUTO. MAKES it a "better film" -- but I think you DO have to ask: "If it SUCKS, why did so many ppl. pay $9 to see it?"
    Big box office doesn't prove a film is good, just that it's popular. The Blair Witch Project made a lot of money, but half the people I've talked about it with thought it was terrible.

    A film (I think) I can "wholeheartedly recommend" ...
    you're in the wrong thread ...
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  2. #62  
    bkbk, the joke was " take the last letter of the post before it" thingy... I still don't get it.....

    IQ... dropping...


    ---

    Ok, now on to Toby.

    True, but I wasn't doing it on purpose. Therefore, the means was not justified! Oh wait... that's not a good thing for me...


    Ok. I'll look at it like this. Can you even hold legible ground in DEFENDING the fact that "George of the Jungle" as a movie, was NOT the quintessence of stupidity? Discount dictionary defines stupidity as: "The state of being stupid." The only people at the end of the movie who I saw who ENJOYED it were those who were retarded (scuse me, LEARNING DISABLED) . It was right on their level!

    I doubt anyone who would participate in this argument would have the lack of brain cells necessary to find it amusing. Therefore, by calling it "stupid" in my case, or the "quintessence of stupidity" essentially tells you: It's stupid. You know why.


    ok, i go now.
    <b><font size=1 color=teal>"Sorry about the whole thing about losing your life savings, but that Palmpilot is property of Enron, so please give it back"
  3. #63  
    well, if we're going to get into semantics ...

    Originally posted by bblue
    Ok. I'll look at it like this. Can you even hold legible ground
    legible: that which can be read.
    Ground: 1) the surface or soil of the earth; 2) the basis for a logical conclusion; 3) a conductive body.
    Ah doan geht it.

    I doubt anyone who would participate in this argument would have the lack of brain cells necessary to find it amusing.
    While I didn't find it stellar by any means, I did find it amusing. That's just a personal response. I certainly don't lack for brain cells (depending on who you talk to, of course).
    Therefore, by calling it "stupid" in my case, or the "quintessence of stupidity" essentially tells you: It's stupid. You know why.
    Based on this argument, To understand that you are considering the movie as stupid one would need to know or have seen the movie.
    The original objective, as stated by bukbuk in his initial post, "If you get a good chance to see these films, PASS." i.e. you're expected to post that this is movie I've seen, here are my reasons why I think you shouldn't bother to see it.
    Your statement, "It's Stupid. You Know why." would seem to assume that a) I know why you think it's stupid and b) I would think it to be stupid for the same reasons. My mind-reading powers are not at their peak yet, to be sure, but I still don't know why you think it's stupid.
    Leonard Maltin, a trusted and well-known movie reviewer, gave it two and a half stars.
    Roger Ebert, an equally well-known reviewer, given to spewing much venom at films he dislikes, gave it three stars.
    I think it's reasonable to assume that you think it's stupid, and others will disagree, but without any statements to support your claim (on this movie and others) I have trouble listening to you.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  4. #64  
    Originally posted by bblue
    Ok. I'll look at it like this. Can you even hold legible ground in DEFENDING the fact that "George of the Jungle" as a movie, was NOT the quintessence of stupidity? Discount dictionary defines stupidity as: "The state of being stupid." The only people at the end of the movie who I saw who ENJOYED it were those who were retarded (scuse me, LEARNING DISABLED) . It was right on their level!

    I doubt anyone who would participate in this argument would have the lack of brain cells necessary to find it amusing. Therefore, by calling it "stupid" in my case, or the "quintessence of stupidity" essentially tells you: It's stupid. You know why.
    I enjoyed it immensely (according to my wife, my inner child is never far from the surface).

    Of course, I have a great appreciation of stupid for stupid's sake. Maybe that explains why I've been following this thread.
  5.    #65  
    Originally posted by bblue
    1) bkbk, the joke was " take the last letter of the post before it" thingy... <snip>
    2) "George of the Jungle" as a movie, was NOT the
    <snip>
    1) No, no -- no joke. It was just kind of contemplating the diff. that would occur if we tried to conduct a "best of" or "worst of" thread the way the standard "movies" thread is conducted: basing your current title on the last letter of the last title given.
    I guess it's funny ... kinda.
    2) I was afraid something like this "George of the Jungle" debate would pop up -- 'cause now I'm starting to get an uncontrollable itch to see it!
    "Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein
  6. #66  
    Ok buk-buk (or is it bee-kay-bee-kay?) , I get your not-joke....sorta...kinda... ok forget it.

    As for Yorick, let's just leave it at the fact that it's stupid. Let's say, it's designed for a 4 year old with an IQ in the -2 range.
    If that doesn't give you an idea, you're probably the appropriate age range for the movie!

    It's the kind of stupidity that cannot be defined.

    bkbk, go see it. You'll lyao. Not at the movie, but at the fact that they actually PAYED the guy who plays "George!"
    ---

    Wanna hear something REALLY stupid? Here's a stupid joke:

    Did you hear the joke about the bed?
    No? Well that's because it hasn't been MADE yet! Ha Ha Ha! I'm as funny as Mr. H!
    <b><font size=1 color=teal>"Sorry about the whole thing about losing your life savings, but that Palmpilot is property of Enron, so please give it back"
  7.    #67  
    Originally posted by bblue
    1) Ok buk-buk (or is it bee-kay-bee-kay?)<snip>
    <snip>
    2) Here's a stupid joke:
    Did you hear the joke about the bed?
    No? Well that's because it hasn't been MADE yet! Ha Ha Ha! I'm as funny as Mr. H!
    1) bkbk is made up, like all my IDs & PWs -- I have a million of them, all stored in my Visor; if I ever lose it, I lose access to everything under the sun. But I didn't want someone to 1 day crack 1 PW, then have them all, eh?
    2) Prob. will soon be a movie starring B.F. (Was it Yorick that said he had "incredible range"? Gimmie a break! I saw Mummy2 not long ago, and thought it 1/2 the film [w/2x the FX, even!] Mummy1 was -- incl. B.F.'s "work." RANGE? Try Jim Carrey, a real talent, in a little-known [outside the film biz] TV-movie, as the alcoholic son, "Doing Time On Maple Drive." I recently talked to someone who took her kids to "Grinch" -- she didn't even realize it was JC, that's how orig. his work was [in a well-loved classic SCREAMING for some film crew to screw it up -- but instead being #1 box-office, beating out even MI2, of last yr.]. I doubt B.F. will ever be as big a star.)
    "Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein
  8. #68  
    Originally posted by bblue
    As for Yorick, let's just leave it at the fact that it's stupid. Let's say, it's designed for a 4 year old with an IQ in the -2 range.
    If that doesn't give you an idea, you're probably the appropriate age range for the movie!
    I can accept that you are unwilling to support your statements, and are unwilling to listen to dissenting views.


    Originally posted by bkbk
    Was it Yorick that said he had "incredible range"? Gimmie a break!
    See "Gods and Monsters" and/or "Twenty Bucks."
    Jim Carrey is a different kind of actor.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  9. #69  
    Originally posted by bblue
    True, but I wasn't doing it on purpose. Therefore, the means was not justified! Oh wait... that's not a good thing for me...
    In case you couldn't tell, I was joking.

    Ok. I'll look at it like this. Can you even hold legible ground in DEFENDING the fact that "George of the Jungle" as a movie, was NOT the quintessence of stupidity?
    1) It's impossible to prove a negative. 2) "legible ground"?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #70  
    Originally posted by Yorick
    I can accept that you are unwilling to support your statements, and are unwilling to listen to dissenting views.
    Now, isn't 'Bah.' so much more efficient?

    See "Gods and Monsters" and/or "Twenty Bucks."
    Jim Carrey is a different kind of actor.
    Not that I think Brendan Frasier is exactly Sir Alec Guinness or anything, but to use Jim Carrey as an example of someone with 'range' is a stretch. Other than the Truman Show and Man on the Moon, his stuff has been pretty one-dimensional (and even those two had stereotypical bits).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #71  
    Originally posted by Toby


    In case you couldn't tell, I was joking.
    I don't recall seeing a "Mr. Winkles"


    1) It's impossible to prove a negative. 2) "legible ground"?


    Nobody else has heard that one?
    <b><font size=1 color=teal>"Sorry about the whole thing about losing your life savings, but that Palmpilot is property of Enron, so please give it back"
  12. #72  
    Originally posted by bblue

    I don't recall seeing a "Mr. Winkles"
    That's because I generally consider them superfluous.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #73  
    Originally posted by bblue
    2) "legible ground"?

    Nobody else has heard that one?
    okay, I performed a search for the phrase "legible ground" using Google. I got five hits; two were the same document where legible and ground were not used together. Another was a geology text. One mentioned "legible ground plan" (as in, a readable plan for laying something out). The topmost one used in the context of being able to see the pattern in his garden from the air.

