MovieChat Forums > Sentient Meat > Replies
Sentient Meat's Replies
Someone who calls the Dark Knight Trilogy garbage is like a man who slept with beauty pageant winners, Playboy Playmates, leading actresses, Victoria Secret models and found them all lacking in physical attractiveness. Of course it's that person's right to think so, but if they are unable to enjoy something like The Dark Knight, I can only feel sorry for them, because that means their standards are so inflated that they will only be able to be satisfied once every year or two.
So unless you enjoy watching movies as often as Spock has sex... I'd recommend lowering the standards just a tad.
Agree with Papillon, Cool Hand Luke
Also Midnight Express, American History X although it's only half in prison, Le trou, A Prophet, are all better than Shawshank
Empire of the Sun, Great Escape are about the same level
I'm sure there are more but I can't think of them right now.
He was a decent actor, I think he was nice looking and played sensitive characters well... so this inflated his stature along with his untimely death. His brother is a spectacular actor though so if you project a similar growth arc in terms of his talent then it's fair to assume that he might have continued to improve with age. I'm not saying all siblings are equally talented but that it was certainly possible, especially since he did a good job in films like My Own Private Idaho and Running on Empty.
When you look at James Dean and Marlon Brando, you have to consider their performances in the context of their era. Big actors tended to be stars more than craftsmen. Actors like Clark Gable, Gary Cooper, Cary Grant, who played recycled versions of themselves. What Dean and Brando did was bring a realism that didn't exist before. Look at something like Ozzie and Harriet and compare these depictions with Rebel Without a Cause. Dean and Brando would do things like mumble and whine, freak out... stuff teenagers would do in real life, but never in the movies. Sure it's probably overrated, but these guys were pioneers.
No Karen Gillan?
If you are coming from that perspective, then I can respect it.
If you are old and bought almost every one of Stan Lee's comics back in the day, faithfully waiting for the adaptation, I can sympathize with your irritation. If you are young and only watched the movies or read the comics on bootleg sites then I can't. Fair point about the double standard Wakanda heroes if true... but ironically that will most likely hurt their box office. As I said, you're talking about a franchise with talking plants and raccoons, yet you're complaining about a black Valkyrie. If I see you complaining about any of these inconsistencies in later posts, I'll believe you don't have a personal agenda.
It will appeal more to its target demographic, but I think it will have some crossover audience. You forget that Tyler Perry films have all made enormous amounts of money, so even if it didn't, it will still be a box office success, provided that it's a good film.
The central characters... Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, and Anthony Hopkins were all as white as can be... most of the rest were supporting characters that had subservient roles. Considering this was set in a fantasy universe, what difference does it make if some characters are diverse? Did you complain that they were speaking in modern English instead of an Old Norse dialect? Did you care that the entire film violated all laws of science and physics?
I do respect the casting in historical dramas, but considering the man who created the universe is in the damn movie, I don't know why you are complaining. If you are sincere in your concern, and not trolling... I respectfully disagree. If you are trolling then go post on Yahoo or the Daily Mail, where you can find a lot of like minded people who share your worldview.
I watched the Justice League trailer playing before the movie and nearly fell asleep.
This film was great fun... as was Guardians of the Galaxy 2. For me the comedy makes this genre tolerable... unless the story is amazing which usually it isn't.
That's all I'm saying... keep an eye on both. I only get frustrated when people look down on the poor, as if their lives aren't miserable enough.
When a child is born, to a single mother in a poor neighborhood, of course the child will be tempted to commit crimes with no guidance while the mother is away at work. We should be reaching out to these people instead of sticking them in prisons, especially when they are non violent crimes. The more amazing thing to me, is that the Republicans want to force the poor to have children, yet pay nothing to care for them. I respect other's religious beliefs... but it's unconscionable to tell a young mother to have a kid... and then tell her she's lazy for raising the kid on welfare. Seems like you should vote to care for children if you want people to give birth to them.
Anyway, I'm sorry that you got screwed, but thanks for listening to my side. Hopefully both sides learn from each other.
I get the need to deal with violent crime first. However, think about how we prioritize some punk holding up a liquor store versus a Wall Street banker who defrauds the nation out of billions. Or an automaker who asks for a bailout on the tax payers dime, and gives its CEOs bonuses. One white collar thief might steal what one entire prison population steals in total.
All I ask you is to consider this possibility. I'm on the side of the average Americans.
They choose to demonize poor people so we divert our anger in that direction.
What you are doing is the equivalent of being angry at termites in your house, when an armed robber is roaming the halls. Be angry at the termites... but don't forget to keep your eye on the armed robber.
If you really think that a rich white person has the same scrutiny by the police as a ghetto kid, then I don't know what else I can say to you. If you read the history books, the government would sometimes make laws based on which community used certain drugs and criminalized them or gave out harsher sentences. When they wanted to deal with the Chinese, they'd make opium a crime... the sentencing for crack which was used by the blacks, was much harsher than for powder used by rich whites.
This isn't paranoid rambling... it is historical fact.
Now, once again... I'm not saying you shouldn't arrest criminals in poor neighborhoods... I'm saying if the police followed around the wealthy they'd find just as many crimes, just of a different nature (i.e. tax evasion or cyber theft)
I said that I'm not sure it was wise from a strategic or public relations standpoint... but I understood the frustration. At least you have an open mind, and that's a good thing.
Did you read what I said, it's not that they're innocent, it's that no one checks the wealthy.
Imagine living your life with police following you around all day. I had a friend who got issued an expensive ticket for not signaling on a right turn at 3 AM in a deserted part of Los Angeles.
Yes he was wrong, but imagine if cops followed you around all day, citing you for every small thing you did. It would be psychologically exhausting after awhile.
Targeting of African Americans by police is a real thing. Maybe sitting during the anthem isn't the best move strategically, but the man was frustrated by a string of what he thought were unjust police shootings and non convictions and he had had enough.
If you are a billionaire and rob our country of millions of dollars, nothing will happen to you... but if you are poor and live in a minority neighborhood, you will be targeted your entire life. I'm not saying these people are innocent, many are guilty... but it's the sheer frustration that the wealthy get away with literal murder while poor people are the only ones who answer for their crimes, makes people upset. Think about it, if we sent the police watching and auditing the wealthy's crimes, you'd find many acts of wrongdoing.
We have the world's highest incarceration rate, and now that many prisons are privatized, it's in people's economic interests to bust more people for drug use etcetera, to make profits for their prisons. As I said, maybe sitting during an anthem isn't the wisest move to change some people's minds, but I get the sheer frustration when many pay no attention to the problem.
I wouldn't burn an American flag myself, but I respect people's rights to do it. It's funny that many Americans make fun of repressive regimes, but don't mind if their own country engages in similar behavior. Our freedom is more important than any cloth or song... if you take away the freedom, then the song and the flag don't mean much anyway.
Yes, and I'll defend your right to say that.
People in the 1700s felt it was disrespectful to the King, the country, the Union Jack, not to bow down to him.
This is why we had a revolution. When I can't bend my knee, and you can't call me a maggot... this is no longer America, but something else.
Yes, that's fair for you to think that... and call me a maggot.
This is America... not China or the Soviet Union. You can dislike or even hate someone's speech or expression, but you cannot repress it.
but liberals are nothing if not binary.
The sheer irony of this post.
You can boycott the NFL and its players... you can be offended and think it's disrespectful. But as Americans we should all defend each other's rights to protest or we are no better than some of the repressive regimes that we have fought.
Imagine your same sentence, but replace what you said with the word king
They just should not do it in front of the King, since that demonstrates contempt and disrespect for the King, the flag and our country.
Hate them if you want... but don't question their ability to do so, or we set ourselves back 250 years.