As I mentioned a few days ago, having seen the Swedish version of the film "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," I've been curious to see how good the American version will be, so I've been sporadically checking up on reviews of the movie at RottenTomatoes.com and of regular people's comments on IMDb.com. When checking out the latter of the two sites earlier today, I ran into (not literally) quite the member of the site - Conservative Critique.
Here was his first comment about the film, as the subject of the thread dealt with how the film was going to flop:
"They should've known the first lesson, R-rated doesn't work anymore. Plus america is tired of more sexually perverse hollywood executives force feeding immorality onto us. That's not in line with our country's values.
People want to see family films, and who has time on christmas no less, to go see a hardcore R-rated film full of rape scenes?
lastly, why would anyone see this when they can go to a video store and rent the original film that is ready for everyone to see? It's the exact same story. Oh wait, this has the guy from James Bond in it. please..."
First off, the guy needs to work on grammar and punctuation, but more importantly, he needs to learn how to differentiate between fact and opinion. Just because one holds an opinion doesn't make it factual. We can use facts to back up our opinions to lend it more credibility, but that still doesn't warrant said opinion as a fact.
"R-rated doesn't work anymore"? Eh, okay. According to a study which was released last year (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700075669/BYU-study-finds-PG-rated-films-make-most-money.html), 55% of films are R-rated, 35% PG-13 and 10% PG. In the same study, it did say that PG films made the most money, but that still doesn't mean that "R-rated doesn't work anymore". The reason is kids. Whereas when people are of legal age to get into an R-rated film, they'll typically go with one other person. Rarely do I see a parent with one child go to a PG movie. There may be both parents on hand, their own kid(s) and friends of their kid(s). Their friends' parents could also be on hand. Animated films typically do very well at the box office for this very reason.
Next, he tries to tell people what they want to see when he says, "Plus america is tired of more sexually perverse hollywood executives force feeding immorality onto us. That's not in line with our country's values." He's speaking for America now, eh? He speaks for everyone in this country? It's a one-size-fits-all deal. He's also taken it upon himself to define our country's values. According to whom? Again, does he speak for everyone? Does EVERYONE have the same idea of what constitutes immorality? No.
He then says, "People want to see family films, and who has time on christmas no less, to go see a hardcore R-rated film full of rape scenes?" Again, he speaks for "people," or so he wants to believe. He knows exactly what "people" want to see. He also goes the exaggerative route by saying the movie is full of rape scenes. As far as I know, there is one. I could be mistaken on that number, but regardless if it's 1 or 2, the two and a half hour movie is not FULL of rape scenes.
He then posted another comment, which read, "Rated R for brutal violent content including rape and torture, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, and language
uh huh. if that's what you liberals think makes a good movie, go ahead and flock to it. I don't need to see rape, torture and violence to be entertained."
Once again, he's attempting to speak for someone else - liberals in this case. He's also falsely implying that a certain group of people (liberals) need certain explicitly violent material in a film to be entertained. Just because a person, a liberal in this case, likes a movie such as "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" which contains a rape scene, doesn't mean the said person needs rape scenes to be entertained and/or think it's a quality film. I also find his commentary on this funny due to the fact he appears to be rather religious. What book is more violent than The Bible? What person/character was more tortured than Jesus? How difficult was it to watch those very scenes in "The Passion of the Christ"? But, that's different, right Mr. Conservative Critique? Your views are the exception, not the rule? Yeah, I know how that goes.
He then said this, ":rolleyes: so it's good because it knocks religion? yeah right. This is "intellectual" porn, you watch it and think youre so smart but youre no different from the kids who line up to see the new Saw every year.
"This story isn't designed to entertain, but to communicate concerns"
If it isn't designed to entertain then it is destined to flop even harder than I originally thought. They can go communicate their concerns in a documentary. but every ad of this movie is plastering techno/rock soundtracks and a half naked goth making 'sexy' remarks.
"Go watch Home alone!"
No I would rather watch It's a Wonderful Life, something that has values that don't preach and celebrate the degradation of society. bad *beep* happens in the world but if we only focus on that how can we look our children in the eyes?
"the Story of O"
Huh? What's that. I'm not up to date on movies that feature entertaining rapes, like you are."
