Cool News
John Doe gives us a look at last night's secret screening of Scorsese's GANGS OF NEW YORK!!!
Hey folks, Harry here... This is the film coming out this Christmas that I'm just dying to see. I read the script ages ago, followed the shoot and the difficult post-production for ages. We covered the initial test screenings, and this one which occurred just last night in Edgewater, New Jersey. This is a film that Scorsese has put a great deal of personal passion into, and has become a legend before it has even been released. And John Doe's report just makes me want to see it more. Here you go...
Harry, John Doe here reporting on one of the coolest nights of my life.
On Friday we went to a theater in Edgewater NJ ( 5 minutes from NYC via the George Washington Bridge) to see the instantly forgettable City By the Sea. After purchasing tickets we were approached by a representative from Miramax who asked us if we were interested in seeing a free movie. Thinking it was either Chicago or some lackluster Dimension fare such as "They" I was initially only slightly curious. But when she told us that the movie was "Gangs of New York" I was psyched to say the least.
Being one of the first people let into the theater on Monday night we sat in the row immediately behind the reserved section. This idea paid dividends as we got to watch the movie a few feet from Martin Scorcese, his editor Thelma Shoonmaker, and Michael Ovitz. Sitting a few rows closer to the screen was none other than Harvey Weinstein himself.
Now to the movie. The plot is exactly what has been described in the press. Amsterdam ( Leonardo DiCaprio ) is a young Irish kid who seeks to avenge the death of his father ( Liam Neeson ) at the hands of William "Bill the Butcher" Cutter ( Daniel Day-Lewis).
Even though we were supposedly not seeing the final cut of the film it was still an amazing experience. There were a few long scenes that I did not mind at all that will probably be trimmed. Even as is this is a sure fire Best Picture nominee.
The movie works because it combines a little talked about yet very important part of history, with great set pieces, and battle scenes that rival Braveheart and Gladiator.
The directing is what you would expect from a master such as Scorcese. He gives us his trademark camera work which are made all the more effective with the tremendous set.
Acting wise DiCaprio turns in a solid performance with memorable supporting turns by Neeson and Jim Broadbent. But the movie belongs to Daniel Day Lewis. His performance cries out for an Oscar the way Benicio Del Toro did 2 years ago. He simply delivers. He plays one scene so perfectly and with such timing that the whole theater including Scorcese in front of us was laughing hysterically.
If there was one thing in the movie that bothered me it was the rushed romance between Amsterdam and Carmen Diaz's Jen. After only meeting once or twice she proclaims her love for him. On a promising note, it did not seem like Scorcese thought it went over very well as he stared at the ceiling for much of this particular scene.
After the film we were able to briefly shake hands with Martin Scorcese as he left. What happened next was the most memorable part of the night. Harvey Weinstein who was outside smoking and seeing Scorcese off asked us what we thought of the film. My friend suggested several things that he thought should be edited and I raved about the casting of Lewis. He then gave us a two minute speech giving parallels between the story and modern day events notably September 11th. He was particularly happy about a shot of the World Trade Center at the end which he said was a "fuck you" ( complete with an up yours gesture ) to "Them". Overall he seems to be very proud of his $100 million dollar investment.
In conclusion this was a very good movie that will become great with some minor editing.
John Doe
-
+ Expand All
-
That's all.
-
I can't wait to see this on the big screen ... No questions asked
-
Talkbackers!
This film reeks. Two words. Cameron Diaz.
Trying to make a studio film in an age of soundbite moviemaking - hope it flops. The withered ol' prune Scorsese needs to make way for a new generation of directors with important political and cultural vision....freethinkers like Rob COhen and McG
-
Can't wait. Feel like they have promised us this movie for like ages....I wanna see it!!!!!
-
I'm somewhat looking forward to this one...I still wonder whether Catch Me if You Can or this will be moved a bit...Can we start the Leo vs. LotR fights now?...Or am I already too late?
-
"freethinkers Like Rob Cohen and McG"????? In my days as a talkbacker I Have heard some pretty idiotic things, but you my friend have made an entire new standard in stupidity. ROB FUCKING COHEN!!!!??!!
-
Sep 10, 2002 3:46:09 AM CDT
I get the feeling that Cameron Diaz will stick out like a sore t
by iamlegolas
Anyway, this film is already done in for me solely because of Leonardo DiCaprio. It kind of ruins it for me in that sort of Tom Cruise/MINORITY REPORT kind of way. I guess I shouldn't let celebrity-ism (I made that word up!) get in the way of pre-judging a movie on it's own, but damn it if some actors don't bug the crap out of me enough to ruin the movie, especially if they are the lead actor. I got to stop watching ACCESS HOLLYWOOD...
-
why is she in this movie? the trailer looked awesome until you see her---c'mon-
but thats really cool about watching it with those guys -
Many talkbackers, apparently, including spookyanders, are incapable of recognizing humor unless it is immediately followed by the words "by the way, that was humor". Perhaps we should start couching everything in between and . And spookyanders, I was not literally suggesting we do that. It was more sarcasm. Ahem. I'm excited about the concept of "Gangs", and of course Scorcese directing it, and Day Lewis is always great, but I've been lukewarm on DiCaprio since Gilbert Grape, and as much as I normally like Diaz, I think she's miscast here. Diaz? Irish? Anyone see the problem here? Hopefully I'm wrong, and it will all come together.
-
No seriously... don't you think this new MTV generation of directors has so much more to offer to consumers then washouts like Scorscese? After all, if they can't get their attention with valid socio-political commentary, then at least sell the idiots a soda. You think this filthy slimehole of a movie is gonna sell any sodas? About the only thing this bunghole of a flickerola is gonna sell is a one-way ticket for LEO back to sitcom-land.
Entertainment is a commodity. All of you are ready to BUY BUY BUY whenever this fat bearded studio clown endorses anything on this site.
I'll be surprised if any of you even have the emotional or intellectual wherewithal to understand this post. Very few do. -
Sep 10, 2002 4:53:25 AM CDT
Will someone PLEASE give this man his Best Director Oscar?
by cleverusername
My favorite quote about Martin Scorsese came from his priest (of all people). When asked about the religious imagery in Scorsese's films and the idea of redemption, he replied: "Too much Good Friday and not enough Easter Sunday." Classic. Marty is most definitely one of the most influential directors of his generation (perhaps only Coppola can top his body of work). Unfortunately, it might not be until he get's one of those sad "lifetime achievment" Oscars that he finally gets the award that he so richly deserves. Sadly, it seems that Marty has fallen into the same trap as Bruce Springsteen and the Sopranos: being passed over year after year for working "outside" the Hollywood establishment. Scorsese is the king and I'm gonna be first in line to see GONY when it opens here in the Netherlands.
-
I've had just enough with all these half-assed directors who couldn't direct their way out of a 70's Spiderman cartoon.
Scorcese lost it when he made Rocky 2. His comeback film was even worse as I can't understand why Nuclear Man wouldn't have been able to absolutely SCHOOL Superman. I mean COME ON...we're talking the Moon's fucking gravity and we're supposed to let Scorcese convince us that Superman wins? Shoulda brought back Richard Pryor in my humble opinion. Fa Sheezy Ma Neezy -
St. Buggers: dude, it's late. I couldn't pick up on sarcasm right now if she was a $2 hooker. thank you for reminding me to get some sleep.
-
You guys crack me up. You really do.
-
Scorsese is a solid/brilliant director, ceptin' when he tries to get all "Epic" on our asses...
-
That dude could power a whole city!!!
-
This reviewer gets a chance to see and shake hands with Martin Scorcese. But he about busts a nut over that fat piece of shit-
Harvey Weinstein!
-
btw... Harvey is still a fat piece of shit!
-
where the plants produce their own manure.
-
Apparently they build some sort of Center for World Trade. Not what I was expecting, but there you go. sk
-
I still insist that the trailers and this particular review leave a lot to be desired. I still insist that Scorsese has little new left to say about the gangster genre after his great trilogy of MEAN STREETS, GOODFELLAS and CASINO. I think DiCaprio is miscast. He and Cameron Diaz have zero chemistry. After a long absence from the screen, Daniel Day-Lewis seems to be chewing scenery every chance he gets. The movie looks big, beautiful and boring.
-
Leonardo Dicaprio???? Great, why didn't they just figure out a way to fit Freddy Prinze Jr. in this thing as well. Kinda like with TITANIC, probably a great way to draw teenage girls into the theater, not good for much else. Oh well, I'll probably rent it, and I guess the hordes of teenybopper girls going to see Leo will more than make up for the income lost because of people like me.
-
hope it does rain on LOTRs parade :( *sob*
damn studio rivalry. -
learn to spell it: scorsese
good report--i'm dying to see the film. as much as miramax would love us to think they are financing the bulk of this thing, their investment comes nothing close to the $100 million you mentioned. their risk is minimal, really. i think the boatload of money is being provided by the company that bought the foreign rights. -
Are we to understand that Scorcese tacked a WTC shot onto the end of the film simply to make a point that nobody need see again. If I didn't understand Scorcese to be so protective of his projects, I'd suspect that that fat prick Weinstein was trying to make money by squeezing your heartstrings and shaking coins out of your patriotism for the thousandth time. By the time this movie hits the screens, the pathos and nobility of 9-11 is going to be even more polluted than it is today, with a cynical and utterly needless war in full bloody swing. I don't know how you can mourn 3000 whilst incinerating and starving ten times that number, and children at that, over nothing but a wad of blood-drenched rhetoric. Remember, Iraq is not, was never, THEM. There probably isn't any THEM. But there sure will be by the time Bush is finished.
End tirade.
-
GONY ending spoilers...
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=10348 -
Why is it that everytime Miramax tests a movie, there's an immediate rave on this site within a few hours? Because they hire someone to write them. Or they make some poor assistant stay up all night writing them. At least they've gotten a little more sophisticated and don't spell every name correctly any more and they are willing to say a few things that are slightly negative. (They trash the film THEY from their sister company Dimension because everyone knows it's crap and it will make us think "this couldn't have been written by Miramax because they trashed a Dimension film." But how could this reviewer have seen THEY in the first place??). And their reviews always start like a Penthouse forum letter... "I never thought a night like this could have happened to me, but last night..."
-
Sep 10, 2002 10:56:58 AM CDT
weren`t there some difficults with the catch me release date????
by drjones
is it clear now that it will come out on christmas??? and catch me??? i think it`s not cleared yet. however..this review...nahhh i don`t know how to rate it but we had worse ones on this site that rather seemed to be fakes.
-
Will everyone please shut up about Cameron Diaz? True, she does SEEM miscast in this film. But we haven't seen her performance!!! Anybody remember CASINO, with SHARON STONE?!?! Everyone was pissing and shitting on Scorsese for casting Sharon Stone, and he ended up getting an academy-award nominated performance out of her! So, yes it is a little scary that Cameron Diaz is in this gangster/period film, but let's not underestimate Scorsese. Okay?
-
The opening line here 'The Coolest Night Of My Life' really sends chills up my spine. I'm all for enjoying movies the same as the rest of you but... MY GOD!!! How can I possibly take a review like this seriously when it starts off so incredibly overblown that it can't be taken seriously. What's next? I realize that some of our passions for movies is great, but can we give due respect for great films by not sounding like a bunch of fourteen year old virgins?
Sorry by the way.... I was just at a Bruce Campbell book signing on Sunday and was angered by the nerds tripping over themselves in a hyper-chaotic dance fuelled by the presence of someone who's been in some good movies. Self control.... they're just movies! By the way.... I almost shit myself when I met Bruce. -
Kinda like David Lean did at the end of his career; but let's hope he doesn't get stuck with only epics for subject matter, (as Lean seemed to) there's nothing wrong with small films. This looks great though. I'm glad they kept the twin towers in too, it seems only right that a film about New York includes them.
-
I wonder if Harry has a macro that automatically generates the "This review is a PLANT!!!!!" posts... they're as dependable as that 'I haven't shit in 3 weeks' expression on Rumsfeld's face every time he appears on the tube.
-
Sep 10, 2002 12:10:59 PM CDT
"Gang Bangs of New York", directed by Martin Scores-easy, and st
by modern_achilles
Great porn adaptation.
-
Sep 10, 2002 12:11:10 PM CDT
"Gang Bangs of New York", directed by Martin Scores-easy, and st
by modern_achilles
Great porn adaptation.
-
First of all, it's not like Marty is suddenly deciding to do epics at an old age. This project is 26 YEARS OLD. Unfortunately, that loser Michael Cimino fucked it up for every American auteur with Heaven's Gate (Apocalypse Now didn't help, but at least that was a great film). The only other Scorsese film that you could call "epic" is Last Temptation of Christ (masterpiece), because Goodfellas and Casino just don't have the scope. Also, if I'm not mistaken the draft of GONY that was written BEFORE September 11th had a dissolve to modern-day New York at the end. Remember that this film was done FILMING at this time last year. They didn't just shoot that scene. It was always the ending, but they had to decide whether or not to leave the towers in the shot. I saw who gives a shit? If Spielberg doesn't win yet another oscar from his ass-kissers, Marty might have a chance this year. Because it ain't going to Sam Mendes, and they would NEVER give it to Peter Jackson. Because of 9/11, some of Hollywood's anti-New York sentiment will be watered down, and Scorsese might squeeze in.
-
You all wreak. Am I the only one who knows that Gangs of New York was originally aptly titled Gangs of Schitt?
-
You all wreak. Am I the only one who knows that Gangs of New York was originally aptly titled Gangs of Schitt?
-
Lazarus, you and all your cronies are tools, titanic tards, and you aren't worth the Schitt covering Cimino's nad.
-
The running length is my main concern, especially since Scorcese's first real big cut was way over 3 hours (or so I heard).
-
What a joke. Mention of an oscar is such a desperate attempt to get people to see your movie. Plants need to be more original. You should try something like 'this is the kind of movie that deserves to be on planes!' Or you know. Someting like that. p.s. I can't believe Bison Dele (Brian Williams) is missing at sea. And then some dude claiming to be Brian Williams tries to buy gold. GOLD of all things. Gold? Sea? Sounds like an old pirate movie. Or even better. It sounds like a best picture nominee.
-
Yo, LOUGECHAIRBOY, where are you from? Minnesota? Thought so. So shut your trap and forgo talking about things you don't understand. "Twin Towers?" That's World Trade Center to you and the rest of the tourists, Schitt-for-brains.
-
It's a fucking SCORCESE MOVIE! Think about that for a moment. Scorcese. Seminal director. One of the top five American ones alive right now. Epic movie. Great cast (yes, Leo is great you assholes ...watch something of his other than TITANIC). Kenneth Lonergan. Martin fucking Scorcese. Recreations of an old New York. One of the best cinematographers around. Years of anticipation. A great original script. MARTIN SCOR-FUCKING-CESE! THAT, my friend, is an Oscar-caliber movie. This is not a plant.
-
Lenny, I got some bad news for you...You aren't Bobby D., and you never will be. Also, and you might want to sit for this one...Martin Scorcese hates your guts. He does. He told everyone on this message board that he can't stand you. So relax and take the plant out of your a$#.
-
Raise your hand if you think Junior McBride wants to pack Marty's schitt.
-
Um, Sepulchrave, do me a favor and shut the f#%$ up, thank you. This is not a debate on whether we should attack Iraq. This is a debate about movies. Can you tell the difference or are you so pathetic that you have lost the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy?
-
Sep 10, 2002 1:31:37 PM CDT
I think the sequel should be called Escape From The Gangs Of New
by chaffro
"Ah, bejesus, brother, I'm as Oirish as the next fella."
-
Oh, and by the way, Sepulchrave, I SERIOUSLY doubt that you are svelte and pleasing to the eye, so thank you for the blessedly obvious irony in the fact that you call Harvey Weinstein a "fat prick" while you sit on your sagging couch and eat cheetos with your orange-stained sausages. I also find it utterly hilarious that you will call the honorable Mr. Weinstein a fat prick from your dingy living room, but that if he ever stooped to your level and spoke to you, you would talk about it for weeks on end. What I'm trying to say, essentially, is "Give it up, loser. You will never be the next Harvey Weinstein."
-
Well, Ladies and Gentleman, Lamechairboy has FINALLY admitted the truth. He hates New York. So, basically, he couldn't give two schitts about what Scorcese does with the World Trade Center at the end of the movie, so long as HE can put in his worthless 2 cents and assign himself the role faux-hero. Congratulations, Lamechairboy. You're number 1,243,457,258 in a long line of faux heros.
-
Bobby D? A person hating my guts? Reality? What are you talking about? I'm talking about a movie, and you're off in another world. This is about why this will mostly likely, 90%, be an Oscar-nominated film, nothing more. If you want to discuss, please, by all means, discuss, but throwing empty insults at nearly everyone on the board isn't going to accomplish anything. Back it up, bro.
-
Sep 10, 2002 1:57:47 PM CDT
Who here is sick of people taking potshots simply because of ano
by lenny nero
I am. This must be stopped. Talkbackers unite!
-
Sep 10, 2002 1:59:49 PM CDT
And when did LoungeChairBoy say that the Two Towers weren't
by lenny nero
I'm seriously confused by this peculiar and nearly surreal banter. I'm sure you don't need back-up, LoungeChairBoy, but I still feel the need to understand a few things.
-
I will put it in words which you can understand. Scorcese is not your friend. He is not the answer to your mundane prayers. He is a director of movies. That's it. His movies are not real. The events contained in them are images fitted to large screen for people to watch and enjoy. Thank you.
Gangs of Schitt
PS: One more thing: you are not Martin Scorcese, either, Lenny. And he still hates your guts. -
Yeah, UNITE! Comraderie, that's what you all need. Losers.
-
You are seriously misreading my posts. I didn't say he was my friend. I didn't say it was all real. I didn't say I was Martin Scorcese. I didn't talk about any of this. Where are you pulling these ideas from? What I am saying is simply this: Scorcese has never disappointed me with a movie, A MOVIE, before, and I don't think he's going to start now. I shall repeat: this is about the anticipation I have for a movie, and I have listed reasons for it, nothing more. Is anyone else here extremely confused about what this guy is talking about? Strange stuff, man, strange stuff.
-
Humor is a good thing. Goooood thiiiiing.
-
Hey Harvey you fat fuck, will you stop at nothing to push any chance of divying more screen time for a romance involving Leo in an epic. Only an egomaniac like you would consider hearing yourself give a 2 minute speech to be the highlight of an evening. Do you really think a movie audience would find it more exciting to spot you over Scorsese. Pathetic.
-
You know something, Lenny, your last reply is FAR more entertaining than anything Scorcese could ever dream of doing. I'll back off now. Maybe the movie will be good, maybe it will be bad, but you, Mr. Nero, have already proven that it can be outdone 10-fold.
-
Shit, I hope the Geeks don't Inherit the Earth, they're all fucking nuts.
-
Sep 10, 2002 3:04:06 PM CDT
This DOES smell like a plant. Did any KNOWN posters/reviewers s
by the_lion
Please check these out before posting them. Don't get my fucking hopes up like this!
-
Are you one of those douches that believes the holocaust never happened, cuz your convenient ignorance of Sadam's crimes against humanity echoes a selective memory when it comes to the actions of your idols. The fact is that what I KNOW about Sadam Hussein tells me he's an Adolf Hitler with his hands tied by his third world country. So what I DON'T know, the things only he knows he's done, is probably far scarier. So while he appears to be harmless to everyone outside his borders, put a nuke in his hands and he'd be more dangerous than Bush with our launch codes. I jest about the Bush thing, cuz I happen to think he's a harmless silly monkey like yourself, one that happens to have some momentum in a war. And while he has enough power to do some things that makes you cry yourself to sleep at night, he can't do anything nearly as controversial as you pretend he can. He too has his hands tied. Because he doesn't just want to launch, he wants to get re-elected. He wants to have a legacy. He wants to be lauded as a war hero, etc. No I don't know him, but I recognize simple logic when I see it. I wouldn't worry about him bringing nuclear winter or even going any further than Iraq in this "War on Terror." Because going after oil in Iraq in front of the whole world threatens to undermine the legacy he will try to forge and the campaign for re-election he will try to build. And while he is mildy retarded, the whole white-house isn't full of special-ed kids, and they are definately telling him he's pushing his luck. You see, Bush's administration is being patient knowing that when we invade Iraq and take out Saddam, the anti-Americans won't scream as loud when the quality of life in Iraq shoots...upward. The only country we've invaded and not rebuilt and improved in our history is Vietnam. They wouldn't let us, ohhh no, they had to fight back. More silly monkeys. But I digress. When the smoke clears years from now, Afghanistan and Iraq both will be in better shape, and though the world may find that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass-distruction as Ritter says they don't (Ritter seems a very reasonable man, though don't pretend Saddam never had such weapons, as Ritter helped destroy his previous attempts at just that. Saddam was so upset, his teddy Snuggles couldn't even asuage his grief), Bush will secure his oil and be the war hero, the economy will boom, and the important thing, millions of Iraqis can live a life they didn't know existed, one where they aren't used as human shields and gassed. Ohh, and show me numbers above three digits for the civilian casualties we've inflicted, here. How can you feel righteous when you flat out invent part of your argument. My ONLY point is this, that our "collateral damage" figures are smaller than any others on earth, napalm is gone, agent orange gone, etc. We try as hard as we can to bring that number to zero, but it's impossible to win a war by just killing bad guys. Ya know what? All of Saddam's soldiers are innocents. They don't want to do what they do, but for the money. But we will have to kill them cuz they will shoot at us. There is no black and white here, just the least possible evil. Argue with me. Explain why the Britains (along side Americans) Carpet bombed German cities day and night during world war II. Were those just the evil cities, inhabited solely by bad men and their Nazi families. It wasn't indiscriminate for fun, or done without thinking of the civilians. It was for a goal, a sadly realistic and necessary goal. Destroy industry, and through terror, turn the German population against their government. It's nice to know we don't have to do that anymore, but even so, I don't preach that we shouldn't have then, I don't regret it. See, I understand that this world is brutal, and though you may not understand in your cozy house why things can't be ALL good, there are places where you must kill or be killed. Reconcile that.
-
I'm scratching it right now. Aaaahhh yeah....rrrrr... oooohhhhweeee. That's the good stuff.
-
Other than to be set in the 19th century in New York and deal with criminal elements in that city? One of his other books, Gem of the Prarie, dealt with the development of the city in the 19th century, with an emphasis on the crime/vice districts. That however, was all factual - which is part of why it is assigned in history classes. I have been told the book Gangs of New York was the same, but have not read it. Does anyone know for certain? Just how LOOSELY is the movie based on the book? *** This sounds like a plant to me, but that is just my opinion.
-
Herbert Asbury - the author.
-
"The only country we've invaded and not rebuilt and improved in our history is Vietnam. They wouldn't let us, ohhh no, they had to fight back. More silly monkeys." *** Stupid racist jingoist git. If you had even done a little checking on the U.S. record in any third world area... South America... Asian-Pacific Islands... Asia... The Carribbean... Africa... The Middle East... You name it, any country that has had the U.S. "intercede" in its politics has had its condition worsened. Millions have died as a result of American Imperialism (often in the form of Trans-Nationals). You'd have to be a "silly monkey" to not see it. ;-p
-
Please try to stay "On" Topic and for God's sake, get some ointment man! Well said CaptMorgan43!
-
Millions have died as a result of Imperialism, period. Furthermore - Mittens is my bitch.
-
"Stupid racist jingoist git. If you had even done a little checking on the U.S. record in any third world area... South America... Asian-Pacific Islands... Asia... The Carribbean... Africa... The Middle East... You name it, any country that has had the U.S. "intercede" in its politics has had its condition worsened. Millions have died as a result of American Imperialism (often in the form of Trans-Nationals). You'd have to be a "silly monkey" to not see it."
-
I'm in a rush. By the way, Gangs of New York looks amazing.
-
I guess I know I won't like it, since I'm seven years to old to see it!
-
I think Scorcese included a shot of them at the end because this movie is set in New York when it was young and just at the beginning of the industrial age, and he was showing you what it had become. Also, he's a New Yorker himself, and probably really wanted to give his version of the finger to the terrorists, even in a small way. And for that earlier poster that wants movies to be about nothing more than mindless entertainment so theatres can sell soda and popcorn, stop complaining, that's how most of the studio executives think, and truth be told, most of the directors(the two you mentioned being prime examples). Every once in awhile a serious director gets to make his vision, and those of us that appreciate it can watch. Don't worry, your cineplex will be playing plenty of XXX and Charlies Angels ripoffs, you can see those and not have to worry about thinking.
-
Just like Ali (another movie which was begging for an oscar yet opened one week after LOTR) GONY isnt gonna be seen by that many people. I prob wont see it for a couple weeks cuz Im gonna get to the theatre and see TTT on the screen and I wont be able to resist seeing it a 10th time. With a movie that is being banked on as much as GONY is, its really stupid of the studio to open it a mere week after TTT. Just my opinion.
-
Regardless, I should say that the comment of mine was a generalization because I had to save some of the details for my book. That rant was a gem and it would be a shame not to make some money off it, so I made an executive decision to cut out certain chapters. Still, I was trying to be as careful as I could with my words. See, the engagements I was refering to were those where we had a conventional war with an enemy country and ultimately toppled the enemy government, the government being the only real enemy we were fighting. Damn shame isn't it that for all bloodshed the answer to it all is the removal of one or a handful of people? I have chronic digression syndrome - pardon. In those cases, we had a moral and practical obligation to leave behind us some sort of order so that all the bullshit wasn't for naught. Well, we do a pretty good job in that department. Most of these places rebound. However, for me to sum up in a sentence the sum total of all the relevant information of my point isn't easy, and so I'll address the things I knowingly left out that you "called" me on. Firstly, American imperialism has cost I'm sure, a good many lives. I'm a realist, and your not going to trip me up there. Your absolutely right. So has British, Dutch, Japanese, Russian...this could get lengthy, so I'm going to assume you get the picture. See, not a country in the world doesn't have blood on their hands, nor is their a government that, while not an international player, has still managed to cost some or many lives in their own countries. I call it human nature, and I happen to believe that is your culprit. As far as policy-making goes and good and bad decisions by those with power and responsibility, their is no absolute answer for any difficult question, and someone always pays. In Vietnam, the MORAL question was, let a brutal government allied with a dangerous enemy take hold and subjugate, or do something about it. We failed to see the answer we chose was wrong before EVERYONE paid. And I don't mean to say that everyone in the position to act had the South Vietnamese at heart, but I tend to believe misguided intentions are to blame for a great much in that war in many matters, not pure evil. By the way, you hurt your case in calling me a rascist cuz I can't take you seriously when your baited so easily. It was a joke with no bearing on my reality. The joke was that the Vietnamese stomped us and my comment was ironic. Besides, silly monkey isn't even the proper rascist term, I know what our G.I.s called them so I could have thought of a good one - If I was a rascist. You'll notice everyone was getting the silly monkey treatment. I thought it sounded funny, but how wrong I was. So anyway, I know of all the engagements you speak of, and I'll summarize by saying this: Somalia doesn't apply for reasons above, South America doesn't apply for reasons above, etc. and there are bound to be exceptions to the rule, which isn't important for reasons above. We've meddled in a lot of political situations and fucked a great many people over (though not every time we meddle as you suggest). Shit happens. We get shit on, we shit on, people get shit on. I never said we were innocent. I said basically, we are less evil with some great checks and balances to our power mongers. Power corrupts in my government just like it corrupts in yours. So where's your argument really? Look at superpower and imperialist meddling throughout history. America isn't an exception. Look at corruption throughout history, America no exception. Way I look at it, makes us pretty healthy as history goes because we fuck up just like everyone else. We just fix things more than the others, try to help more than we hurt. If we can't all the time, don't throw it in our face. I don't throw South Africa or India in yours, because no democratic country is all benevolent, but no country is all bad. No grudges here. The action we as Americans have to take is finding problems in policy, in the system, discover the lies from those we trust, hunt the guilty that enforce our laws, see the errors in our ways, learn from them, solve them, punish the guilty etc. But we shouldn't listen to slanted one-sided bullshit which is ultimately, sadly, a huge festering pile inside and outside our great country. So if I find Bush is guilty of being more than an idiot, I'll require proof, and then I'll require proof from him that that's not the case, and whoever's case is bullshit gets castrated. Simple as that. (I can
-
You seem to share a lot of common notions with me. You even answered your own question on the imperialism issue, as far as modern imperialism being much more covert. (Traditional imperialism was too expensive... That's why the system collapsed.) You just didn't think it through as fully as you could have. Unfortunately, you are coming off like another jingoist git. What is that bit about Saddam Hussein all about anyway? Where the hell did that come from? Just because I don't wave a flag or something while I question our foreign policy? I can't stand that kind of crap!!! Get off the high horse, bub!
-
"Hey Sir Lancelot Thornhill
Comment: You seem to share a lot of common notions with me. You even answered your own question on the imperialism issue, as far as modern imperialism being much more covert. (Traditional imperialism was too expensive... That's why the system collapsed.) You just didn't think it through as fully as you could have." --->That's all I needed to know, a more precise definition. As far as thinking it through, I thought it was pretty clear what I meant. Still, where are you getting this "millions of deaths" number? What stats did you read about this? I'm seriously curious, I'm not trying to be an ass. "Unfortunately, you are coming off like another jingoist git."
Jingo - n., a person who boasts of his patriotism and favors an aggressive, threatening, warlike foreign policy; chauvinist - adj. of jingoes; jingoistic ----> Where in my post did I spout out jingoistic rhetoric? I did not simply point out only the positives of the U.S., but also some strong negatives. If I was a true jingoist, I would be talking about killing 'em all a la Dick Cheney and that the U.S. has done no wrong. Therefore, I think you're mistaken. "What is that bit about Saddam Hussein all about anyway? Where the hell did that come from? Just because I don't wave a flag or something while I question our foreign policy? I can't stand that kind of crap!!! Get off the high horse, bub!"----> I'm not on any high horse, I just can't stand extremist talk. That goes for right wingers as much as left wingers(I'm not saying you're either of these, but from your post you SOUND like an extremist). Moderates are the world's only true hope. As far as the Saddam comment goes, he is known for he massive anti-American propaganda campaigns to convince his tortured populace that the U.S. is evil incarnate(along with the Jews). Now, since your comment sounded similar to anti-American rhetoric that pro-Taliban and supporters of Saddam have claimed (i.e. that the U.S. is an imperialistic nation that wants to destroy Middle Eastern culture to get the oil) I thought the reference was relevant. I have nothing against criticizing U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, every citizen should question what their government does to make sure they are behaving in everyone's best interest. I won't end this post by calling you a name as you declared me a "jingoist git" in your last post, but rather that I've enjoyed this intelligent debate.
-
Sep 10, 2002 7:05:22 PM CDT
You should have told harvey to release his HK film catalog.
by thematarife
I'd go right up to him and order him flat out to release all the classics he has the rights to.
-
Nice to hear it might pull it off. :)
-
While Cameron Diaz obviously sticks out in a negative way...the film still looks to be very good. Scorsese made this film for a 100 million and as a result needs to cast some high profile next to the actual talent. Day-Lewis' performance alone looks worth it. And as for Scorsese being an 'ol prune', I hope peteyz was joking about McG and Rob Cohen,their films xXx and Charlies Angels are abominations and should have never been made.
Screw the MTV generation...i hate that channel -
Sep 10, 2002 8:03:22 PM CDT
HARRY, I IMPLORE YOU IN THE NAME OF GOOD TASTE< TACT< AND RESPEC
by darth phallus
I understand the Tarantino reference but it's been up for weeks now anyway. It just seems to me in very poor taste for tomorrow's anniversary. I know that you don't mean anything by it but it just makes me cringe every time I see it with tomorrow being the anniversary. Again, sorry to be so anally PC, that's just the way I feel.
Kurt (the blond one) -
What is the last good film this sometimes brilliant director has made? Did anyone see KUNDUN? I did not see that one or LAST TEMPTATION. CAPE FEAR is OK. Not as good as the original, however. So this puts his last best film back to the beginning of the 90s. GOODFELLAS. Am I right about this? I will see GANGS one way or the other. But I have a funny feeling.
-
The last good movie Scorsese made, in my opinion, was Casino. That was in 1995. He's only made a couple since then, I didn't see Kundun, and I admit I didn't care for Bringing Out The Dead, but he hits the mark more often than not. After Hours was hilarious, he was able to get probably Tom Cruises best performance in In The Color Of Money. Not to mention the modern day classics Goodfellas and Raging Bull.
-
Sep 10, 2002 9:23:06 PM CDT
I for one would like to say that KUNDUN and BRINGING OUT THE DEA
by lenny nero
-
To Thornhill and CptMorgan. Nice, thought out comments. We don't all have to be flag waving patriots, but when people like RMcCallum and Sepulchrave get on here and whine about how America doesn't do any good, ever, its nice for you guys to come to the USA's defense. What pisses me off (sorry I don't have time to reason out a deep educated response) is that instead of giving a fact based argument about what the U.S. has done in the past, they moan about how horrible we are. Makes me wonder if these guys would have liked the Nazis ruling over them. My guess is that one or both of them are Left-wing Euros (either that or young liberals from Berkley) whose country will eventually need the USA's help in about 10 years or so (remember Bosnia, Kosovo anyone? Who had to come in and clean up that mess?) like they always do. We will go of course, and then as soon as its over they'll go back to bashing us again. Then if we ever need their help again, they won't, at least enthusiastically--eventually they come(I always picture a kicking and screaming toddler whenever I hear were going to ask the Euros for anything). Thank God for Tony Blair as it seems were even losing the British people on this one.
To Everyone: People, we just need to take care of Saddam now. I don't want to go to war anymore then the next person. But as a serviceman I realize that if we don't deal with it now, we will have to in the future (ala Bill Clinton--"Why do it now--lets leave it to the next guy! He, He, He...")And I sure as hell would rather go then send my child to war.
Sorry about the rant, as for the movie "Gangs of New York", it will probably suck. And who is the frigging idiot that is releasing TTT, Gangs of New York and Catch Me If You Can, all within a week of each other. One or two of those movies is going to dud out because of the competition (and it won't be TTT!). Why not release one of them now when there isn't shit in the theaters (Why do you think Signs is doing so well?). Out here. -
to see an abusrdist short film,
to see beauty,
to see god,
and to see a TURTLE,
go to:
www.quickmechanism.com -
Sep 10, 2002 11:32:59 PM CDT
It's Scorsese with an "S"!!!!!! An "s" you idiots!! No, i
by neil macauley
I HATE IT WHEN IDIOTS SPELL SCORSESE'S NAME WRONG, LIKE THEY'RE SERIOUS STUDENTS OF THE ITALIAN LANGUAGE AND THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SPELLED OR SOMETHING. You're a mouth-breather if you can't spell it right. Is it really that big of a deal? Yes, IT IS, considering he's a living legend of cinema, one of our finest filmmakers on the planet and you people claim to film fans. A little respect, puh-frickin'-lease.
AND IT'S NOT "Spielburg," you illiterate twits, it's "Spielberg." SO, PLEASE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, JUST CHECK YOUR FACTS AND YOUR SPELLING AND IF YOU GET THE URGE TO SHOW HOW HORRIBLE YOUR ENGLISH SKILLS ARE, JUST...STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -
Sorry, and seriously Peteyz, it would be a dull world if everyone appreciated the same thing. You seem to think that people who have lived more years than yourself, have lost their purpose, and the right to be creative. It's not that Scorcese is washed-up, it's your narrowmindedness that is getting in the way. I, for one, don't care for the MTV sort of entertainment, but I don't object to your thinking that it's the best thing since sliced bread. So, to my way of thinking, watch MTV, or entertaiment of that variety. Don't waste YOUR time going to see Gangs Of New York. It's failure, or success, won't be based on your not buying a ticket. No need for Scorcese to "make way" for the younger directors.......there's room for both. Oh, one more thing, YOUNG actors are dying to work with Scorcese, and most likely don't share your viewpoint either.
I'm looking forward to the movie. -
"...whose country will eventually need the USA's help in about 10 years or so (remember Bosnia, Kosovo anyone? Who had to come in and clean up that mess?)"--->You know what's interesting about Bosnia, Kosovo, and American involvement. Well, America did not get heavily involved militarily with Bosnia. What happens? Other nations complain about our lack of action. So then the U.S. gets involved in Kosovo militarily and those same nations moan about our bombings. It seems as if in many people's eyes the U.S. can do no right. It gets rather annoying, not all Americans are jingoistic ignorant fools who think they're on a higher level than people of other nationalities. Oh well, what can you do?
-
I love Scorcese. Scorcese did great work in the seventies. Scorcese did great work in the eighties. Scorcese did great work in the nineties. And Scorcese will do great work in the new millenium. You know what would be cool, if Scorcese collaborated on a movie with Speelburg. It's too bad that Scorcese never had a chance to collaborate with Koobrek, that would have been awesome. By the way, I spelled his name right in my earlier post, but I don't give a fuck how anyone else spells it.
-
the trailers, especially the first one, still have not fully amazed me. but the cast, and a new film from Scorcese, is what has me on the edge of my seat awaiting its release. the title is terrible, and in the trailers that gigantic set often looks like just that: a set. but we'll see. right now, this is THE NO. 1 OSCAR CONTENDER and i can't wait to see the finished product.
-
Asked for and got 20 mil for charlies angels 2 huh? i cant wait to see nobody fall for that shit twice and soon she will be staring in the films sharon stone turned down that go straight to video
-
Ok, that kinda rhymed in my head...
I'm absolutely not fanatical about Diaz in any way shape or form. I've never understood her sex appeal in any movie and I've seen her in real life. Let's just say lighting and makeup people are miracle workers. That said, Scorsese has had a history of turning shallow, attractive actresses into great thespians (Cybill Shepherd, Cathy Moriarity, Sharon Stone, and Michelle Pfeiffer), so it's almost a trademark of his. And DiCaprio is, was, and will probably always be one of the most natural and exciting actors on screen. Whatever you think of him as a person or as a movie star (most of it envy, I think), he gave stirring performances in THIS BOY'S LIFE, GILBERT GRAPE, and, yes, even TITANIC. Those movies wouldn't be what they were without him. Day Lewis? Just the name conjures up some of the best acting moments of the past decade. His performance in THE CRUCIBLE was horribly over the top, but Scorsese is a better director than Nicholas Hytner and, from what I've seen and heard, he's accomplished his goal of creating a character built on hatred. Being a lover of great cinema, I'll be there opening day with bells on.
-
the oscars mean nothing - if scorsese wins it he should liquify it with acid, dragging the ceremony 5 more hours so he can get into heaven and kick the shit out of all the talentless little shitty best- director studio-pulling rent-boys with hitchcock, kubrick, wells and the countless other greats that watch the likes of attenborough, rob redford and mel get up off their knees and onto the podium year after year. but harv'll buy it anyway
-
Sep 11, 2002 1:28:34 AM CDT
Harry, please SET-UP A SEPARATE MESSAGE BOARD FOR POLITICAL RANT
by cslacks
SHHHH,
We're trying to have a decent discussion about entertainment, so could you ranters please keep it down or step outside, close the door and duke it out...elsewhere.
Harry, make a room for these fellows so I don't have to wade through their endless "editorials" (i.e. talkback on subject / talkback rant room)
I thought you had rules for off-topic boneheads. -
A couple of TBers have talked about how limp the GONY trailers have seemed and how that has dampened some of their enthusiasm. But I contend that trailers for movies made by challenging directors are meaningless. That's EXACTLY why they're great filmmakers! They're movies are too expansive and complex to put into a two minute box! That's why they beg to be seen in their entirety. But when you have a movie like XXX, which is really just a two hour collection of scenes, then they're ready made for trailers, which is why those play so well. I'm particularly sensitive about this because I had a meeting with a producer the other day about a pet project of mine and she basically said to me, "It's a really good script, but I always see things in terms of trailers, and I don't know what the trailer for this would be." I wanted to just yell "I'm not making a trailer! I'm making a film!" but I just nodded like a moron and smiled. That's show biz.
-
Sep 11, 2002 1:51:00 AM CDT
To Sleazy Dinosaur: Technically, Spielberg and Scorsese *did* co
by fitzy funk
on the Amblin Entertainment, Scorese-directed Cape Fear remake in 1991. I didn't find the results to be particularly inspiring.
-
Neil, I apologize for the mispelling. It is truly annoying to spout out useless information that means nothing and falsely allows people to feel like intellectuals and to not even know how to SPELL the topic's name. Personally, I neither look forward to nor dread GONY. I feel like it's an overblown attempt to give clout to a washed-up director. I love Miramax, though, and love pretty much everything that they produce (I swear this is not a plant, I am truly a fan), so I am willing to give it a chance. Also, I can't stand people who refuse to see a movie b/c of what it stands for, as though anyone gives a rat's ass what they see or do. So I will definitely see it, but I don't expect much. I didn't expect much from SIGNS, either, after the disappointing UNBREAKABLE, and look at the genius of that movie...so I could be wrong.
-
I was just making fun of the spelling cop that was so upset about people making a minor spelling error. I did think Cape Fear was pretty cool though, DeNiro was great as Max Cady.
-
Hi, I know on this anniversary what follows is as important as ever - I really am not interested if anyone reads it, but I have to get it off my chest after reading this talkback. Firstly, I am educated in the matters of international relations - studied for 6 years and I was especially drawn to US foreign policy and history. Many of you on this talkback seem confused about why your country goes abroad militarily at any time, I hope this might help. Firstly, the moral obligation of the US to invade, depose, assassinate, prop-up or not engage is true to an extent - Vietnam, Cuba, Germany are all party to the same moral standard - that the US cannot and will not be a party to the growth of contrary ideologies in places of strategic importance - maintaining a grip on the global economy means that all areas of the planet must be accessible by US military at any time and that those nations must cooperate with US policies on economic and strategic deployment, this coupled with the spread of cultural imperialism - i.e. the growth of US based businesses and products in every significant marketplace in the world - means that stability is assured - This is why the US was involved in Bosnia and not the Congo, why they involve themselves in Iraq and not Sierra Leone, and why the continued intervention in the domestic politics of other nations has seen something of a renaissance recently - Venezuela (which is the third largest oil provider to the US as I recall) brings back the memories of Panama, Chile, Peru, Haiti and a slew of others. Someone mentioned the Marshall Plan, which is a fine example of these forces at work - rebuilding, or essentially re-formatting (rebuilding is a bit self-serving of a term) the infrastructure of a nation allowed the US to link itself inextricably to the economic and cultural (read marketplace) growth of the nation - US goods would be sold before all else, levies and import taxes would be waived and US businesses would move in - In other owrds, this was done not to benefit the nations of Europe and not because of any moral obligation - it ensured US sponsored economic and strategic stability in the European marketplace on the terms of the US. To say that these countries would be worse off without the US is a moot point, and one without great standing - both WWII Russia and post WWI Germany rebuilt themselves without US intervention - both to the level of superpowers. However, being allies and sharing some commonalities with the Eurpoean countries did benefit all concerned. The US seeks to remain at the top of the food chain, not unusual by any means, and for the most part the enemies they have engaged in war with are all fairly rotten folk, and they have always had an international mandate to do so (although Iraq sure looks different) - but by no means do they do anything that doesn't provide a significant benefit to the US strategic military might, or economic/cultural imperialist doctrines that have been practiced for the better part of 80 years. And yes, independent surveys have stated that over 5,000 Afghany citizens have died from the war thus far in Afghanistan - the US military rejects these numbers.
-
Oh, I wasn't referring to you, Sleazy Dinosaur. I was referring to Mr. Neil MacAuley's annoyance at our invalid spelling of Martin ScorSese's name. I think CAPE FEAR was an okay movie, though I really didn't like the end and I found DeNiro to be funnier than he was scary. How about KING OF COMEDY? Who loves that movie? One of DeNiro's best, and I wipe a tear away thinking of what he could have become and what he DID become (15 Minutes, Meet the Whacks (Parents), Rocky and Bullwinkle).
-
I agree that King Of Comedy is a great movie, it is so underrated, heck, even Jerry Lewis gave a really good performance, the scene where he's reacting to DeNiro showing up at his house was priceless. I know DeNiro was more funny than scary in Cape Fear, but that's what I like about it, whether Scorsese intended it or not. 15 Minutes was pretty bad, but I have to say I loved Meet The Parents.
-
I don't know, I can't say I hated Meet the Parents, but it was lacking something for me. I never laughed really hard at anything, except maybe the revelation of Ben Stiller's real name. That was funny. I just don't think DeNiro is such a great actor. He was when he was young, but now there's something very contrived about him. I think Ben Stiller is hilarious, so he sort of saved the movie for me, but DeNiro on his own is a big bore. I realize this has nothing to do with Gangs of New York, but there's an inevitable connection made between Scorsese and DeNiro, so...
-
The fact that you call it brilliance or genius or whatever you said confirms that you really don't know anything about cinema, and my bet is you're either under the age of 21 or just, well...a mouth-breather. Let me give you an example of Shyamalan's retarded concepts: A group of aliens whose only apparent weakness is water invade a planet that is 80% water. They are so technologically advanced as to travel here, invade and lay siege to the planet, but they can't figure out how to make a waterproof suit to wear? Yeah. And that's exactly why it's made over $200 million. Same reason as The Mummy Returns and American Pie 2: ***it makes dumb people feel smart***. I have about 800 other valid criticisms of Signs but I'm too busy to bother mentioning them here and besides, I wouldn't have room to tell all you idiots that CAPE FEAR was a GENRE genre film! One of the tightest, most visually exciting, best acted and most relentlesssly scary and disturbing thrillers of the past 15 years. Kicks the shit out of Panic Room and Hannibal and Double Jeopardy and Enough and all the crap that pass for thrillers nowadays.
-
Now, I've run across a couple of people, such as yourself, who do not like SIGNS because of its blockbuster appeal. To you and the rest, I say Grow Up, whether you're 21 or 81. Who cares how much money it brings in or how many people like it? It's a horror film, that's all it is, and a mighty scary one at that. Maybe you consider horror films to be beneath your intellectual capacity, there are plenty of people who would agree. Fine. But does that make all the films in that genre bad? No. There may be a lot of crap, (most of which I've seen), but there is also some genuinely frightening material available. And in response to your theory on the aliens being able to develop a water-proof suit: maybe the aliens didn't think of it!! I don't know. What I do know is that you and every other "intellectual" who hates SIGNS always produce a new reason to hate it, and I will ask you this: do you really hate it, or do you love it so much it drives you mad, thus the excuses?
-
I find it interesting that pseudo-intellectuals will yell and scream like uncivilized barbarians when it comes to film art, but put them in a theater or a gallery or a concert hall and watch them act like precious little sophisticates. It's pathetic. Well, we've all seen your true colors on this message board, my friends.
-
Hi, I don't think you're wrong per se, but when did reviewing film become an objective work? Film is a passion - It's entirely subjective, which is why yourself, along with any other intelligent person takes what they hear here and anywhere else for that matter with a huge grain of salt. I have never found Drew's review to be lacking reason or passion, or frought with any moral incongruance. He treats his work with all seriousness, thought, honesty and necessitated "honor". He, like the rest of us, has his dream, and therefore his agenda - I do wish he'd stop banning people for some stuff - but I think one shouldn't bemoan his continued presence.
-
I'd be interested to hear this story. Would someone like to tell it? Oh, and for the record, I like Drew.
-
Great post there Weedy. I know this debate has really nothing to do with GONY. I think it all started from someone complaining about the World Trade Centers being shown at the end of the film. Oh well, I can't help but enjoy this debate. Something you said puzzles me a bit. You said, "To say that these countries would be worse off without the US is a moot point, and one without great standing - both WWII Russia and post WWI Germany rebuilt themselves without US intervention - both to the level of superpowers."---> But look how those two countries achieved that level of power? Germany had inflation rates in the thousands for nearly a decade resulting in high unemployment and extreme poverty. Then Hitler came around and explained to them who started all their troubles and how to resolve things. The German people turned to extremism. After all, Hitler was elected into office. Perhaps if the Western powers had not placed such ridiculous punishments on the German people and aided them in rebuilding, things may have turned out differently. After all, like you said, helping a country reformat as you put it, benefits everyone economically. As for Soviet Russia becoming a superpower after World War II, that's another case where extremism was the dominant form of government. Stalin was still in power for nearly 8 years after the end of WWII. He continued his paranoid slaughtering. Even filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein thought he was going to be arrested for making Ivan The Terrible Part II. He was lucky he died before Stalin's cronies could bring him up on dubious charges. My basic point is this: yes Germany and Russia rebuilt after WWI and WWII, respectively, however, at what cost? Both countries turned towards extremist governments one being fascist and the other communist. I know Russia was already communist prior to the war, but they did turn themselves into a superpower while under communist leadership. If we had simply left Japan alone after decimating the country, it's possible that the people may have turned to extremism to turn things around. Same goes for other European nations devastated by the war. Without US aide to install a moderate democratic government (which may be imperfect, but it seems to work better than fascism or communism), these nations may have slipped into extremism of one sort or another. I'm glad you pointed out that the Marshall Plan was less out of benevolence and more about dollars, because after all, a nation does what's in it's best interests.
-
I really liked Signs, which surprised me because I absolutely hated Unbreakable. I suppose the water thing could be considered a plot hole, and I really didn't believe that enough of those aliens wouldn't be able to break down a basement door. But pretty much every movie has plot holes, sometimes you like the movie so much that you don't notice them or choose to ignore them. I liked Signs well enough not to care about those kind of details. Now, something like Enough was so bad that counting the plot holes was about the only entertaining thing about the movie. Think about Resevoir Dogs for a second, all the bank robbers are dressed the same so no one will distinguish between them after the fact. But yet, their all eating breakfast in a diner dressed like that, and they are seated with the local crime boss the cops desperatly want, I would say that's a plot hole. Or in Die Hard, at the end of the movie you find out that the terrorists planned on letting all the hostages die in an explosion all along, so why didn't they kill one every 5 minutes until Bruce Willis gave himself up? Most movies have plot holes like these, but if you like the movie enough, you don't pay attention. Thats the case for Signs, as far as I'm concerned. Now if one of those aliens came walking across the screen dressed like those bank robbers in Resevoir Dogs, that would have been to much for me.
-
CASINO is pretty good, but nothing like what he was doing in the 70s and early 80s. He simply has lost his edge. I remember watching MEAN STREETS with abunch of buddies way abck when,. being awed by this brash and at the time unknown young filmmaker and the chances he took -- although I also was conscious of a stiff back when the schtick went on a little too long. Nothing against KUNDUN, which I have never seen nor expect to, but I believe the last great film he made was probably GOODFELLAS.
-
I keep forgetting about AGE OF INNOCENCE, a film which I have generally avoided. But IMDB reviews suggest it is a rather boring film, so what the hey. CASINO is OK, but GOODFELLAS is great. His films from 1991 on just ain't so hot. Still, I plan to be in line for GONY opening weekend.
-
Casino is a really good movie, it just suffers in comparison to Goodfellas. I didn't see Mean Streets until about a couple of years ago, and I wasn't all that impressed, I guess because it was innovative at the time, but it's been ripped off by so many people now that I couldn't tell how good it was. Sort of like how I always heard how awesome the car chase was in Bullitt, and then by the time I see it, it just seems like nothing special.
-
Ignore that, I thought it was poignant but it's no such thing. I just got out of work, and though this isn't the eleventh anymore it still feels like Wednsday night so it might as well be. Weedy, your right about the importance of the date and the facts in your post, even if I can't help but reiterate none of the contributing posts of this debate can hope to scratch the surface of all the relevant information in this area. Props too you also, McSmokey, for not needing to once be condescending but always enlightening, thus lending more credibility to your lesson, while I wasn't always so noble with mine. You too, Roger. Oh, and sorry Cslacks, I feel your pain, I really do, cuz I understand how stupid this is every time I click on "John Doe gives us a look at last night's secret screening of Scorsese's GANGS OF NEW YORK!!!" to go update the debate about American Imperialism, if that's basically what this is. Anyway, I hope to put that much time into the formal study of international relations too, and your points echo with clarity my own perspective on things, even if I obviously didn't convey that. However, I may just be nitpicking, but a few tibits that start with what Roger said. The methods of German and Russian recovery are key to why they didn't need foreign help, and I thought Mr. Thornhill said it well, as he did with a number of things I agree with. This was the biggest thing that stood out to me, but though minor in the scope of your post, still relevant in many ways. I think you underestimate our other interests in the aid of recovering nations. We are always defeating an enemy that is one of many (World War II/cold-war climate, terrorist climate, etc.), and so militarily it's also practical to form alliances against new and/or other enemies. Both the military and econonmic reasons are the same reasons any country makes friends with another, never for the bond of friendship. And while creating the footholds for American Business in defeated countries is certainly not done selflessly, I happen to think it's also a valuable tool for recovery itself, even if the implications of that statement are controversial. I happen to believe as do many of my countrymen, that our way of life (I mean selectively all the good things and none of the bad - read: sarcasm) is a good one. While I hate the necessary element of money-grubbingness/corporate slime/ruthless, uncompassionate efficiency replete in the American business culture, I think it's vitality and benefits help more than they hurt and the culture damage of it can be refined and lessened (if your optimistic about the future). My point is, what's good for the world's leading superpower IS good for the world, as our interdependence with many of the worlds countries certainly creates mostly economic benefit if not always other kinds. Sure we protect our own interests at other peoples expense and often, thanks to those in power willing to be immoral for my benefit, other peoples lives. Survival of the fittest isn't pretty, though we never stop trying to improve, improve, improve even if we do take many steps in the opposite direction. Even if it's only because the better the world economy is, the better is our own, the end result is what I don't have a problem with. I fail to see a more realistic alternative, which certainly doesn't mean there isn't one. A huge summation point is that I wouldn't do everything the same way as my government now does if I were Supreme Chancellor and dictator of America, but I don't have any impact whatsoever at the moment and given the cost-benefit analysis, I am more happy that we are interceding in international affairs than I am not. And now I definately am just nitpicking, but it's not contrary ideologies in places of strategic importance that aren't acceptable, as the ideologies these countries preached rarely had anything to do with their political doctrine (Communist Russia was anything but. I bet that accusation could be leveled at us, though). And as for the five thousand Afghani dead civilians, I bet there are at least that many, but in direct relation to American bombs? I doubt our precision weapons missed that many times. I'm guessing the figure has to do with the ground war and taking of cities by the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. Also, living conditions probably play some role. Either way, I don't think we should take full credit for the thousands who would have died a different death under the Taliban. (Harry, you naked doughboy you, you better not fall cuz you must be up at least a mile high by now.) I hope this makes sense.
-
C'mon, he looks like the younger & immature brother of Cameron Diaz. These two have zero chemistry from what I've seen and I just can't buy their romance onscreen. Daniel Day Lewis will steal every scene he's in, but I'm not sure if that's enough for me to see a Leonard DiCaprio movie, though.
-
..you are well named. Not only do you respond to a perfectly courteous mail which links a cinematic event to life in the real world , which many would believe is the reason for the shot in the film. You then take umbrage because I depict Harvey Weinsein, an innocent movie mogul, as an obese avaricious mediocrity, which he undoubtedly is. Movies are inextricable from life, and you are an idiot (something that smells REEKS, it doesn't wreak, you fool)and a depoliticised idiot at that. And svelte is exactly what I am, at six-one and a (too) lean 150 lbs. I have many faults, but gluttony isn't one of them. And I've lived in NYC and the Middle East, can you boast as much?
-
Do you really find plaid pants and spit curls fetching? ;-)
-
I agree that Leonardo has been been miscast. I like the guy, don't get me wrong. He's great in BASKETBALL DIARIES and WHAT'S EATING GILBERT GRAPE, TITANIC and THIS BOY'S LIFE etc. But I feel like a movie like GANGS OF NY should be cast with unknowns. Does anyone know what I mean? It seems like so much star power will ruin the basic effect of a virtual unknown kid rising up from the muck and saving the day, which is, essentially, what this movie is about.
-
"We were in the first row right behind the reserved section." Aren't there already about 500 reviews on this site with the same phrase? What a crock...
-
Well all I know is that one particularly brave exec apparently told Scorcese that the original cut was unwatchable, that doesn't mean it was but it would explain the reshoots and the cut in time. I hope its good, I like Scorcese but I refuse to get worked up until someone I trust gives a review. As much as I hate to accuse someone of being a plant this guys review is either a plant or a case of a gushing freak and neither is particularly trustworthy.
-
Have you ever read "The Unusual Life Of Tristan Smith"? There are Dolphin references in it that spring to mind reading your godaweful 'two towers' comment. Shut up, for heaven's sake. Come to think of it, have you even read the Lord of the Rings? Do you know how stupid your comments appear in print? This sort of cringe-inducing thinking is what is making the rest of the world less and less sympathetic towards the USA. On a less ascerbic note... Liam Neeson and Daniel Day Lewis in one film... Sigh. Shame about that weedy Di Caprio fella.
-
No, but that tall hat, and furpiece under his nose is quite a turn-on............LOL.
-
Tell me more about this "brave exec" and the "original cut" and "the reshoots." I'm dying of curiousity.
-
miramax doesn't plant reviews on internet websites, trust me. they don't really read them either. their publicists are way too overworked and undercreative to do such a thing. and they'd certainly never trust an assistant to do it anyway.
-
Of course there aren't any "plants." It's a ridiculous absurdity to assume that the busy people at Miramax have time to bother themselves with a silly message board. Some people must have truly overblown ideas about themselves to believe that their opinions and actions matter in the slightest to the movie industry.
-
Of course there aren't any "plants." It's a ridiculous absurdity to assume that the busy people at Miramax have time to bother themselves with a silly message board. Some people must have truly overblown ideas about themselves to believe that their opinions and actions matter in the slightest to the movie industry.
-
I know the general level of film scholarship on this site is low, but please, can't someone figger out how to spell SCORSESE!?!??!
Sheesh.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts