My dilemma, (simple) advice please?

[JonathanLB]

Hey,

Well this issue probably would not have come up except for how busy October is, and that month being my first back to college since I started JLBMovies.com.

Anyway, I do not find it impossible or even exceptionally difficult to keep up on my reviews of new releases, but I do find it exceptionally difficult if not nearly impossible to make substantial progress in reviewing the classic movies and trying to see all of the new releases. Nonetheless, that is only some weekends. Other weekends, I have plenty of time, and so far I've at least made a bit of progress each week on the classics.

Thus, my question, simple yay or nay vote basically for you guys, because I'd rather put this to vote among people I know than just up on my site...

I'll take what the majority says into serious consideration, but it will not go into effect until January 2003.

Should I:

A) Continue to review every national release and use spare time for classics.

OR

B) Review only major national releases (let's say 1-2 movies per week) and concentrate time on classic films until such point as I have seen all of the substantial ones, then start shifting focus back to new releases.

Now before you decide, let me just give you a little bit of my thinking process in support of both sides, notably A (because it may seem like the more "under fire" option).

I do not feel it is fair to look at a type of movie and say, "Gee, I do not really like that type, so I won't go see it." That's why I see all of the movies, family films, chick flicks, doesn't matter. I don't want to be a biased critic in my viewing, I want to be able to remain open minded because I believe good films come in all genres. For instance, if I avoided chick flicks, who knows, from the marketing I would probably missed About A Boy, I would have missed Brown Sugar, which I liked, and I'd miss other stuff like Serendipity and Legally Blonde, etc. Also, I might risk alienating part of my audience by being more selective in my movie going habits or my reviewing habits.

Now as for B, another part of me has to admit that I do JLBMovies.com for perhaps selfish reasons (which I think makes for better quality). I really do not care if someone can't find a review of an unpopular, unacclaimed film I've never seen. I really most care about being able to establish myself as an authority on film, so I care about seeing the movies that critics and moviegoers over the course of film history, and present, have decided are very good to great movies. I don't even care about the money on that site (I lose $150 per month), so none of it is for the visitors really, it's for me, because I demand high quality reviews of myself and I always write/say what I think about a movie.

So, given my choices and what you know, what would you, as a visitor (even if you do not visit... that's ok, hehe), rather have me do? Would you rather be able to find reviews of past classics, or is it more helpful for you to have me review every new film so that you know what is good and what is bad, at least in one critic's opinion?

Any input would be wonderful, so thanks a lot.

[Dutchy]

I only read reviews AFTER I've seen a movie, plus movies open way behind the US here, so I'm not interested in reviews of brand new releases. As for classics, yes, interesting, though I hardly see one, coz they're hard to get by.

In general I'd say people are interested in movies they've just seen or are about to see, so that would be the (bigger) current movies.

Oh, I wouldn't watch too many movies after one another, because at one point you'll start mixing up the ones you've seen. Spoils the fun of watching movies, which is what it's about in the first place. :)

By the way, I don't think you'll become an authority on film by setting that as your goal. Sharing your love for movies with other people should be your primary goal, I think. Then people will start to value you or not, so I don't think selfish reasons make for better quality.

[JonathanLB]

I was using that term in a joking manner, because it's not really selfish to write reviews of movies for myself and put them online. If I were that selfish, I'd just keep the reviews in a folder on my computer, haha, especially because I spent $2,200 on that movie site and have made $0 so far from it. I am so far just giving back to the online film community, haven't taken any money for it.

I do enjoy expressing my opinions with others on movies, but at present I do not think my opinions are particularly valuable until I've actually seen the movies I really must see. My knowledge of film is just so far beneath what I want it to be that I can hardly look at what I do know as "very good" compared to many people.

Granted I know way more about film than your average Joe, but I know way, way less than I need to know.

I can see your point about new releases, and I talked to a friend and she said the same thing. But I'm not so sure about that, because people often want to know what so and so critic thought of their favorite films, and it seems to me that my site lacks hardly any old reviews compared to what it should have.

Plus, who respects a critic who hasn't even seen The Godfather Part II, or Lawrence of Arabia, or Full Metal Jacket, or any number of other classic films? I don't, lol, and I haven't seen any of those movies! The point is, I'm not even a real critic yet, I'm just in the process of building my film knowledge so that one glorious day I can say, "Now, I am a true film critic." But I'm about 1,000 movies away from that, literally.

I will wait for more advice from you guys, but my instinct tells me that it would be plenty useful if I reviewed about 2 movies per week new to theaters, or 100 per year roughly. That would still cover every single major release, popular film, critically acclaimed film, etc.

This year I will reach about 150 to 160 new release reviews. Cutting that to 100 wouldn't be so bad really would it? I am talking about cutting Country Bears, Sorority Boys, Ya-Ya Stupidhood, that sorta stuff. The movies that are most obviously going to suck hard.

[JMK]

I would review the biggest national releases as they come out and review the classics when you have time. The classics have been around for 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 years even. What's the rush in getting a review of them now?

[darth_mcbain]

My sentiments exactly JMK - I was thinking the same thing. Not that fresh opinions don't matter, but the classics have been around so long and have already been reviewed to death. I'd stay current and do the new releases - then if there is time afterwards I'd start working the classics.

[JMK]

That was one part of my reasoning, the second is that depending on JLB's web audience (I'm assuming most of the readers are in the 16-28 age group), and many of them, if not most either don't care about the classics, or have seen the ones they want to see already.

[JonathanLB]

I'm not sure of my demographics either, but don't you think everyone should care about the great classics that came before? If they don't, shame on them... perhaps as they mature they'll become more interested. If not, their loss, but you know it never hurts to try to get people interested in something.

Plus, your basic philosophy here is one that could be very dangerous potentially, to me.

Let's say that in 4 years, I have seen every new release from 2002 through 2006 or whatever, but haven't seen all of the classics that are important to film history, then I will not be at an acceptable level of knowledge to write books on the film industry, to become a director, or even to become a real, professional critic if I wanted to do that.

But if I missed a number of new releases and only saw 1-2 movies per week that were new, and I had completed seeing all of those classics, then I would be exactly where I need to be as a critic so that I can make my own movies.

I'm not saying I can't do both (see the new releases and the classics), but at some point if I'm not far enough through the classics, it may be too late to change my strategy and up the number of classics I see. It seems dangerous to me to simply dismiss classic movies, especially when you can't accurately review new movies without having seen the old ones, you really can't.

I've mentioned before that so and so movie (Swimfan) is like Fatal Attraction, a movie I have NEVER seen before. Of course, I am comfortable saying that because I know it's true, but it makes me unease that in other cases I want to cite past movies but cannot as I've not seen them and don't know of them.

It seems a dangerous precedent to me to tell moviegoers of today that seeing the classics is not important, but it is only important to see new releases. Everyone sees the new movies. Don't critics exist to compare the new to the old and tell people how these films fit into the overall film history and industry? If they were just there to say, "This movie is good (or bad)," then anyone can do that. At least, I see that as my job as a film critic, to make comparisons that other people simply would not be able to make, to make observations above and beyond the level of understanding of normal moviegoers, and to inform people of other, older movies they might enjoy if they liked so and so given film.

Your point is well seen about new releases, though, so you all think it is fair to say that I must review the major new releases, and I think that is fair to say too. So we agree.

Would you say that I should/could skip many new releases that are not that big, though? What of Pokemon 4ever, a movie I have so far decided to skip at least this weekend? It seems to me that if I just reviewed the larger films, like the 2 big movies every weekend, I'd still have a very large number of modern reviews and most people would be searching for those reviews, not the ones of the really obscure new releases.

I saw Y Tu Mama Tambien today... umm, my god. It is the worst film of the year, bar none, worse than The Rules of Attraction even. It's just horrible, filthy trash. A glorified pornography. Any film showing full frontal nudity multiple times and characters engaged in sex acts while fully nude is clearly defined as a pornography. I suppose The Rules of Attraction NARROWLY escapes that with its R rating (somehow), but this film did not. It is definitely a Mexican porn, and hey if that's your thing, great, but I would prefer to watch actual, real movies, not pornos.

[JMK]

While I think that it would be more beneficial for your site to do more new released, I DO think you need to do reviews of the classics. Lets say that from January 1, 2003 all the way to December 31, 2006, you do one review of a classic per month, that's 48 reviews of the classics. That's *if* you do only one a month. If you did 2, you would have them all done, more or less.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
I saw Y Tu Mama Tambien today... umm, my god. It is the worst film of the year, bar none, worse than The Rules of Attraction even. It's just horrible, filthy trash. A glorified pornography. Any film showing full frontal nudity multiple times and characters engaged in sex acts while fully nude is clearly defined as a pornography. I suppose The Rules of Attraction NARROWLY escapes that with its R rating (somehow), but this film did not. It is definitely a Mexican porn, and hey if that's your thing, great, but I would prefer to watch actual, real movies, not pornos.

Welcome to the REAL world, dude. Where people actually have sex. :)

Y Tu Mamá También is one of my very fave movies of this year.

[JonathanLB]

Dutchy... that movie was absolute trash. I actually saw it with my mom too, and we both were just apalled at how useless, pointless, and disgusting it was.

I don't understand how you could like that movie and to be honest I don't have any respect for anyone who would recommend that film to others. It is a porn flick, and if the critics want to sit there and jerk off in the theater while writing their reviews, that's fine, but I go to the movies to be entertained and maybe even inspired in the absolute rarest of cases (but that is what the art form is CAPABLE of doing), but I do not see movies so that I can have my intelligence insulted and be offended by the absolute disgusting nature of a film like that. It's just perverted.

"Oh gee that's the real world," NO, that is the world behind closed doors, and I don't want to know what people do in their personal lives, that is disgusting to anyone but the people involved.

Hollywood isn't about the real world, it's about movie-making and fantasy worlds, and although realism is appreciated when appropriate, an entire film made about sex, masturbating, doing drugs, drinking, and other nonsense doesn't make for an interesting or even halfway DECENT plotline. The movie had ZERO plot. I have nothing else to say. My review will be available Monday.

---

As for this topic at hand here, I would never give up seeing the major new releases while I have the time (so while I'm in college, but when in film school, who knows?), but just one little comment about your assessment of the classics, hehe. There are not about 100 classics. There are about 500 to 1,000 classic movies, all of which I'd like to see. I'm talking about every Hitchock film, every Spielberg film, every Kubrick film, every AFI top FOUR hundred film (the nominee list for the AFI Top 100 greatest), the list of the highest grossing 100 movies ever made (this will cover my "popular" reviews), not to mention hundreds of short films by Lloyd, Keaton, Chaplin, The Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, and numerous other things.

I have about 750 specific movies I need to see before I'm satisfied as far as having an advanced understanding of past movies. So, the rate at which I need to get through these movies is pretty large. Nonetheless, hehe, of course I do way more than one per month, or per week. In my film class alone, I see two movies per week, all of which are classics. Plus on my own I have time to see quite a few.

I suppose I'll be able to work my way through the classics pretty darn fast given that summer break offers about 100 days of just doing whatever I want, no obligations except to myself. So, 100 days, that's at least 200 movies, up to 250 maybe, even considering the time I spend with friends (which is often seeing some movies too, so that doesn't hurt...).

I guess the basic point is, do you guys think I can skip movies like Pokemon 4Ever, or should I literally see everything? Already, you know I'm not seeing EVERYTHING because I don't go to see all of the independent, art house movies here. I see a few, like Full Frontal, and I often rent them on DVD when they arrive (Monsoon Wedding, Y Tu Mama Tambien, etc.). I am just one person, though, I cannot literally review every film that opens each year and be a college student and do the rest of the things I must do.

I think it is fair to see just the movies that open in major national release, like 1,000 theaters or more, although I make exceptions and see smaller movies often if they are critically acclaimed.

I guess the point I'm making is, does anyone CARE about me reviewing Pokemon 4Ever or that sorta nonsense?

Let's put it this way, lol, I feel I should get to pick 5 movies each year that I don't have to see!!! :)

[JediBoricua]

I really like Y tu Mama Tambien...a lot.

Must be the subtitling that got you off, or something. Maybe it's a cultural thing.

Anyway, about your problem. I think you should review the classics, I think you want to gain respect from your piers and become a critic in the future, so you must cover all the classics the same way a literary critic must read all the masterpieces, etc. etc.

I agree, you don't have to see every release.

[JonathanLB]

Good advice, Boricua.

As for that horrid Mexican movie, it wasn't the subtitling! LOL, my god, it wasn't anything to do with that. The subtitles were well done, unlike some old Hong Kong movies I've seen, hehe, but those were a lot more fun than this thing. I'd rather go to the dentist and get my teeth pulled one by one without novocaine than sit through that movie again. Ugg, I don't know how anyone could like such a plotless, disgusting movie. Maybe our culture is really a lot less tasteful than even I had imagined.

It honestly makes me sick and depressed that people actually like drivel like that.

[jjwr]

Stick with mostly newer releases. Yes in a perfect world its nice to have people check out the older movies that made hollywood what it is today but if you want to hold a audience and a following then writing over their heads about moves they've never heard of isn't the way to go. Hit one or two a monty(as was said before) and put them up so they're noticable but not in the way of the big new releases.

One note on that whole mexican movie thingy, ok its not your cup of tea, your entitled to that opinion. But the others are entitled to their opinions and they liked it. So be it, whats the big deal?

[JonathanLB]

They can have whatever opinions they want, as long as they realize it was softcore porn, because it was. Any NC-17 film is softcore pornography, and that's exactly what you get. I think people who watch porn movies and call them high art are very confused individuals who are in desperate need of learning what real filmmaking is, but oh well.

I can appreciate someone saying they hated Patch Adams, a movie I really liked, because it's not that big of a deal to like or dislike it, but if you like Y Tu Mama Tambien then you just stand for the worst kind of filthy trashy movies imaginable, and if that's what you want to ally yourself with, so be it. But I will have no part of supporting the porn industry, even if it is Mexican porn.

As for this 1-2 classics per month, no, I would never do that. No great director would ever have such a poor knowledge of film history. I will make my money through writing about and being an expert on film, not by ignoring all of the old movies. You cannot possibly hope to be a real film critic without reviewing the classics.

I thank everyone for their advice, but anyone who believes the classics are not important is just wrong. I'm 19. I got over the whole stage of "old movies are bad, I only like big blockbusters," but it seems many people are still in that stage. That's fine, but don't expect me to revert back to it.

The classics deserve more attention than the new movies because, unlike the new movies, they will always be around. People will always be typing in "Gone With the Wind" and "Star Wars" to search engines, they won't be typing in "Sorority Boys."

I absolutely agree that you must have new releases reviewed and keep up to date on the present, not just look at the past, but if a critic seriously only had time to watch 2 movies per week, I'd tell them to review 1 new release and 1 old film per week, because it's just not acceptable to have not seen the best films of any genre.

How can you make comparisons or write intelligent reviews if you have nothing with which to compare the new movies? You see Sorority Boys, you should just say it's a teen comedy version of Mrs. Doubtfire and Tootsie, but a very poor effort that lacks any of the wit or brilliant dialogue, or great acting, of those two masterpieces. You shouldn't just be like, "This movie is bad because it wasn't funny. I'm a film critic. I am smart. It is bad." LOL, you can't possibly comment intelligently without knowing where a film stands as part of history.

I will aim to review about 15-20 classics per month along with 10-15 new releases. That covers almost all of the new releases and enough classics to get me through my lists quickly. In the summer or during x-mas break, I will be able to do a lot more reviewing.

[jjwr]

They can have whatever opinions they want, as long as they realize it was softcore porn, because it was.

Ok so what if it was? This is a message board about movies, no need to lay down your moral views on people for enjoying this movie.

As for the rest, so what your basically saying is thank you all for your opinions but I'll ignore them. So why bother asking when you already had the answer yourself?

[JonathanLB]

No that is not true, JJWR, you all made me realize I should still remain diligent with my new releases reviews and make sure I see all of them and spend what free time I have to see the classics, so I have taken that into consideration and decided you guys are correct. I must still review as many new releases as I can, so I'll see everything except for, as I said, maybe just a few films per year. Like Pokemon 4Ever. I think I deserve the privilege of missing like 5 movies per year ;)

I will just HOPE I have enough time to see the number of classics I want after I see the new releases. Your opinions were all helpful because you have voiced your opinions that new releases reviews truly are the center of a large movie review site, thus I must cover them very well still, and I will make sure to do that.

Hopefully, I can also offer great reviews of classics.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
Dutchy... that movie was absolute trash. I actually saw it with my mom too, and we both were just apalled at how useless, pointless, and disgusting it was.

I don't understand how you could like that movie and to be honest I don't have any respect for anyone who would recommend that film to others. It is a porn flick, and if the critics want to sit there and jerk off in the theater while writing their reviews, that's fine, but I go to the movies to be entertained and maybe even inspired in the absolute rarest of cases (but that is what the art form is CAPABLE of doing), but I do not see movies so that I can have my intelligence insulted and be offended by the absolute disgusting nature of a film like that. It's just perverted.

"Oh gee that's the real world," NO, that is the world behind closed doors, and I don't want to know what people do in their personal lives, that is disgusting to anyone but the people involved.

Hollywood isn't about the real world, it's about movie-making and fantasy worlds, and although realism is appreciated when appropriate, an entire film made about sex, masturbating, doing drugs, drinking, and other nonsense doesn't make for an interesting or even halfway DECENT plotline. The movie had ZERO plot. I have nothing else to say. My review will be available Monday.

Mexico isn't Hollywood and movies are not about fantasy worlds, but they are about human emotions in all shapes and forms. Fantasy worlds are just one genre. If that's your genre, perfect, but don't pretend that only you know what real filmmaking is. You really think that all those millions of people who like movies with serious, mature content don't like movies? They actually really DO like movies. Just like you do, only you like a different genre. Your opinion on this movie and the people who watch these type of movies is pretty obnoxious.

Maybe instead of watching every new movie and old classic you should try and get some interest in the people and world around you.

[JonathanLB]

Dutchy you are so far off base it isn't worth discussing these matters with you. If you can't keep to the topic, then don't type anything at all.

I appreciate all types of films and I especially like the more intellectually engaging ones. I just had this conversation with Ben the other day and we were both talking about how if we ever made films (I know I will, in some capacity, he doesn't really have any interest), we would both be much more interested in making very intellectually engaging, mind-twisting movies than just making entertaining ones.

For instance, I LOVE action movies, everyone, or every guy, loves a great action movie with plenty of @$$-kicking, but let's face it, those are the movies where you enjoy them during the action and when the credits roll, you immediately bring up another subject, "Ahh, well, where are we going to eat dinner?" or "So, what's the plan for tonight? Back to my place and shoot some pool?" They are throw-away films. Even the best action movies are pretty much just great fun with no real intellectual value. Whereas after seeing Fight Club, we still discuss that movie 3 years later! We still talk about The Matrix and all of the little details that it brings up, and we question certain aspects of it and take the reality-bending ideas to different or more complicated levels.

Those movies are discussion pieces. That is my favorite type of film, or one that doesn't question reality but brings up morality and complicated dilemma's that really make you think about the issues. Changing Lanes is absolutely the best modern example of a morality play that succeeds in every way at every level. Simone is an even better movie, to me, but plays more on a sci-fi level I suppose (soon to be science fact, perhaps). Both are fantastic morality plays that make you question the rightness of these actions and what happened on screen. Another fairly recent example, very recent for me, is Bicentennial Man. That's the ultimate morality tale with the ultimate sci-fi plot, even though it was vastly underappreciated and often labeled as overly sentimental garbage by other critics who either failed to appreciate it or just did not understand it.

Sometimes people simply are not intrigued by what in all honesty should very much interest them, such as politics, religion, and reality. I don't care who you are, what you believe, or what race or gender you are, everyone should care about our reality, what we know about Earth, the universe, or anything. Constantly question reality and even the most ridiculous scenarios can be enlightening and fascinating, like The Matrix. Other people would rather turn a blind eye to these issues apparently, just as they totally ignore that the government in the United States (and perhaps other countries, of course) is actually taking away our rights slowly but very definitely. We, today, live in a society that is more regulated and more restricted than any era of U.S. history. Yet somehow there are honestly people who are so engulfed in their own personal lives, so selfish, and so disinterested, they cannot even take the time to look around them and see what is happening and react, as they should, angrily about the changes! Someday, they will notice, and they'll say, of course, that "Wow, just overnight, our rights were taken away!" But of course, that will not be true. Their rights, our rights, were taken away one by one, very slowly, so at what point does everyone notice? Hopefully things will not get out of control and hopefully the people will not need to rebel against the government to enforce change, but the attitudes that people have now seem to make this almost inevitable. "Oh gee, look how GREAT we have it in the United States compared to other countries, you can't complain man." YES! I CAN COMPLAIN! My rights are being taken away, your rights are being taken away, and you must compare the current U.S. to the U.S. that a great group of men founded in 1776. This current country has thrown out its constitution, which is not being used at all anymore as the federal government continues to remove the rights of the states to make their own laws. California, Oregon, and all of these other states cannot decide if they want to make Marijuana legal for medical use?! What the hell? What right is it of the DEA to come and attack California clinics that have medicinal marijuana.

In my not very humble at all opinion, California and the other states that have their rights violated should use their constitutional right to bear arms and take up those arms against those who would take their rights away. If the DEA comes into those clinics, the people should be ready, guns in hand, to enforce the LAWS of the state and maintain order, which the DEA is actually ruining. They are not maintaining order, they are disrupting it, and local law enforcement as well as local citizens should use deadly and lethal force if they must to stop the federal government from taking away their constitutionally granted rights.

How is this for absolute proof:

Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

No exceptions. That is what the constitution says. John Locke is absolutely right in what one other author (Daniel O'Connor said online), which is: "Consequently, once a government fails to protect, or, worse yet, harms, the citizens' property, that government "dissolves" its right to legitimately rule the people, giving right to the collective to establish a new government."

Now if everyone's rights keep on being broken over and over again with invasions of privacy and property such as this drugs case, then it is the right and even the obligation of the people to abolish the current government and establish in its place a new, more effective, less powerful government.

I'm not saying that time has come to revolt, because peace is always better than war I think, and right now we are still far from totally giving up on this, but the election systems are not working. The politicians are not doing what they say they will do, our powers are being taken away, and the government ASSUMES that it has a lot of power that it should not have whatsoever. The government should FEAR the people!!! People should not fear the government. Not ever. That is such an absurd situation, I just can't believe how far this country has fallen down the tube since basically the depression and that idiot FDR who was a socialist, big government, big spending moron.

Dutchy, my problem with that idiotic film, getting back to the point, is that it didn't make me THINK about anything except how much I wanted to turn it off. It was horrible, useless, and stupid. It appeals to the most basic instincts and has no value as an intellectual film, and it sure as to hell was not entertaining either. I didn't laugh one time and I didn't feel anything for the characters because it just sucked.

I can point you in the direction of great comedies, great romantic comedies, great road trip movies (Animal House has a nice road trip scene, Road Trip is the best pure road trip movie I think), but that film was not it. It isn't a good coming-of-age story either. You might as well look to Rebel Without A Cause or something of real value for a true coming-of-age story.

[Jedieb]

Meanwhile over at Rotten Tomatoes:
Reviews counted: 102
Fresh: 95 Rotten: 7

That's a phenomenal approval raating of over 93%! That's a lot more people for Jon not to have any respect for. Pretty soon, he'll just be left with himself. Or maybe he's there already...
:rolleyes

[Jedi Master Carr]

In my not very humble at all opinion, California and the other states that have their rights violated should use their constitutional right to bear arms and take up those arms against those who would take their rights away. If the DEA comes into those clinics, the people should be ready, guns in hand, to enforce the LAWS of the state and maintain order, which the DEA is actually ruining. They are not maintaining order, they are disrupting it, and local law enforcement as well as local citizens should use deadly and lethal force if they must to stop the federal government from taking away their constitutionally granted rights.

Jon what are you saying California should revolt? First off Californians voted for those laws and most of them wanted them, that is the democracy, what you are advicating in minority rule where if a few people don't like the law they can take over the state and enforce there own law, that is a dictatorship.
Second off I am getting tired of you bashing other people's opinion that is not right at all you can't tell somebody that they are sick and stupid for liking something that is just wrong and unfair. There are film that I hate that some my friends like, I don't call them stupid for liking them, I realize that is their opinion. If you can't do that then you might develop some problems in the real world.

[JMK]

It would seem that movie got a much better rating at RT than both TPM and AotC

TPM @ RT:
Reviews counted: 130
Fresh: 81 Rotten: 49
63% fresh

AotC @ RT:
Reviews counted: 183
Fresh: 116 Rotten: 67
63% fresh

Not a huge difference there as far as I can tell. 63% is NOT a terrific score, no matter how you want to manipulate the numbers.

The "mexican porn" is 93% fresh.
Do you not have respect for that 93% of your peers??

[jjwr]

Whats gets me is the constant theme that if you don't agree with me then your wrong. That and all the veiled insults are fun to read too.


even though it was vastly underappreciated and often labeled as overly sentimental garbage by other critics who either failed to appreciate it or just did not understand it.

So they don't agree with you, that makes it rather obvious that they didn't understand the movie. Did I get your thinking down properly?


I don't care who you are, what you believe, or what race or gender you are, everyone should care about our reality,

I think we all wonder sometimes what reality this is you speak of. I know most of us have a reality and our grounded quite nicely while others have viewed life through a different set of glasses and don't always understand that there is a difference.


Dutchy, my problem with that idiotic film, getting back to the point, is that it didn't make me THINK about anything except how much I wanted to turn it off.

Thats your point of view and your entitled to it.


It was horrible, useless, and stupid.

Ok and this is your opinion.


It appeals to the most basic instincts and has no value as an intellectual film, and it sure as to hell was not entertaining either. I didn't laugh one time and I didn't feel anything for the characters because it just sucked.

Again your opinion.

What do we learn from all this? We each have our own opinion and while others may not agree with our opinions they are entitled to them. Does that mean that just because they don't agree with what you thought of the movie then they didn't get or understand it?

From what I gather about this movie it has loads of sex and nudity. Ok, I can see where that could be considered a bad thing. But how is that not reality? For some of us that is reality and that is everyday life. Now maybe you've never come near a naked female form so its not your reality but there are lots out there who have and may even enjoy this movie. That probably puts you in the minority. Does that mean your wrong? No. Its your opinion, but just because its your opinion doesn't automatically make it right either.

You go up and down complaining about people's rights and how the government being wrong but for the pats 3 1/2 years on this board you've stepped on every opinion that differed from yours. Your the type of person that is 7ft tall online but when you meet them is 5'8" 150lbs. Your obviously well educated but that doesn't make you better than everyone else. I really find it rather ironic that a guy who prides himself on his reviews(which are his opinions) can't seem to admit any opinion but his own has any validity.

Sorry guys, rant off.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
Dutchy you are so far off base it isn't worth discussing these matters with you. If you can't keep to the topic, then don't type anything at all.

YOU were the one starting to insult people's intelligence, dude.


everyone, or every guy, loves a great action movie

Sure, since every guy thinks exactly like Jonathan, and all girls like chick flicks.


Those movies are discussion pieces. That is my favorite type of film, or one that doesn't question reality but brings up morality and complicated dilemma's that really make you think about the issues.

Complicated dilemmas like what do you do after you find out you have cancer?


In my not very humble at all opinion, California and the other states that have their rights violated should use their constitutional right to bear arms and take up those arms against those who would take their rights away. If the DEA comes into those clinics, the people should be ready, guns in hand, to enforce the LAWS of the state and maintain order, which the DEA is actually ruining. They are not maintaining order, they are disrupting it, and local law enforcement as well as local citizens should use deadly and lethal force if they must to stop the federal government from taking away their constitutionally granted rights.

Speaking of not sticking to the topic.


Dutchy, my problem with that idiotic film, getting back to the point, is that it didn't make me THINK about anything except how much I wanted to turn it off. It was horrible, useless, and stupid. It appeals to the most basic instincts and has no value as an intellectual film, and it sure as to hell was not entertaining either. I didn't laugh one time and I didn't feel anything for the characters because it just sucked.

That's all in YOUR opinion.

You have a narrowminded view on this world. Which is OK, but don't pretend that YOU are the one who's right and knows it all.

[Jedieb]

In my not very humble at all opinion, California and the other states that have their rights violated should use their constitutional right to bear arms and take up those arms against those who would take their rights away. If the DEA comes into those clinics, the people should be ready, guns in hand, to enforce the LAWS of the state and maintain order, which the DEA is actually ruining. They are not maintaining order, they are disrupting it, and local law enforcement as well as local citizens should use deadly and lethal force if they must to stop the federal government from taking away their constitutionally granted rights.

An interview with a blockhead;

Interviewer: "So, you're advocating that citizens take up arms against the federal government?"

Blockhead: "Yes. Stupid DEA agents should be shot and killed whenever local citizens or governments feel their constitutional rights are being violated."

Interviewer: "Couldn't these citizens pursue a legal course of action?"

Blockhead: "I'm sure they could, I don't know much about these things, but killing the Feds is a much simpler and REALISTIC solution."

Interviewer: "You've been qouted before as saying "America's #1, all other countries suck!" Doesn't your current call for the murder of Drug Enforcement officers and other Federal employees fly in the face of that?"

Blockhead: "Uhhh, no of course not. What are you, an idiot?"

Interviewer: "One last question, would YOU ever join these citizens in their fight against tyranny? Would YOU ever shoot at an armed DEA agent who was trying to enter a clinic you didn't want him to enter? Knowing full well that the DEA agent could wound or kill YOU? Knowing full well that your actions could probably result in a long jail sentence?"

Blockhead: "What, you think I'M STUPID enough to fight for any cause or belief?! Fighting and risking one's life for anything but one's self preservation is simply idiotic. Hell, even then you could probably hire someone else to fight for you. Only idiots fight and die for their beliefs and causes. I'm much too smart for that. But I'll sure as hell cheer anyone on who wants to kill American law enforcement officials who are ignorant enough to work for the wrong jurisdiction. Provided I can do the cheering from a safe distance and not have to be inconvienced in any significant way. Now, are there any other questions? I've got to write an earth shattering, culture altering review about some porn movie I just saw. Nobody but me seems to get that it's immoral trash. Hey wait a minute, 'LADY THAT DEA GUY LOOKS LIKE HE'S GOING INTO THAT CLINIC! QUICK, OPEN FIRE AND ORPAN HIS KIDS!!!"


:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

[Sene Unty]

I love Mexican porn......you know something that's pretty funny, I didn't even want to see this movie, but now that so many people have defended it, I do. Thanks Jonathan! :D

[Nupraptor]

You know, it may seem that everyone is "stupid" because they can't see how horrible this movie is. But, if you're in the minority of people who thinks it's a bad movie, and the vast majority think it's a good movie.... well, then... It hardly means that the vast majority of the people are "stupid". I could be mistaken, but I thought the point of critiquing movies was to give reccomendations on whether or not people should go to see it. So if you're reccomending against going to see a movie that 93% of the audience (to use the RT numbers) thought was really good, you might consider another line of work. Just a thought.

Personally, I liked it. It didn't seem particularly amazing to me until the last scene when they explained that she died of cancer. Which explained so much about her behaviour throughout the film. She wanted to have some impact on the boys' lives... at least, that's what I got from it.

Yes, it had several sex scenes. That doesn't make it a porn. It was a movie about sexuality, among other things.

[jjwr]

LOL Jedieb.....good stuff :)

[Dutchy]

Where'd Jonathan go?

[Jedieb]

He's writing page 532 of his review.

[JonathanLB]

Well I see you have had quite a few idiotic posts at your own expenses, or my expense if you want to look at it that way, but I just think you wasted your time.

"So if you're reccomending against going to see a movie that 93% of the audience (to use the RT numbers) thought was really good, you might consider another line of work. Just a thought."

Just a thought: you might want to learn a few things about reviewing before you open your mouth. Just a thought.

Any critic's job is NOT to tell people what to see or what not to see, but to review film's honestly and say what he or she thought of them, regardless of whether they are the only person on God's Green Earth that thinks so and so was a great film, or so and so was a lousy film. "Above all, to thine own self be true." If you've never heard that before, start reading my friend, you got a lot to learn.

As for the comments about California, you have no idea what you are talking about, the MAJORITY passed the LAW that says Marijuana is legal there, and it's not about weed because I could care less about that. I got too much to do to be passing my time smoking weed, but my friend Ben does that, hehe. The principal of the matter has nothing to do with weed and everything to do with state's rights. I do think that California and Oregon and every other state that is getting raped by the federal government should leave the union, unless their rights are respected. The constitution binds these states, but it also binds the government, and if they will not obey it, then perhaps neither should we, the states.

I know one thing, up here in Oregon I really don't care what people all around the world think of Washington or New York because I'm not from either one of them. They are not my problems. I am an Oregonian, and I will be a Californian, but I have nothing to do with those boneheads in Washington and their nonsensical foreign policies that have terrorists blowing us up and wanting us dead. To assume that the terrorist attacks are not at all our fault is just one-sided and patriotic, but not intelligent. They didn't attack us for NO reason, they attacked us because we have been screwing with the Arab world for ages and we need to get the hell out of their business and stop sending conflicting messages.

Now here in Oregon, we don't do that, that's our federal government. So do terrorists want to blow us up? NO! So should we deal with the idiocy of Washington? Well we have to, but it's not our problem. Nobody wants Oregonians dead. If Oregon were a separate nation entirely, or if California was, or if the entire West Coast was separate, then the terrorists could have it out with Washington and leave us alone because we have nothing to do with that crap. It's our idiotic government.

I don't really believe at heart that radical solutions are the answer now, and I don't think that any states should leave the union, but I do think that if situations do not reverse very quickly, in the next few decades for instance, then there is going to come a time where a revolution is the only way to solve the problems of bigger and bigger government with too much control.

I think also that if you want to vote for tax increases, then great, you should have to pay for them. Anyone who votes no should be exempt from tax increases, because plain and simple we don't need any more of them, so if you want them, great, you foot the bill. Not my problem. That would encourage more logical thinking, instead of, "Well gee I'm going to vote this in because I don't make any money anyway, so it'll just tax those people with jobs!" (this is happening in Oregonian because of our 9% unemployment rate or whatever). Then instead they'd be like, "Wow gee if I vote for this, *I* am going to have to pay for the taxes, because I want the new taxes supposedly, but the rich people and the working class do not, so hmm, guess that's a bad idea for me then, don't want to pay those new taxes."

10% flat tax for everyone. I will not accept anything above that is "ok," so until the taxes are cut to that level, I will never be satisfied. They are outrageous right now and an invasion of our rights. Don't look at me and say I'm radical, either, the people who founded this nation wouldn't accept the current conditions and if anyone at all knows their history, and Jedieb you should, our country was FOUNDED by REVOLUTIONISTS and RADICALS. Make no mistake about it, and don't forget it for a moment. Also don't forget that they protested a TEA tax and the idea of income taxes was unacceptable and just totally ludicrous to them. So you tell me if it's ok to tax people 40% (federal and state combined, plus a lot of other nonsense little taxes). I don't think so!

I'm done arguing political issues, if you can't see the obvious then I can't help you see it I guess, unless we had a real life debate and then perhaps you would be able to understand through logic and reasoning what I am saying here.

I only suggest the radical as a way of saying, "Hey, look if we don't get on these problems, that radical option may be the only option, let's not let that happen!" The U.S. is still a great country, but I cannot say I'm happy with the current direction we are taking. I just think people should be concerned about it, that's all.

As for Y Tu Mama Tambien, I can realize that people who otherwise have great taste would like such a pathetic film, but I cannot respect their opinion of the movie because it's just filth. It's great if Roger Ebert watches porn, that's fine and all and it's his right, but I don't need to know about his favorite porno movies. I mean, I'd just rather think that a guy that age doesn't look at porn, it just is a better mental image. So if someone likes that idiotic Mexican porno, more power to them, but it's still filth and I still think they are very wrong about the movie.

Funny because on my Geo midterm I scored in the 98th percentile, 48 out of 50 correct, and there were 2 perfect scores, 3 49's, and 17 48's (tied with me). So I was in the top 2%. Just the same, those 7% of the people who did not recommend Y Make This Movie are the only people who weren't taken in by its idiocy apparently. There are only ever a small group of people who truly understand anything. The majority does not rule, the majority are idiots, and the minority is the more interesting group.

You don't see movies about the majority because they're not interesting, see you movies about characters of extraordinary abilities or in the minority with their intelligence or achievements because those people are just more, well, interesting.

The majority may be right about many things, like killing is bad, stealing is bad, movies are good, music is good, those types of things, but the majority of people probably think Titanic is a better movie than Citizen Kane, which is obviously not an opinion that any serious film critic or moviegoer would take seriously. I mean, the "majority" of teenage girls think the Backstreet Boys are better than Green Day, REM, and Third Eye Blind, but of course they would be WRONG because the Backstreet Boys have no talent and don't even make their own songs, nor do their songs have any actual value or messages, while those aforementioned three groups are intelligent and talented.

In my experience, the majority drools, and the minority rules.

What is it again? 1% of the U.S. controls 99% of the wealth is it? I don't know but it's something like that, more like the upper 3% controls the upper 97% or something, I'm not sure.

Or how about this: "Researchers surveyed the Yale class of 1953, and found that 3 percent had written down financial goals for their futures at their college graduation. When the group reconvened in 1973, this 3 percent of the class that had started their careers with some kind of plan controlled more combined net worth than the other 97 percent combined." -CNN.Money.com

I'm sorry but I find little argument for the majority ruling anything but their own toilets.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Ok Jon first off I guess you would support the South in the Civil War. And second your complete nuts if you support succession, that was proven wrong in the Civil War, as Lincoln Said, " A Divided Nation cannot stand." Also if you had talked like that back in the 19th century after the Civil War you would have shot as a traitor, of course we are more civilized now. Finally, I have to say why can't you be more tolerant? It is find to say I hate that movie and I find it a filth. It is another to say you are stupid and a moron for liking that movie, that is not tolerating someone elses views. Being this way really makes people mad and I am personally getting tired of this behavior.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
As for Y Tu Mama Tambien, I can realize that people who otherwise have great taste would like such a pathetic film, but I cannot respect their opinion of the movie because it's just filth. It's great if Roger Ebert watches porn, that's fine and all and it's his right, but I don't need to know about his favorite porno movies. I mean, I'd just rather think that a guy that age doesn't look at porn, it just is a better mental image. So if someone likes that idiotic Mexican porno, more power to them, but it's still filth and I still think they are very wrong about the movie.

I guess you don't even know what a porn movie or actual sex looks like, because YTMT is NOT a porn movie. Doesn't take a scientist to see that.


I cannot respect their opinion of the movie because it's just filth.

You can either agree or disagree with someone, but disrespecting their opinion is pretty sad.


You don't see movies about the majority because they're not interesting

YOU don't see those movies (I see them a lot). It's only YOUR opinion that they're not interesting.


the majority of people probably think Titanic is a better movie than Citizen Kane, which is obviously not an opinion that any serious film critic or moviegoer would take seriously.

No, probably not. More people have seen Titanic, but I'm not sure that the majority of the ones who also saw CK thought it was less good than Titanic.

Oh, didn't the majority of people really like TPM?

[Jedieb]

A man and a woman are touching each other, yuck! Look, Jet Li just killed a guy with nothing but his finger! Coooollll! Everyone's is stupid except me! :rolleyes


I do think that California and Oregon and every other state that is getting raped by the federal government should leave the union, unless their rights are respected. The constitution binds these states, but it also binds the government, and if they will not obey it, then perhaps neither should we, the states.

My government did something I don't agree with. I'm OUTTA here!


I know one thing, up here in Oregon I really don't care what people all around the world think of Washington or New York because I'm not from either one of them. They are not my problems. I am an Oregonian, and I will be a Californian, but I have nothing to do with those boneheads in Washington and their nonsensical foreign policies that have terrorists blowing us up and wanting us dead. To assume that the terrorist attacks are not at all our fault is just one-sided and patriotic, but not intelligent. They didn't attack us for NO reason, they attacked us because we have been screwing with the Arab world for ages and we need to get the hell out of their business and stop sending conflicting messages.

I don't live there so screw them! It's another coast and many of those people don't think like I do so they got what they deserved! I could care less about New Yorkers, unless of course they've got a sports team that wins all the time and then I'm at my frontrunner best!



Now here in Oregon, we don't do that, that's our federal government. So do terrorists want to blow us up? NO!


Ha Ha NYC and D.C.! You got bombed becuz you're not cool like us Oregonians!


I don't really believe at heart that radical solutions are the answer now, and I don't think that any states should leave the union, but I do think that if situations do not reverse very quickly, in the next few decades for instance, then there is going to come a time where a revolution is the only way to solve the problems of bigger and bigger government with too much control.
Better back off from all that take up arms crap I said earlier. Cuz people here know I'm pretty full'o'crap when it comes to laying down my life and risking it all. But again, USA's #1!



I think also that if you want to vote for tax increases, then great, you should have to pay for them. Anyone who votes no should be exempt from tax increases, because plain and simple we don't need any more of them, so if you want them, great, you foot the bill. Not my problem.

Yippee! I can get out of paying taxes just by voting against them! This makes TOTAL sense! We don't really need taxes anyway. All of the billions of dollars of military equipment our military uses come from the military fairy! The interstate highway system? The highway fairy! Federal disaster relief for areas devasted by storms and other natural disasters? The disaster fairy! Now granted some of these taxes are probably necessary, but I think I should be able to pick and choose which ones I want to pay. Whenever some government plan or tax comes into conflict with what I believe in then my government can simply go screw itself. But remember, I'm proud to be an American!!!!




I'm done arguing political issues, if you can't see the obvious then I can't help you see it I guess, unless we had a real life debate and then perhaps you would be able to understand through logic and reasoning what I am saying here.

MORONS! I obviously can't get through to any of you so I'm done. You're all just diasagreeing with me because you're jealous I'm so much brighter and lonelier than you.


The U.S. is still a great country,
:lol

[Nupraptor]

Just a thought: you might want to learn a few things about reviewing before you open your mouth. Just a thought.

Any critic's job is NOT to tell people what to see or what not to see, but to review film's honestly and say what he or she thought of them, regardless of whether they are the only person on God's Green Earth that thinks so and so was a great film, or so and so was a lousy film. "Above all, to thine own self be true." If you've never heard that before, start reading my friend, you got a lot to learn.That still doesn't mean everyone else on God's Green Earth is stupid because you don't agree with them.

I think my post was fairly polite. I even said "I could be mistaken, but...". Your response was not only rude, but it was based on the assumption that I stated my opinion like a fact, which I did not.

I'm simply stating that, if the vast majority of the people who saw a movie feel that it was well-made, then - for all intents and purposes - it is.

It's perfectly fine if your opinion differs from the majority. But that doesn't make it acceptable for you to bash everyone else.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

*holds up hand* have a question, who voted today? I didn't, unfortunately I haven't had enough time to study the issues..didn't want to go in blind, and I'm newly from CA still and feel weird voting for a new Govenor.

OR and CA secede from the Union!? Wow...why hasn't that been done already? :rolleyes

[Sene Unty]

Funny stuff Jedieb.....funny stuff :lol