MovieChat Forums > Attack Force (2006) Discussion > 2 positives + a negative

2 positives + a negative

posted 18 years ago by jtompkins-1
7 replies | jump to latest

First, the negative. Aside from all the other horrible things that everybody in the world could point out (& is rightfully pointing out), am I the only person who felt like I was going to have a seizure during the final scenes in the "chapel"? I mean...GEEZ. I can honestly say I've never felt that way before while watching a movie. I might have permanent brain damage with all that bright-white-flashing & cuts & shaky cameras. I've watched music videos which had more coherence. My head is still swimming.

Now the positives (because I'm a positive kind of guy).
1) Steven looked like he lost some weight. He wasn't nearly as "puffy" as a couple of his prior movies.
2) Steven's hair wasn't quite as ratty as it usually looks. (Note that I said "quite" - it's not like it's some amazing wonder to behold...it's just not quite as ratty. Like maybe he discovered personal hygiene or something.)

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] heat-12 18 years ago

1 positive (lol) he also talks louder and more clear in this movie hahaha

[–] lola-hamilton 18 years ago

You just had to get nasty at the end, didn't you. What has personal hygiene got to do with the way someone's hair is styled? Do you even know what you're talking about?

[–] jtompkins-1 18 years ago

First - I read your other posts, and I don't think you're serious.

Second - style? No - it isn't style. Have you ever watched a video game where the characters move around but their hair doesn't? They could be doing back flips off of walls & running on the ceiling, but the hair doesn't move. Steven's used to look like that...it used to look like he used lard to keep it in place. I think I saw it move once or twice in this movie...so that's a step up. I can only attribute this to a discovery of shampoo. If there's some other explanation, I'm all ears.

[–] lola-hamilton 18 years ago

I think you're the one who's not serious, even though I have no idea what you were implying when you said you didn't think I was. Is that because I haven't jumped on the band wagon and joined everyone else in dissing Steven constantly? I'm not like you, I don't get personal about people I don't know. I'll criticize his movies when appropriate, but there's no way I'd be presumptious enough to think, or write silly stuff that indicates that I believe a man of his standing could be lacking a sense of personal hygiene. Unless of course you're judging him by your standards. From what I can see , whenever Steven's hair grows long, it tends to be curlier than the rest of it at the ends, and tends to hang where it's tied at his nape. I know you'd like to think he's got something in common with you, being a filthy pig I mean. But I doubt very much whether that's even remotely likely. Sorry. Oh by the way it's not important to me in the least what the hell you or anyone else think about my posts.

[–] jtompkins-1 18 years ago

Allow me to point out one thing:

First you say, "I'm not like you, I don't get personal about people I don't know." Then you turn around and say, "I know you'd like to think he's got something in common with you, being a filthy pig I mean."

Who is getting personal? Is it so hard to keep up your (ever so high) standards, even to the end of a single post?

[–] lola-hamilton 18 years ago

No ,not hard at all. Just wanted to see how you'd like it if someone who didn't know you got personal, and implied that you lacked any sense of hygiene. Surely you understood that that was the object of the excercise.