Half-naked goth girl? Sexy remarks? Techno/rock music? I'm not sure which trailer he is viewing with those first two comments and what's wrong with the third? Is it morally unacceptable to listen to techno and/or rock music? Where in The Bible does it say this? I remember the 11th Commandment, stating - "Thou shalt not go to a rave, for techno music is forbidden."
Also, he really wants to compare this film to "Saw"? That's right, because "Saw" contains gore and violence, so "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" is no different. What a simplistic point-of-view. The intent of "Saw" is to frighten and the writers and director attempt to provoke this through violence and gore, amongst other things, such as eerie-sounding music and dark imagery. It is in no way meant to be realistic. Most horror films aren't. Their only intent is to strike fear into the viewers. "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" is nothing like that. While the film may contain some R-rated material like "Saw," the storyline and plot differ greatly. Just because "Striptease" and "The Deer Hunter" are both rated R does not make them similar movies.
He then had the nerve to say, "Huh? What's that. I'm not up to date on movies that feature entertaining rapes, like you are."
"Entertaining rapes"? With that kind of logic, I hate to say it, but this guy is an idiot. Just because Person A enjoys a movie which contains a rape, does not mean that Person A is entertained by the rape. What kind of imbecile is he? So, if a film contains an explosion, a killing of some kind and a person enjoys that film, does that mean he or she is entertained by the murder? Eh, no. If a person likes a film which contains a great deal of discrimination at the expense of women or blacks, does that mean this person is entertained by such sexism or racism? Again, no. That's ridiculous. I thought "American History X" was a very good film with an excellent performance (what else is new?) by Edward Norton. Does that mean I am entertained by skinheads and their antics? I don't think so.
This guy has a very simple way of looking at things, isn't coy about using informal fallacies in an attempt to validate his point(s), seems to be a walking contradiction and double-standard and in addition to that, appears to suffer from delusions of grandeur.
I found his other commentary on films to be equally, I'll say "interesting," but am using that term in a rather sarcastic manner if one couldn't guess.
For the new Martin Scorsese movie, "Hugo," which has received rave reviews all over, this film "critic" said, "i have never seen such a huge differenc between what critics are saying and what is actually on screen. Holy crap, was the audience bored. There was some silent film stuff, which had i known about i wouldnt have even gone."
There he goes again with the hyperbolic rhetoric. He's "never seen such a huge difference between what critics are saying and what is actually on screen." He's also very technical and detailed, as he said, "...some silent film stuff." Indeed. That's what it's called actually. I heard a director once say in response to a critic's question about the film's composition, "There's a lot of, how do I put it? Silent film stuff."
There was also this - "I did not appreciate the films liberal qualities either, ie, orphanages are bad, people with authority are bad, war is bad..." Of course not. The film was obviously liberally biased. Most every film is. It was made to brainwash children into becoming liberals!
Okay...next?
How about for the film "The Artist"? This is one of the best reviewed films of the year, with an average grade of 8.7 out of 10 and a 96% approval rating. What did Mr. Conservative Critique have to say about it?
"I can't think of an idea less appealing. It is going to flop so hard. My problem is if you keep idealizing the past you are preventing real progress.
Want to know why black and white silent movies aren't made anymore? Because those movies were only made at the time, due to the limitations of their technology. They would be calling us idiots to make a movie in that style if we didn't have to.
It's like when 3D takes over, and in 100 years somebody makes a 2D movie. How is that progress? Nor is this some great nostalgia considering 90 % of people didn't live in this era."
Again with the exaggeration - "I can't think of an idea less appealing." Sure you can. I don't think he needs to try very hard...
Yeah, it probably will flop. These kinds of films aren't constructed to make it big at the box office. A film's box office success does not mean the film is of great quality. Adam Sandler has starred in a number of movies which have made over $100 million. All of these films were despised by critics, the most recent being "Jack & Jill". Does the money generated by his films mean they were grand pieces of cinema? Not by a long shot.
Also, this film isn't trying to bring back silent film. That's not going to happen, with the occasional exception. This film is paying tribute to silent films of old. Again, this guy I feel is missing almost all the screws. I also pray to Zorro that he's wrong about 3D films taking over some day. I don't mind there being an option of a 3D or 2D movie, but think in most cases, I'd prefer 2D.
This individual then gave his thoughts on the new Alexander Payne (and critically-acclaimed) film, "The Descendants". Guess what he had to say regarding this movie?
"(list of liberal nonsense in this film)
1. selling the property is evil. $$$ = evil
2. george clooney was portrayed as a bad husband because he saved money.
3. characters having constant affairs = no family values.
4. unplugging the wife = no respect for the sanctity of life.
5. family values - allowing your kids to cuss every chance and not disciplining them.
there is way more but this film is not worth writing too much about. it's a tired and simple plot stretched long and thin over two hours. I hated it."
Again, he attempts to see the movie as nothing but liberal drivel. Instead of actually watching the film, attempting to place political viewpoints aside, so he could actually get into the story and potentially enjoy the film as it was, he decided it be best to bring a pen and paper and jot down all the supposed liberal talking points throughout the movie's duration. That would certainly make for quite the entertaining experience, wouldn't it?
He also seems to be in love with strong language. He "hated" this movie. He "couldn't think of an idea less appealing" than that displayed in "The Artist". In "Hugo," he's "never seen such a huge difference between what critics are saying and what is actually on screen." I'm beginning to think he's only viewed these few films in his lifetime, since he utters the words "always" and "never" so frequently.
Finally, that brings us to "The Muppets," where he said and I quote,
"Why does america insist on lying and sugarcoating life to kids? I think these specific mentalities are what is destroying our society. Everyone wants to be rich but no one wants to work hard and sacrifice for it.
They think they can be like the muppet guy and just stumble into it through serendipity. This is why in our liberal society most kids are growing up hating their parents."
So, this guy complains about "lying" and "sugarcoating" in children's films ("The Muppets"), yet complains of realism in adult films ("The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo")? You just can't win with this guy, can you? Well, I have some non-sugarcoated rhetoric for him. This guy is full of hyperbole, condescension, red herrings, generalization, ad hominems, labeling, narrow-mindedness and delusions. I honestly wonder if there is a film he actually enjoys. He mentioned "It's a Wonderful Life," but I'm now even skeptical on that. I can't stand people whom are as self-righteous as him. He knows all. He knows right from wrong. He can define morality. He knows what people want. He knows what's good for this country. I'm really wondering if this guy is Rick Santorum. With 1-5% of the vote, I'm sure ol' Ricky has a lot of time on his hands...
Here was his first comment about the film, as the subject of the thread dealt with how the film was going to flop:
"They should've known the first lesson, R-rated doesn't work anymore. Plus america is tired of more sexually perverse hollywood executives force feeding immorality onto us. That's not in line with our country's values.
People want to see family films, and who has time on christmas no less, to go see a hardcore R-rated film full of rape scenes?
lastly, why would anyone see this when they can go to a video store and rent the original film that is ready for everyone to see? It's the exact same story. Oh wait, this has the guy from James Bond in it. please..."
First off, the guy needs to work on grammar and punctuation, but more importantly, he needs to learn how to differentiate between fact and opinion. Just because one holds an opinion doesn't make it factual. We can use facts to back up our opinions to lend it more credibility, but that still doesn't warrant said opinion as a fact.
"R-rated doesn't work anymore"? Eh, okay. According to a study which was released last year (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700075669/BYU-study-finds-PG-rated-films-make-most-money.html), 55% of films are R-rated, 35% PG-13 and 10% PG. In the same study, it did say that PG films made the most money, but that still doesn't mean that "R-rated doesn't work anymore". The reason is kids. Whereas when people are of legal age to get into an R-rated film, they'll typically go with one other person. Rarely do I see a parent with one child go to a PG movie. There may be both parents on hand, their own kid(s) and friends of their kid(s). Their friends' parents could also be on hand. Animated films typically do very well at the box office for this very reason.
Next, he tries to tell people what they want to see when he says, "Plus america is tired of more sexually perverse hollywood executives force feeding immorality onto us. That's not in line with our country's values." He's speaking for America now, eh? He speaks for everyone in this country? It's a one-size-fits-all deal. He's also taken it upon himself to define our country's values. According to whom? Again, does he speak for everyone? Does EVERYONE have the same idea of what constitutes immorality? No.
He then says, "People want to see family films, and who has time on christmas no less, to go see a hardcore R-rated film full of rape scenes?" Again, he speaks for "people," or so he wants to believe. He knows exactly what "people" want to see. He also goes the exaggerative route by saying the movie is full of rape scenes. As far as I know, there is one. I could be mistaken on that number, but regardless if it's 1 or 2, the two and a half hour movie is not FULL of rape scenes.
He then posted another comment, which read, "Rated R for brutal violent content including rape and torture, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, and language
uh huh. if that's what you liberals think makes a good movie, go ahead and flock to it. I don't need to see rape, torture and violence to be entertained."
Once again, he's attempting to speak for someone else - liberals in this case. He's also falsely implying that a certain group of people (liberals) need certain explicitly violent material in a film to be entertained. Just because a person, a liberal in this case, likes a movie such as "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" which contains a rape scene, doesn't mean the said person needs rape scenes to be entertained and/or think it's a quality film. I also find his commentary on this funny due to the fact he appears to be rather religious. What book is more violent than The Bible? What person/character was more tortured than Jesus? How difficult was it to watch those very scenes in "The Passion of the Christ"? But, that's different, right Mr. Conservative Critique? Your views are the exception, not the rule? Yeah, I know how that goes.
He then said this, ":rolleyes: so it's good because it knocks religion? yeah right. This is "intellectual" porn, you watch it and think youre so smart but youre no different from the kids who line up to see the new Saw every year.
"This story isn't designed to entertain, but to communicate concerns"
If it isn't designed to entertain then it is destined to flop even harder than I originally thought. They can go communicate their concerns in a documentary. but every ad of this movie is plastering techno/rock soundtracks and a half naked goth making 'sexy' remarks.
"Go watch Home alone!"
No I would rather watch It's a Wonderful Life, something that has values that don't preach and celebrate the degradation of society. bad *beep* happens in the world but if we only focus on that how can we look our children in the eyes?
"the Story of O"
Huh? What's that. I'm not up to date on movies that feature entertaining rapes, like you are."
Half-naked goth girl? Sexy remarks? Techno/rock music? I'm not sure which trailer he is viewing with those first two comments and what's wrong with the third? Is it morally unacceptable to listen to techno and/or rock music? Where in The Bible does it say this? I remember the 11th Commandment, stating - "Thou shalt not go to a rave, for techno music is forbidden."
Also, he really wants to compare this film to "Saw"? That's right, because "Saw" contains gore and violence, so "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" is no different. What a simplistic point-of-view. The intent of "Saw" is to frighten and the writers and director attempt to provoke this through violence and gore, amongst other things, such as eerie-sounding music and dark imagery. It is in no way meant to be realistic. Most horror films aren't. Their only intent is to strike fear into the viewers. "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" is nothing like that. While the film may contain some R-rated material like "Saw," the storyline and plot differ greatly. Just because "Striptease" and "The Deer Hunter" are both rated R does not make them similar movies.
He then had the nerve to say, "Huh? What's that. I'm not up to date on movies that feature entertaining rapes, like you are."
"Entertaining rapes"? With that kind of logic, I hate to say it, but this guy is an idiot. Just because Person A enjoys a movie which contains a rape, does not mean that Person A is entertained by the rape. What kind of imbecile is he? So, if a film contains an explosion, a killing of some kind and a person enjoys that film, does that mean he or she is entertained by the murder? Eh, no. If a person likes a film which contains a great deal of discrimination at the expense of women or blacks, does that mean this person is entertained by such sexism or racism? Again, no. That's ridiculous. I thought "American History X" was a very good film with an excellent performance (what else is new?) by Edward Norton. Does that mean I am entertained by skinheads and their antics? I don't think so.
This guy has a very simple way of looking at things, isn't coy about using informal fallacies in an attempt to validate his point(s), seems to be a walking contradiction and double-standard and in addition to that, appears to suffer from delusions of grandeur.
I found his other commentary on films to be equally, I'll say "interesting," but am using that term in a rather sarcastic manner if one couldn't guess.
For the new Martin Scorsese movie, "Hugo," which has received rave reviews all over, this film "critic" said, "i have never seen such a huge differenc between what critics are saying and what is actually on screen. Holy crap, was the audience bored. There was some silent film stuff, which had i known about i wouldnt have even gone."
There he goes again with the hyperbolic rhetoric. He's "never seen such a huge difference between what critics are saying and what is actually on screen." He's also very technical and detailed, as he said, "...some silent film stuff." Indeed. That's what it's called actually. I heard a director once say in response to a critic's question about the film's composition, "There's a lot of, how do I put it? Silent film stuff."
There was also this - "I did not appreciate the films liberal qualities either, ie, orphanages are bad, people with authority are bad, war is bad..." Of course not. The film was obviously liberally biased. Most every film is. It was made to brainwash children into becoming liberals!
Okay...next?
How about for the film "The Artist"? This is one of the best reviewed films of the year, with an average grade of 8.7 out of 10 and a 96% approval rating. What did Mr. Conservative Critique have to say about it?
"I can't think of an idea less appealing. It is going to flop so hard. My problem is if you keep idealizing the past you are preventing real progress.
Want to know why black and white silent movies aren't made anymore? Because those movies were only made at the time, due to the limitations of their technology. They would be calling us idiots to make a movie in that style if we didn't have to.
It's like when 3D takes over, and in 100 years somebody makes a 2D movie. How is that progress? Nor is this some great nostalgia considering 90 % of people didn't live in this era."
Again with the exaggeration - "I can't think of an idea less appealing." Sure you can. I don't think he needs to try very hard...
Yeah, it probably will flop. These kinds of films aren't constructed to make it big at the box office. A film's box office success does not mean the film is of great quality. Adam Sandler has starred in a number of movies which have made over $100 million. All of these films were despised by critics, the most recent being "Jack & Jill". Does the money generated by his films mean they were grand pieces of cinema? Not by a long shot.
Also, this film isn't trying to bring back silent film. That's not going to happen, with the occasional exception. This film is paying tribute to silent films of old. Again, this guy I feel is missing almost all the screws. I also pray to Zorro that he's wrong about 3D films taking over some day. I don't mind there being an option of a 3D or 2D movie, but think in most cases, I'd prefer 2D.
This individual then gave his thoughts on the new Alexander Payne (and critically-acclaimed) film, "The Descendants". Guess what he had to say regarding this movie?
"(list of liberal nonsense in this film)
1. selling the property is evil. $$$ = evil
2. george clooney was portrayed as a bad husband because he saved money.
3. characters having constant affairs = no family values.
4. unplugging the wife = no respect for the sanctity of life.
5. family values - allowing your kids to cuss every chance and not disciplining them.
there is way more but this film is not worth writing too much about. it's a tired and simple plot stretched long and thin over two hours. I hated it."
Again, he attempts to see the movie as nothing but liberal drivel. Instead of actually watching the film, attempting to place political viewpoints aside, so he could actually get into the story and potentially enjoy the film as it was, he decided it be best to bring a pen and paper and jot down all the supposed liberal talking points throughout the movie's duration. That would certainly make for quite the entertaining experience, wouldn't it?
He also seems to be in love with strong language. He "hated" this movie. He "couldn't think of an idea less appealing" than that displayed in "The Artist". In "Hugo," he's "never seen such a huge difference between what critics are saying and what is actually on screen." I'm beginning to think he's only viewed these few films in his lifetime, since he utters the words "always" and "never" so frequently.
Finally, that brings us to "The Muppets," where he said and I quote,
"Why does america insist on lying and sugarcoating life to kids? I think these specific mentalities are what is destroying our society. Everyone wants to be rich but no one wants to work hard and sacrifice for it.
They think they can be like the muppet guy and just stumble into it through serendipity. This is why in our liberal society most kids are growing up hating their parents."
So, this guy complains about "lying" and "sugarcoating" in children's films ("The Muppets"), yet complains of realism in adult films ("The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo")? You just can't win with this guy, can you? Well, I have some non-sugarcoated rhetoric for him. This guy is full of hyperbole, condescension, red herrings, generalization, ad hominems, labeling, narrow-mindedness and delusions. I honestly wonder if there is a film he actually enjoys. He mentioned "It's a Wonderful Life," but I'm now even skeptical on that. I can't stand people whom are as self-righteous as him. He knows all. He knows right from wrong. He can define morality. He knows what people want. He knows what's good for this country. I'm really wondering if this guy is Rick Santorum. With 1-5% of the vote, I'm sure ol' Ricky has a lot of time on his hands...
Comments
Post a Comment