Your personal bottom 100

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

I should have married you a lot sooner, so I could have stopped you.

its ok as long as you destroy the copies he currently owns

[6079SmithW]

The Boondock Saints (I will admit this was well made, but both the underlying messages and the man who wrote it are infuriating enough to make me hate the movie)

Just out of curiosity, what the hell WAS the underlying message???  it didnt really seem to have one that i saw. 

Well, a.) not only is shooting criminals a-ok, but everyone will be happier if you do it. Forget the process of law an the rights of the accused, we have guns!
b.) If you are a 'righteous' person and you unload an automatic into a crowd, only the evil people will get shot. Honestly, this borders on delusional psychosis.

Oh, and lest I forget: I enjoyed Dafoe's performance, but the fairly transparent "we don't dislike gay people but we do dislike fags" thing annoyed me, too.

10. Forrest Gump (This one is partly anger about the Academy Awards, part anger over the pointlessly gimmick heavy plot set up to disguise the weakness of a character incapable of development, and part utter hatred for the movies implication that thinking for yourself gets you AIDS.)

ummm..how did you get the message that "thinking for yourself gets you AIDS" out of this movie?  i thought the message was "you sleep around & do drugs & other dangerous activities looking for a false sense of happiness & you might pay the price"

Gump represents utter conformity to everything: he is completely incapable of thinking for himself or making any decisions, so he follows orders both cheerfully and unthinkingly. As a result, in the movie's eyes, he is a good person and winds up happy.

Jenny, on the other hand, rebels against the system around her, so she is punished. Not only will thinking for yourself lead to a life of degradation (as opposed to, say, one of enlightened feminism or something) but in the end, you will wish you had been just like Gump all along.

Oh, and Elvis' moves came from Gump and not, say, black people, hmm? Thanks for whitewashing history just a little bit more, fellas!

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

Oh, and Elvis' moves came from Gump and not, say, black people, hmm? Thanks for whitewashing history just a little bit more, fellas!

yes because we saw in that scene gump taught elvis to play gospel style rock music.  CLEARLY

Jenny, on the other hand, rebels against the system around her, so she is punished. Not only will thinking for yourself lead to a life of degradation (as opposed to, say, one of enlightened feminism or something) but in the end, you will wish you had been just like Gump all along.

You can tell she rebelled becuase she went with all those other people were rebelling, like when she was in that tiny tiny crowd in front of the washington monument.  Also the one thing she forgot to question was her own unhappiness and causes thereof. 

Gump represents utter conformity to everything: he is completely incapable of thinking for himself or making any decisions, so he follows orders both cheerfully and unthinkingly. As a result, in the movie's eyes, he is a good person and winds up happy.

he also ends up alone. 

not only is shooting criminals a-ok, but everyone will be happier if you do it. Forget the process of law an the rights of the accused, we have guns!

Im fairly sure that although you can make a VERY good argument for your statement, that they were TRYING to show that you OUGHT to stand up against injustice, always, which as i remember was the opening speech in the movie.  They also did end the movie question the very complaint you put down, kind of a way of saying, was what they did ok?

[6079SmithW]

Oh, and Elvis' moves came from Gump and not, say, black people, hmm? Thanks for whitewashing history just a little bit more, fellas!

yes because we saw in that scene gump taught elvis to play gospel style rock music.  CLEARLY

No, I said his moves. Elvis's stage presence and performance style, along with his actual music, was ripped off/adapted from black people.

Jenny, on the other hand, rebels against the system around her, so she is punished. Not only will thinking for yourself lead to a life of degradation (as opposed to, say, one of enlightened feminism or something) but in the end, you will wish you had been just like Gump all along.

You can tell she rebelled becuase she went with all those other people were rebelling, like when she was in that tiny tiny crowd in front of the washington monument.  Also the one thing she forgot to question was her own unhappiness and causes thereof. 

Well, I guess that's a matter of interpretation, but the characters in the film all seemed like they were trying to be archetypal to me, and her archetype is the person who tries to break out of the system. The implication is that she would have been happy if only she would have stayed home and never used her brain.

Gump represents utter conformity to everything: he is completely incapable of thinking for himself or making any decisions, so he follows orders both cheerfully and unthinkingly. As a result, in the movie's eyes, he is a good person and winds up happy.

he also ends up alone. 

Well, he has the kid, I believe. And he isn't represented as feeling any real loneliness or pain, that I could see.

not only is shooting criminals a-ok, but everyone will be happier if you do it. Forget the process of law an the rights of the accused, we have guns!

Im fairly sure that although you can make a VERY good argument for your statement, that they were TRYING to show that you OUGHT to stand up against injustice, always, which as i remember was the opening speech in the movie.  They also did end the movie question the very complaint you put down, kind of a way of saying, was what they did ok?