    I don't have time right now to research further. Sounds like it may only be common to you, your family or your area. (It happens.)
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  14. #74  
    to "hold legible ground in their arguement"


    bblue's new phrase of the day. Learn it. failure to do so will be offensible.



    BUT, I refuse to hear anyone elses views who dissent mine on George of the Jungle. I shall label those who DO disagree "WRONG" , and simply continue on. Why? Because nobody will ever disagree. Why? Could HONESTLY say:

    "George of the Jungle was an intelligent movie, played by witty characters who played well a plot that was well written and funny on all levels. The slapstick humor was delivered in a timely fashion , and was NEVER repetitive! Even better, it was matched by some original humor that would satisfy most critics! Oh yes... the characters had brains LARGER than a pinto bean!" (ok, I made the last one up, but the point stands!)

    See?
    <b><font size=1 color=teal>"Sorry about the whole thing about losing your life savings, but that Palmpilot is property of Enron, so please give it back"
  15.    #75  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Not that I think Brendan Frasier is exactly Sir Alec Guinness or anything, but to use Jim Carrey as an example of someone with 'range' is a stretch. Other than the Truman Show and Man on the Moon, his stuff has been pretty one-dimensional (and even those two had stereotypical bits).
    T: You can tell this was written by someone who's never seen "Doing Time On Maple Drive." They don't pay JC $20/film for nothing. And it's not just about box office.

    Y: Good points; I've seen neither of those films, but know "Gods...." got great notices. I'll try to catch them before pronouncing a more conclusive judgment.

    But, man, now I'm *really* starting to itch to see just how bad (plot only, of course) "G of the J" is....

    And what's so hard about proving a negative?
    Do you mean "prior to videotape" -- as in "I was nowhere in the vicinity when the crime was committed"?
    "Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein
  16. #76  
    I've been trying to remember it and finally have

    another REALLY bad movie:
    Two of a Kind, John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John
    Poor attempt to recreate the "charm" of Grease
  17. #77  
    The best I can do on topic right now is the worst Star Trek movie ever made and that would be Star Trek V. You know the one where they look for God? I was almost through with the franchise after that one.

    Don't get me wrong (if I come and go like fashion. Oops, wrong thread), I LOVE the Trek universe but an apologetic Klingon? Come on! Row, row, row your boat? Give me a break! I may be able to sit through it , but I may not be happy in the end.
    If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
  18. #78  
    Originally posted by bkbk
    T: You can tell this was written by someone who's never seen "Doing Time On Maple Drive."
    What difference does it make? I'm sure that Brendan Fraser probably has one good movie to his name as well. The point was that the majority of Jim Carrey's movies are basically his old standup contortions projected on the big screen.

    They don't pay JC $20/film for nothing. And it's not just about box office.
    Yep, it's all about the box office. Nobody makes $20 million a film for being a great actor.

    But, man, now I'm *really* starting to itch to see just how bad (plot only, of course) "G of the J" is....
    Never seen it, but I can't see how it could be much worse than Dumb and Dumber.

    And what's so hard about proving a negative?
    It is practically impossible to prove a negative. One can only prove a positive.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19.    #79  
    Toby,
    As usual, your "reasoning" is laughable.
    Please don't respond to any more of my posts.
    I'll do you the same favor.
    Maybe in 10 yrs, when you acquire some maturity....
    "Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein
  20. #80  
    Originally posted by bkbk
    As usual, your "reasoning" is laughable.
    And as usual, you don't have a way to refute it or reinforce your position, so you resort to ad hominem. BTW, it was Aristotle who originally advanced the position that it was fairly impossible to prove a negative.

    Please don't respond to any more of my posts.
    I make no such promise. If your positions or 'reasoning' can't withstand scrutiny, that's not my problem.

    I'll do you the same favor.
    I ask no such thing. I can withstand any rational argument against a position I hold. I guess your problem is that you don't have a rational argument. Your argument is that Carrey's acting ability has something to do with his salary. If the range he displayed with "Doing Time On Maple Drive" had _anything_ to do with it, then it seems that he'd have made big bucks on either the original Ace Ventura or on The Mask (since they wouldn't have been started for at least a year afterwards and were released 2 years afterwards). Reality is that Ace Ventura is the reason he makes the money he does.

    Maybe in 10 yrs, when you acquire some maturity....
    *sigh* But then I'd have to wait at least another 20-25 for you to catch up.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions