Great new movie you all need to see - JUNO

[Deron5]

The charachters were believable, but some of the dialogue was ridiculous.

[Kurt Sexington]

Originally Posted by Plate of Shrimp

can an action movie be considered "great cinema"?

Yes. Just watch "The Killer" by John Woo.

[Kurt Sexington]

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

I don't understand the Garner hate here. If anything, Bateman's character what the *****, the ass. I really liked her character.

Ozy is right. The point was that the Garner chracter, although a bit uptight, was an adult who was ready to assume the responsibilities that went with things like marriage and adopting a child whereas Bateman was a classic yuppie who was still stuck in his young adult years, dreaming of reuiniting with his old band and making rock history. I dont think Cody was trying to villify the Bateman character for being youthful and having dreams of his own, or absolve the Gerner character for being overbearing, but she certainly did seem to be making a comment to the effect of "if you take grown up decisions, make sure you're a grown up."

[Kurt Sexington]

Originally Posted by CincySpartan

You are such a dooshbag it is unbelievable..... I love going to movies, so I guess I am a lover of the cinema, but F-U for trying to tell me what I think is a damn good movie an what is not..... All that matters to me is when I walk out am I happy I spent 11 bucks on it...... I don't care what the hell people in this intangible world of movie critics think and definately could care less about your completely WORTHLESS opinion is......

I can understand being a film snob like yourself, but jesus f-ing christ have a little respect for others....

I never FORCED you to watch the movies I like. I simply disagree with some of what posters on here describe as "great" movies. If you dont like my opinion, don't pay any attention to it. This is an INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD. People are bound to disagree with eachother/give opposing views on issues. If it makes you uncomfortable to read views contrary to your own, get off the internet (or out of "life" completely, come to think of it...)

[BBB]

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

I don't understand the Garner hate here. If anything, Bateman's character what the *****, the ass. I really liked her character.

They did a nice job with the progression of the characters.

In the beginning, I really liked Bateman's character. He seemed like a cool dude, someone I would want for a dad. Then he got a little creepy. Then he turned into an *******.

Garner's character took the complete opposite path. She started out really frigid, and kinda bitchy in the beginning. It was a little surprising that they were married at all. Then you start to see why she is that way, and she starts to get a little warmer, and in the end, I liked her.

Excellent acting on both parts IMO.

[Kurt Sexington]

Originally Posted by BBB

They did a nice job with the progression of the characters.

In the beginning, I really liked Bateman's character. He seemed like a cool dude, someone I would want for a dad. Then he got a little creepy. Then he turned into an *******.

Garner's character took the complete opposite path. She started out really frigid, and kinda bitchy in the beginning. It was a little surprising that they were married at all. Then you start to see why she is that way, and she starts to get a little warmer, and in the end, I liked her.

Excellent acting on both parts IMO.

I agree that the progression of the Bateman/Garner character and Juno's relationship with both of them was hell handled. I also enjoyed how the movie actually did suggest that maybe Bateman and Juno were into eachother on a romantic level and didnt shy away from showing a denouement to that angle.

[Plate of Shrimp]

Originally Posted by Kurt Sexington

Yes. Just watch "The Killer" by John Woo.

So if action movies can be "great cinema", wouldn't it be fallacious to say the the greatest action movie of all time "Die Hard" isn't great cinema?

Besides, I prefer Hard Boiled when it comes to perfect John Woo action. It's a far superior "action" movie to The Killer.

[Plate of Shrimp]

Originally Posted by BBB

They did a nice job with the progression of the characters.

In the beginning, I really liked Bateman's character. He seemed like a cool dude, someone I would want for a dad. Then he got a little creepy. Then he turned into an *******.

Garner's character took the complete opposite path. She started out really frigid, and kinda bitchy in the beginning. It was a little surprising that they were married at all. Then you start to see why she is that way, and she starts to get a little warmer, and in the end, I liked her.

Excellent acting on both parts IMO.

Wow, you "got" the most forced part of the movie. Like/hate them in the beginning then reverse it in the end, yet we barely get any character development merely forced scenes.

Scene 1 (the beginning)-
Garner: I hate Kittens and Puppies.
Bateman: I like Kittens and Puppies.

Scene 2 (the end)-
Garner: I hate Kittens and Puppies because they make my husband turn into a Puppy and Kitten eating monster.
Bateman: I like Kittens and Puppies because they taste delicious and I'm a monster.

WHAT A TWIST!

Yet honestly, I would have rather seen a movie about Bateman and Garner's relationship than a sassy teenage caricature. There was something interesting going on there.

[Kurt Sexington]

Originally Posted by Plate of Shrimp

So if action movies can be "great cinema", wouldn't it be fallacious to say the the greatest action movie of all time "Die Hard" isn't great cinema?

Besides, I prefer Hard Boiled when it comes to perfect John Woo action. It's a far superior "action" movie to The Killer.

I don't think you can compare "Die Hard" and "The Killer" for several reasons.

Firstly, although "The Killer" and "Die Hard" came out around the same time, (1989 and 1988) respetively, "The Killer" has had way more of a lasting impact on the way action movies are made, in Hollywood especially, than "Die Hard" did. Woo basically invented the action genre, and the Killer was his masterwork.
Secondly, I dont think you can compare the pacing of Die Hard to that of The Killer. Action movies are, more than anything else, judged on how they are paced and how action sequences follow each other. The Killer is probably the finest paced action movie ever made, in the sense that it is not just "non-stop action" but "non-stop action" that makes sense and contributes to the larger panorama of the movie itself.
Which brings me to my third point, mainly that "The Killer" included notions of loyalty and honor which Die Hard didnt, giving it an emotional substance "Die Hard" completely lacked. This is less a criticism of Die Hard than of American action movies in general, which usually contain no type of emotional fabric and are often purely violent, whereas many asian (especially Hong Kong) action movies (Infernal Affairs, The Killer, Bittersweet Life, ect.) contain elements of emotional conflict where chacacters are faced with a struggle between duty and morality. "The Killer," much more than "Die Hard" (or any American action movie, for that matter) explores this internal struggle in a way that gives it a more lasting appeal and also renders a certain artistry to what is essentially a hyperbolic action movie.

[Plate of Shrimp]

Originally Posted by Kurt Sexington

I don't think you can compare "Die Hard" and "The Killer" for several reasons.

Firstly, although "The Killer" and "Die Hard" came out around the same time, (1989 and 1988) respetively, "The Killer" has had way more of a lasting impact on the way action movies are made, in Hollywood especially, than "Die Hard" did. Woo basically invented the action genre, and the Killer was his masterwork.
Secondly, I dont think you can compare the pacing of Die Hard to that of The Killer. Action movies are, more than anything else, judged on how they are paced and how action sequences follow each other. The Killer is probably the finest paced action movie ever made, in the sense that it is not just "non-stop action" but "non-stop action" that makes sense and contributes to the larger panorama of the movie itself.
Which brings me to my third point, mainly that "The Killer" included notions of loyalty and honor which Die Hard didnt, giving it an emotional substance "Die Hard" completely lacked. This is less a criticism of Die Hard than of American action movies in general, which usually contain no type of emotional fabric and are often purely violent, whereas many asian (especially Hong Kong) action movies (Infernal Affairs, The Killer, Bittersweet Life, ect.) contain elements of emotional conflict where chacacters are faced with a struggle between duty and morality. "The Killer," much more than "Die Hard" (or any American action movie, for that matter) explores this internal struggle in a way that gives it a more lasting appeal and also renders a certain artistry to what is essentially a hyperbolic action movie.

FYI- you are full of pseudo-intellectual bull****.

1.

"The Killer" has had way more of a lasting impact on the way action movies are made, in Hollywood especially, than "Die Hard" did."

In what way? Back that up? Because you know what almost every single "action" screenwriter in the world is trying to create? An action movie as perfect as Die Hard. Don't believe me, move to LA and talk to some screenwriters. And visually? Woo may be a great innovator and a better overall director, but McTiernan was doing some pretty great things at the time. Don't forget.

2.

Woo basically invented the action genre, and the Killer was his masterwork.

GAH?!? Woo invented the action genre? I think the genre dates as far back as movies go...like the "Great Train Robbery" or the works of Douglas Fairbanks or Buster Keaton. Also, I may concede that "The Killer" is his masterwork, but "Hard Boiled" is where he perfected his visual style (which btw, was basically die hard in a hospital).

3.

The Killer is probably the finest paced action movie ever made, in the sense that it is not just "non-stop action" but "non-stop action" that makes sense and contributes to the larger panorama of the movie itself

. Die Hard is a perfectly structured and paced movie.

4.

mainly that "The Killer" included notions of loyalty and honor which Die Hard didnt, giving it an emotional substance "Die Hard" completely lacked.

You don't think McClane had any conflict? A New York cop coming to LA to patch up his marriage with a with a woman who may or may not be cheating on him. A man who hasn't seen his children in months has to "just" survive a terrorist attack in order to see their faces again. Yet doesn't merely sit there, be quiet and let the whole thing blow over (which he could), but instead single handedly attempts to defeat these criminals. And why do this when so much is at risk? He's a cop and that's his job. It's his duty.

I know there isn't a blind girl in Die Hard or a homosexual or an alcoholic (wait, maybe), or a mentally handicapped minority, but there is a normal schlub who wants to save his marriage but instead risks his life for his job (which is why his marriage is in trouble in the first place).

[Ozymandias]

Originally Posted by Plate of Shrimp

FYI- you are full of pseudo-intellectual bull****.

1. In what way? Back that up? Because you know what almost every single "action" screenwriter in the world is trying to create? An action movie as perfect as Die Hard. Don't believe me, move to LA and talk to some screenwriters. And visually? Woo may be a great innovator and a better overall director, but McTiernan was doing some pretty great things at the time. Don't forget.

2.GAH?!? Woo invented the action genre? I think the genre dates as far back as movies go...like the "Great Train Robbery" or the works of Douglas Fairbanks or Buster Keaton. Also, I may concede that "The Killer" is his masterwork, but "Hard Boiled" is where he perfected his visual style (which btw, was basically die hard in a hospital).

3.. Die Hard is a perfectly structured and paced movie.

4. You don't think McClane had any conflict? A New York cop coming to LA to patch up his marriage with a with a woman who may or may not be cheating on him. A man who hasn't seen his children in months has to "just" survive a terrorist attack in order to see their faces again. Yet doesn't merely sit there, be quiet and let the whole thing blow over (which he could), but instead single handedly attempts to defeat these criminals. And why do this when so much is at risk? He's a cop and that's his job. It's his duty.

I know there isn't a blind girl in Die Hard or a homosexual or an alcoholic (wait, maybe), or a mentally handicapped minority, but there is a normal schlub who wants to save his marriage but instead risks his life for his job (which is why his marriage is in trouble in the first place).

Matador, you got your winner for Poster of the Day

[Kurt Sexington]

Originally Posted by Plate of Shrimp

FYI- you are full of pseudo-intellectual bull****.

1. In what way? Back that up? Because you know what almost every single "action" screenwriter in the world is trying to create? An action movie as perfect as Die Hard. Don't believe me, move to LA and talk to some screenwriters. And visually? Woo may be a great innovator and a better overall director, but McTiernan was doing some pretty great things at the time. Don't forget.

2.GAH?!? Woo invented the action genre? I think the genre dates as far back as movies go...like the "Great Train Robbery" or the works of Douglas Fairbanks or Buster Keaton. Also, I may concede that "The Killer" is his masterwork, but "Hard Boiled" is where he perfected his visual style (which btw, was basically die hard in a hospital).

3.. Die Hard is a perfectly structured and paced movie.

4. You don't think McClane had any conflict? A New York cop coming to LA to patch up his marriage with a with a woman who may or may not be cheating on him. A man who hasn't seen his children in months has to "just" survive a terrorist attack in order to see their faces again. Yet doesn't merely sit there, be quiet and let the whole thing blow over (which he could), but instead single handedly attempts to defeat these criminals. And why do this when so much is at risk? He's a cop and that's his job. It's his duty.

I know there isn't a blind girl in Die Hard or a homosexual or an alcoholic (wait, maybe), or a mentally handicapped minority, but there is a normal schlub who wants to save his marriage but instead risks his life for his job (which is why his marriage is in trouble in the first place).

1. I thought that was basic knowledge. "The Killer" is probably the most revered action movie of all time and its influence is universal to the point that today's action flics still emulate, to a large extent, its premise.

2. I should have said invented the "contemporary action genre" or perhaps "spurred on the action film revival of the 1990's." Saying that the works of Buster Keaton played a more significant impact on contemporary action films is folly. As I said before, almost every contemporary action film is influenced in some way, and in some instances is directly copying, Woo's earlier films.

3. Back that up for me, and while youre at it, prove that is it better structured and paced than The Killer. I think that if we were to have this debate with any number of film critics, you would find yourself in the minority.

4. The "internal conflict" faced by McClane was, like the chracter driven component of all "Die Hard" movies, purely secondary to the action. In the Killer, it could be legitimately argued that the notions of honor and duty, which are time honored issues in many asian movies (think Ran, Seven Samurai, ect.) are as important to the overall impact of the film as the action is itself.

You are free to like "Die Hard" as much as you want and to defend it accordingly, but you would eb hard pressed to find a critic who would back up your view that it is a better film than "The Killer," especially based on your above arguments.

[Kurt Sexington]

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

Matador, you got your winner for Poster of the Day

Why? Because he used an emotional argument to defend a film that was in no way even comparable to the one he was comparing it against?

[Plate of Shrimp]

Originally Posted by Kurt Sexington

1. I thought that was basic knowledge. "The Killer" is probably the most revered action movie of all time and its influence is universal to the point that today's action flics still emulate, to a large extent, its premise.

2. I should have said invented the "contemporary action genre" or perhaps "spurred on the action film revival of the 1990's." Saying that the works of Buster Keaton played a more significant impact on contemporary action films is folly. As I said before, almost every contemporary action film is influenced in some way, and in some instances is directly copying, Woo's earlier films.

3. Back that up for me, and while youre at it, prove that is it better structured and paced than The Killer. I think that if we were to have this debate with any number of film critics, you would find yourself in the minority.

4. The "internal conflict" faced by McClane was, like the chracter driven component of all "Die Hard" movies, purely secondary to the action. In the Killer, it could be legitimately argued that the notions of honor and duty, which are time honored issues in many asian movies (think Ran, Seven Samurai, ect.) are as important to the overall impact of the film as the action is itself.

You are free to like "Die Hard" as much as you want and to defend it accordingly, but you would eb hard pressed to find a critic who would back up your view that it is a better film than "The Killer," especially based on your above arguments.

This isn't about which is better. That's a matter of personal taste, or it seems to you, a matter of which film has been jerked off by more "critics". You said "Die Hard" isn't "great cinema" and I think you are WAY off base.

Oh and Die Hard is the most revered action movie of all time and perhaps the most modernly influential. Did you miss the fact that Hard Boiled was just like Die Hard? The only other film you could even begin to argue against it would be Aliens.

[Plate of Shrimp]

Originally Posted by Kurt Sexington

Why? Because he used an emotional argument to defend a film that was in no way even comparable to the one he was comparing it against?

HA! You have a hyper-inflated opinion of yourself. From the assumption that I'd never heard of "The Killer"

Yes. Just watch "The Killer" by John Woo.

to the way you dismiss my points as

an emotional argument

, you come off like a sad pseudo-intellectual who is used to arguing with people who can't match you on your breadth of film knowledge. So you glean superiority based on quantity and depth rather than actual criticism. But not me buddy, I can match you on breadth so get over yourself and try to form an original opinion.

[Kurt Sexington]

Originally Posted by Plate of Shrimp

HA! You have a hyper-inflated opinion of yourself. From the assumption that I'd never heard of "The Killer" to the way you dismiss my points as , you come off like a sad pseudo-intellectual who is used to arguing with people who can't match you on your breadth of film knowledge. So you glean superiority based on quantity and depth rather than actual criticism. But not me buddy, I can match you on breadth so get over yourself and try to form an original opinion.

Your breadth of knwoledge in regards to film is obvious and admirable. This does not mean, however, that I think you are right or that my choice to disagree with you on Die Hard being a "great movie" means I am somehow above my head and thus fail to formulate an "original opinion." I realize how influential Die Hard was, but frankly, it influenced several crappy movies and its overall influence pales to "The Killer." I backed up this point by saying that several critics would agree with me, and I think that us tge best and only way to defend it since there is really no way to defend how "influential" a movie is aside from refering to the consensus of film scholars.
You also need to make a distinction between "influential" and "great" movies. Several influential movies are in no ways great movies. Think of "American Pie" or "Halloween" both of which were tremendously influential and arguably sparked their own genre (gross out teen comedy and pop-horror) yet were not, in my opinion, very good films. Although "Die Hard" was obviously WAY better than either of the above mentioned movies, I still would not qualify it as a "great" movie and you would be hard pressed to find a critic who disagrees with me, at least to the extent of placing it in the same rareified air as "The Killer."

Although I accused you of making an emotionla argument, I still do recognize your knowledge of film which is quite extensive and well informed. I disagree with what you are saying about "Die Hard" though, but I can understand your perspective, for the most part.

[paul95se]

Originally Posted by Plate of Shrimp

i was underwhelmed. it was cute, but a smart talking young protagonist does not a good film make. dialogue was interesting but mostly unbelievable, acting was great and charming (which held the movie together), the story was flawed and the direction seemed very textbook.

[Plate of Shrimp]

OMFG....I knew it! I knew this would get an Oscar nod. The Oscars are a joke. Do they have to put in an over-hyped "independent" film every year? Ridiculous.