I took the ending as a fairly blatant call-to-arms, rather than a real question- they basically showed everyone with whom you are meant to identify as being on their side. It's not taking a stand against injustice that I mind, it's the complete unwillingness to question the protagonist's morality, or for that matter, the old guy's. You can stand against injustice without dropping bathtubs on people.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

The implication is that she would have been happy if only she would have stayed home and never used her brain.

Explain LT dan then.  He didnt try to question his fate.  Quite frankly he was an intense fatalist, and when he was denied that fate he went into a depressed downward spiral

And he isn't represented as feeling any real loneliness or pain, that I could see.

You mean the ending of he crying over jennys grave about how lonely he is and how intensly he misses her?

I took the ending as a fairly blatant call-to-arms, rather than a real question- they basically showed everyone with whom you are meant to identify as being on their side.

No there were quite a few people who thought their actions were morally reprehensible in the interview segment at the end.  Im not saying that justifys the two hour blood bath preceding it i just think its worth mentioning.

You can stand against injustice without dropping bathtubs on people.

My view as a troop is that their are times when hypothetically speaking you have choice but to drop the bathtub.  (and it was a toilet )

[6079SmithW]

The implication is that she would have been happy if only she would have stayed home and never used her brain.

Explain LT dan then.  He didnt try to question his fate.  Quite frankly he was an intense fatalist, and when he was denied that fate he went into a depressed downward spiral

Dan was unhappy because he saw the way the world worked but was not blissful about it, and there are times when a cynic is even more damaging to the system than a rebel. He became happy when he 'made his peace with God' and therefore decided that he wasn't going to care about all the horrors of the world, just sit in a Gumpian state of catatonic joy.

And he isn't represented as feeling any real loneliness or pain, that I could see.

You mean the ending of he crying over jennys grave about how lonely he is and how intensly he misses her?

Am I getting the chronology wrong? I thought the thing with the bench, the wraparound segment, was after Jenny's death. If so, his grief was very much temporary, and he went back to being Mr. Perfectly Satisfied.

I took the ending as a fairly blatant call-to-arms, rather than a real question- they basically showed everyone with whom you are meant to identify as being on their side.

No there were quite a few people who thought their actions were morally reprehensible in the interview segment at the end.  Im not saying that justifys the two hour blood bath preceding it i just think its worth mentioning.

Yes, but as I saw it, you were supposed to dislike those people, based on the way the movie had been structured. I'm willing to admit that I may be unfair on that front.

You can stand against injustice without dropping bathtubs on people.

My view as a troop is that their are times when hypothetically speaking you have choice but to drop the bathtub.  (and it was a toilet )

Yes, but you bloody well have to consider the morality of your actions when you do so, and it should still make you feel badly when you do it. Hell, I liked Sin City, which was at least as much of a bloodbath, but even the completely psychotic Marv had to worry about feeling badly for hurting people in that movie. That's all I'm asking for.

(Oh, and I liked Kill Bill, but the movie makes it clear that she is amoral, and not a protagonist in the "you should be like this" sense.)

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

(Oh, and I liked Kill Bill, but the movie makes it clear that she is amoral, and not a protagonist in the "you should be like this" sense.)

When and where the hell did it do that?

I liked Sin City, which was at least as much of a bloodbath, but even the completely psychotic Marv had to worry about feeling badly for hurting people in that movie. That's all I'm asking for.

no they paid lip service to this concept.  thats about it.  ripping the limps off a person to torture them to death and then angonizing over it, is such a silly stupid thought process it boggles the mind. 

Yes, but you bloody well have to consider the morality of your actions when you do so, and it should still make you feel badly when you do it.

Yes and no.  Movie make you think you ought to, and sometimes you do.  But you got to remember often when you are fighting if you hesitate you die.  further if you are in constant pain over it youll die because eventually you have to do it again.  Circumstance must always be thought of, but lets be clear the circumstance in the middle of something and the circumstance of being far far away from any real danger alters how it is capable to process it. 

Dan was unhappy because he saw the way the world worked but was not blissful about it, and there are times when a cynic is even more damaging to the system than a rebel. He became happy when he 'made his peace with God' and therefore decided that he wasn't going to care about all the horrors of the world, just sit in a Gumpian state of catatonic joy.

Im not sure you can make the argument that he gave up and just went into a catatonic state.  He gave up trying to be mad at his fate to live with no legs, that is true.  But i think becoming a millionare might have helped that. 

Am I getting the chronology wrong? I thought the thing with the bench, the wraparound segment, was after Jenny's death. If so, his grief was very much temporary, and he went back to being Mr. Perfectly Satisfied.

No the bench happened afterward.  I guess i just disagree with you that he is completely happy.  I think gump is very much alone.  No one is sad EVERY second of every day.  He hurts, and has a BIG empty spot in his life where jenny OUGHT to be.  But that doesnt mean he isnt going to raise his kid and be grateful for him.  I also dont think gump is all as dumb as you are making him out to be.  I think he shows a good deal of development as the movie progresses.

[6079SmithW]

(Oh, and I liked Kill Bill, but the movie makes it clear that she is amoral, and not a protagonist in the "you should be like this" sense.)

When and where the hell did it do that?

Oh, Bill's speech about killers near the end, the part where she mutilates Sophie (I thought that was a pretty clear note that she isn't a completely likable person) and going way out of the way to give O-Ren a likable backstory all felt like a fairly subtle moral sense creeping into a grindhouse movie.

I liked Sin City, which was at least as much of a bloodbath, but even the completely psychotic Marv had to worry about feeling badly for hurting people in that movie. That's all I'm asking for.

no they paid lip service to this concept.  thats about it.  ripping the limps off a person to torture them to death and then angonizing over it, is such a silly stupid thought process it boggles the mind. 

Well, that movie did revel in blood, true, but it also made sure that each individual death was someone who had both clearly and visibly done something and was capable of harming the person hurting them right at that moment, with a few exceptions:
Miho is never in danger, but she is less a character than a demon, and I don't think her morality is relevant
The mobsters all get gunned down with no means of defending themselves, but it is pointed out that this is a matter of power politics and not of God's holy righteousness
The Cardinal is not an immediate physical threat. but Marv's whole story was specific and personal revenge, not an attempt to wipe out evil.

The other major change is that the characters in Sin City pretty much all think they are going to hell for what they do, not being holy and avenging angels. I would say the same is true for the Bride.

Yes, but you bloody well have to consider the morality of your actions when you do so, and it should still make you feel badly when you do it.

Yes and no.  Movie make you think you ought to, and sometimes you do.  But you got to remember often when you are fighting if you hesitate you die.  further if you are in constant pain over it youll die because eventually you have to do it again.  Circumstance must always be thought of, but lets be clear the circumstance in the middle of something and the circumstance of being far far away from any real danger alters how it is capable to process it. 

Well, this is a matter of personal interpretation, but when the killing becomes not a matter of doing what is necessary but a Crusade or a Jihad, it goes from a depressing necessity of the world as it is to a moral horror.

Dan was unhappy because he saw the way the world worked but was not blissful about it, and there are times when a cynic is even more damaging to the system than a rebel. He became happy when he 'made his peace with God' and therefore decided that he wasn't going to care about all the horrors of the world, just sit in a Gumpian state of catatonic joy.

Im not sure you can make the argument that he gave up and just went into a catatonic state.  He gave up trying to be mad at his fate to live with no legs, that is true.  But i think becoming a millionare might have helped that. 

Yes, and it was Forrest's Deus ex Machina that made him one. Nobody in that movie achieves anything because they set out to do so, with determination and force, they either try and fail or try and fail and then get saved by Mr. Does as He's Told.

Am I getting the chronology wrong? I thought the thing with the bench, the wraparound segment, was after Jenny's death. If so, his grief was very much temporary, and he went back to being Mr. Perfectly Satisfied.

No the bench happened afterward.  I guess i just disagree with you that he is completely happy.  I think gump is very much alone.  No one is sad EVERY second of every day.  He hurts, and has a BIG empty spot in his life where jenny OUGHT to be.  But that doesnt mean he isnt going to raise his kid and be grateful for him.  I also dont think gump is all as dumb as you are making him out to be.  I think he shows a good deal of development as the movie progresses.

Vietnam was an evil war. Gump fights in Vietnam without any hesitation, because he is told to do so. The movie implies that this is a heroic act. That, in essence, is my problem with it.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

Vietnam was an evil war. Gump fights in Vietnam without any hesitation, because he is told to do so. The movie implies that this is a heroic act. That, in essence, is my problem with it.

Ah well now we come to an impasse that cant be bridged, for i disagree here, and do not wish to argue about the politics of a long dead and completely botched war. 

ps do you dislike we were soldiers for the same reason because it seems it would apply.

O-Ren a likable backstory all felt like a fairly subtle moral sense creeping into a grindhouse movie.

there was nothing likeable to me about oren.  I repeat nothing. 

but when the killing becomes not a matter of doing what is necessary but a Crusade or a Jihad,

no one i know here or have yet met in service thinks of this as either a crusade or a jihad or anything more than merely a depressing nessicity ( i dont think thats what your implying i just felt it needs to be said)

[6079SmithW]

Vietnam was an evil war. Gump fights in Vietnam without any hesitation, because he is told to do so. The movie implies that this is a heroic act. That, in essence, is my problem with it.

Ah well now we come to an impasse that cant be bridged, for i disagree here, and do not wish to argue about the politics of a long dead and completely botched war. 

ps do you dislike we were soldiers for the same reason because it seems it would apply.

I didn't see it, but the constant 'call to arms' morality of Mel Gibson movies does get me rather angry. But setting aside Vietnam, do you think it acceptable to fight in a war without personally considering its morality or making any decisions in the process that brings you from civilian to soldier?

O-Ren a likable backstory all felt like a fairly subtle moral sense creeping into a grindhouse movie.

there was nothing likeable to me about oren.  I repeat nothing. 

Well, if not likable, at least sympathetic: even if you don't find her so, the early backstory of trauma is traditionally a means by which to make a character's actions more justifiable, and engender sympathy for a character.

but when the killing becomes not a matter of doing what is necessary but a Crusade or a Jihad,

no one i know here or have yet met in service thinks of this as either a crusade or a jihad or anything more than merely a depressing nessicity ( i dont think thats what your implying i just felt it needs to be said)

I'm very glad to hear that, but as you say, I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the Boondock Saints. They were pretty clearly on a crusade.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

I didn't see it, but the constant 'call to arms' morality of Mel Gibson movies does get me rather angry. But setting aside Vietnam, do you think it acceptable to fight in a war without personally considering its morality or making any decisions in the process that brings you from civilian to soldier?

You really ought to see we were soldiers.  It has very little to do with gibson other than he was in it.  It was adapted (rather well im told) from a book by the character gibson plays.  Its a remarkable war movie let alone vietnam war movie.

as to your question.  I think one should think of the morality in every action before making however, the question itself is one you as a civilian get to make, i however dont truly get to make it.  I will kill myself more likely than commit mass homicide in the name of something meaningless, but you are kind of the arm chair quarterback (me too now that i think about it) in this hypothetical as we dont have to get anywhere near something dangerous.  Theres a lot more involved in a soldiers life than just kill or dont.  And certainly a lot more morality issues than just that one. 

They were pretty clearly on a crusade.

Its a crusade no different than the punishers or batmans. 

[6079SmithW]

I didn't see it, but the constant 'call to arms' morality of Mel Gibson movies does get me rather angry. But setting aside Vietnam, do you think it acceptable to fight in a war without personally considering its morality or making any decisions in the process that brings you from civilian to soldier?

You really ought to see we were soldiers.  It has very little to do with gibson other than he was in it.  It was adapted (rather well im told) from a book by the character gibson plays.  Its a remarkable war movie let alone vietnam war movie.

Have you seen Paths of Glory? I'll watch We Were Soldiers if you watch Paths of Glory.

as to your question.  I think one should think of the morality in every action before making however, the question itself is one you as a civilian get to make, i however dont truly get to make it.  I will kill myself more likely than commit mass homicide in the name of something meaningless, but you are kind of the arm chair quarterback (me too now that i think about it) in this hypothetical as we dont have to get anywhere near something dangerous.  Theres a lot more involved in a soldiers life than just kill or dont.  And certainly a lot more morality issues than just that one. 

I won't pretend to understand the moral issues of a soldier, since I cannot imagine being one in any war less morally clear than WW2, and frankly I think I would be a pretty terrible one even against the Nazis. It's not that I'm saying soldiers are evil, just that it's something I do not think I could do and live with myself. However, it's not any particular moral decision that bothers me, it's the film's implication that moral decisions are unnecessary.

They were pretty clearly on a crusade.

Its a crusade no different than the punishers or batmans. 

I hate the Punisher, too, and Bats' crusade is a much more morally justifiable one: he is willing to be violent, but never to kill. Besides, neither of them thinks that the represent the forces of God, and that therefore whatever they do is automatically justified.

[Quicksilver]

guys what's up with the quotes, lmfao!! 

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

However, it's not any particular moral decision that bothers me, it's the film's implication that moral decisions are unnecessary.

I think your missing what happens to jenny and you dismiss her story to easily.  Yes gump often did what he was told (he didnt listen to LT dan he saved him and the rest because he knew he should), He also always did what he new was right. 

I think the fact jenny never examined the causes of her pain proves not questioning things is a big mistake.  She kept running to those who used her and away from the one who would love her.

Have you seen Paths of Glory? I'll watch We Were Soldiers if you watch Paths of Glory.

Uh your on man your on, BUT how will i know?

I won't pretend to understand the moral issues of a soldier, since I cannot imagine being one in any war less morally clear than WW2, and frankly I think I would be a pretty terrible one even against the Nazis

Even 1940s america thought it was morally and otherwise unimportant to enter the war until AFTER we were attacked. 

guys what's up with the quotes, lmfao!!

Ive got REALLY short term memory

[Minnesota]

direct to video sequels are more dignified than TV series.
also, what the hell was wrong with Bambi 2?  ...the only Disney sequel I've ever seen by the way