A "post your top ten movies" thread.

by **loafergirl** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:57 pm

I forgot Paper Moon, that is such a kick ass movie.

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 8:09 am

Oh. Yeah.

Shit.

by **pinback** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:20 am

I've never seen Two Towers. You just can't type (or, apparently, read).

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:18 pm

P.S.

I'll get you for this, C.O.T.

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:04 pm

Pinback, you're not holding something right now, are you? Something very, very stupid? Something inane, witless and altogether wrong?

You're not holding the opinion that FOTR was better than the Two Towers, are you?

You seem to be.

Here are people that are allowed to say that FOTR was better than TTT:

o Those that are blind and deaf

o The very, very stupid

o People who are stuck in "The Opposites" from TV's You Can't Do That On Television

You don't seem to qualify for any of those. Seriously, what the hell is going on here? You know we're talking about New Line Cinema's The Two Towers and not some home video of NYC's Twin Towers falling earthward, right? Because I'll grant you that FOTR is better than that.

Anyone who says that TTT was inferior to FOTR deserves their tongues cut out. Unless they are mute, in which case someone ought to chop off their hands.

by **bruce** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:47 pm

Red Rage Walrustitty wrote:in which you can't be a citizen unless you're served in the military.

Untrue. Civil servants are citizens too. However, public service is required.

Bruce

by **pinback** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 2:25 pm

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was better than Fellowship?
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
was better than
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better
better

What's that?

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 2:14 pm

Goddammit, I need to fucking edit this. -- SysOp

Also: I am genuinely curious -- by what standard are you stating that Two Towers was <strike>better</strike> WORSE (edit complete) than Fellowship? Because in terms of action, characters, character development, plot, cinematography, special effects (except for the giant tree) and dialogue, it wasn't. So I presume that there is some snarky comment like, "Fellowship was shorter!" awaiting.

I would also like to add that Walrustitty went to the bathroom during Gollum's soliloquy and missed it entirely. You, the casual Jolt Country denizen, may remember Gollum's soliloquy, as it was the BEST SCENE IN ANY MOVIE ON THE PLANET IN THE YEAR 2002 AD.

For his next trick, JQW will take a screwdriver and scratch away all the scenes leading up to Han getting frozen from Empire Strikes Back out of his memory and proclaim it to be inferior to Star Wars.

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:37 pm

Abacus wrote:I was under the impression that nothing on this planet brought you more joy than messages written as guests, that you grinned and rubbed your hands together in glee like Oprah being served a huge plate of buttered jelly doughnuts.

I don't think you understand. Posting as a gimmick is funny when you actually post as a gimmick.

Debaser posting as the Serial Rapist: Funny.
You posting as you, only with "Ugh" in the Name Field: Not funny, and not intended to be funny.

What, are you the "I won't login" gimmick? Just what are you hoping to accomplish here? What are your intentions towards my chaste BBS, son?

I'll tell you what it is: it's a sub-conscious lack of respect towards the medium of communication. Somehow, even though there is a thriving, vibrant, lush community here that is making an environmental disaster of the landscape by strip-mining COMEDY GOLD, you have an altogether arrogant and holier-than-thou attitude towards this place. Just because I was able to beat the odds and get an interesting and funny place going with absolutely no help from Da King, the Real Man and Jethro Q. Walrustitty -- three men, I should add, who I at one point hoped would assemble in alliance and friendship and honor at either my day of matrimony and/or burial, and now wouldn't so much as cross the informational highway to piss on me if I were burning alive -- it doesn't mean that we don't want to see "Jethro Q. Walrustitty" as the active name in the poster's field.

by **Abacus** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:09 pm

According to the memberlist, at this moment, there are 6,379 messages posted by registered users. 9,411 messages total. That means that 32.21(blahblahblah)% of the messages are "guest" messages - a staggering 1 in 3 messages.

I was under the impression that nothing on this planet brought you more joy than messages written as guests, that you grinned and rubbed your hands together in glee like Oprah being served a huge plate of buttered jelly doughnuts.

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:56 pm

For Christ's sake, log in.

Jesus.

by **VICTORY IS MINE!** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:53 pm

Hey, she liked Robocop better than Blade Runner. Gotta agree with her on that one. :D

I just think "beautiful" is an awfully strong word to throw around, and that very, very few movies can qualify for that.

I might even be willing to acknowledge that BR influenced the look of later movies, but so did Star Wars, and I don't think that movie (despite my love of it) qualifies as beautiful in any way.

My problem with thought provoking is that I think it inspires empty thought, due to the weak storyline... as opposed to, say, Memento, which keeps you talking after the movie's over, but has a reasonably clever story to discuss.

Anyways, don't worry about it. It's part of my job description to give you a hard time. :)

by **Violet** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:44 pm

I liked some aspects of Blade Runner. You obviously didn't read my post Jeff. I said that,

I found it oddly beautiful, a little slow but otherwise a very thought provoking movie.

I thought the set itself it was beautiful. The movie was slow but I did say that my friend and I had a discussion about it afterwards. You just take what you want out of what I say. I didn't say it was the best movie of all time did I. You just misinterpret me. I did like Robocop better but that’s beside the point. All the things I liked about the movie were true. The unicorn I didn't like. You just like to razz me. I find it irritating that you constantly twist my words up and make me seem like some kind of ass. Get a life Jeff.

by **Red Rage Walrustitty** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:18 pm

Good Lord. What nonsense goeth on.

Jonsey, you LUNATIC. You admit that you've only looking at movies seriously for the past couple years, yet you can't even understand what I'm saying about Starship Troopers. I mean, geez, I never said that the movie should be taken seriously. It is parody - parody is supposed to be funny. It is a parody of WW2 movies (where everyone is young, beautiful, and has straight white gleaming teeth, and machine guns are popular) as well as presenting a world that resolves around the military - in which you can't be a citizen unless you're served in the military.

Watching Robocop again the other night, I remembered just how similar the two movies are in tone - very similar "newsbites" breaking up the action, and a similar parody, in Robocop's case, big business and unions. However, in both cases, Verhoeven never lets it get in the way of the action and the splashy gore. You can enjoy the movie purely as action, or enjoy its satire, or both. To call either movie pretentious, as you seem to be doing, is just plain silly. Platoon? Possibly pretentious. Starship Troopers? Hell no.

(Speaking of that, as mentioned earlier, I've got the unrated Robocop, which is why Violet mentions Murphy's entire arm getting blown off, which is, IIRC, completely cut from the R-rated version.)

So, mister, I think you should maybe see a few more classics (like, for example, "Citizen Kane") before spouting off at the mouth. Oh, and anyone who actually has seen Fitzcarraldo would recommend it over virtually any big-budget Hollywood junk. Oh, and "Two Towers" was worse than the first one. And, Dead Alive has more raw zeal than anything else Peter Jackson has done and is ever likely to do. It's a chunkblower classic. To claim that I poop on Two Towers because I don't like D&D is farcical as I don't poop on the first one, and I'm a big fan of "Dungeon Siege" and an even bigger fan of LEVELLING UP.

As for SISKEL - try learning how not to double post (or at least, delete your second post) before trying to school me on movies.

As for you, <strike>Big J</strike> Violet (hopefully that's an allowed HTML on this site, otherwise it'll look like shit and won't be editable), it sounded like you did not care for Blade Runner at all after you saw it, now you're here talking it up?

Blade Runner is the ultimate example of a pretentious movie being taken way too seriously. There's absolutely NOTHING there. Some pretty skyscapes and that's about it. Legend has exactly the same problem - it's all about the looks, while it's atrociously bad in every other way. Let's face it - Ridley Scott did one, exactly one, good movie - Alien - and that was it.

Debating about whether or not Ford was a replicant is pointless. Ridley is still laughing about having you feebs going on and on debating it. In terms of movie quandries, that ranks just below why Cathy (not Mrs W) won't eat breakfast and just above whether the blowjob as the end of "Brown Bunny" is real or imagined.

by **Violet** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:02 am

I'd buy that for a dollar.

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 6:40 am

Violet, I hope that you find the term "BITCHES LEAVE," spoken by Clarence Boddiker (who later went on to play Red in That 70s Show) to have as many useful applications, day to day, as the rest of us. There truly isn't a social situation where it isn't useful:

o You're playing DDR and want someone off your dance pad? "BITCHES, LEAVE."

o You come into work an hours late and find people in your office looking for video cards? "BITCHES, LEAVE."

o You're going to shoot some guy who is snorting coke off hookers' breasts? Come on! We've all been there! "BITCHES, LEAVE."

JC FUN FAX: It was changed to "ladies, leave" for TV.

by **Violet** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 9:32 pm

I finally saw Blade Runner and I know all of you are dying to know what I thought of it. I found it oddly beautiful, a little slow but otherwise a very thought provoking movie. The unicorn was evil, not physically but mentally so. It entered my brain and trotted around till it found a good spot to defile with a large pile of fecal matter. I couldn't let that unicorn go. Why the heck was it there in this obviously masculine movie full of blood and violence? I think that Ridley Scott has a fixation on unicorns.

Others things I found interesting about the movie, the woman with glitter sequins who danced with the snake, that was pretty cool. The origami chicken was awesome; I want to learn how to do that someday and all those noodles at the beginning. In the future the food looks damn tasty. I don't know about Decker being a replicant but that other detective must have been one. Any person that can fold origami like that on the "job" must be a robot, or insane.

I also saw Robocop and could tell right away that it was done by the same director who did Total Recall. It definitely has more shock value that TR. I did like it because of the ironies in it. The movie was gruesome though, with the toxic accident and the shooting scenes. I got to say that loosing a hand like that and then your whole upper arm, now that has got to hurt.

Good movies, they don't make them like that anymore.

by **pinback** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 3:10 pm

This thread is NO LONGER STICKY. Don't like it? That's too damn bad. New sherriff in town, see.

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 10:53 am

Ghost of Siskel wrote:PETER JACKSON WILL NEVER TOP DEAD ALIVE. Read that sentence over and over. And over again. Keep reading it. Keep doing it until the flaws in that way of thinking start shining through.

However, good luck with the marriage and the Groucho site.

There's just something about telling somebody "good luck with the marriage" that I can't help chuckling at. He may be the Ghost of Siskel, but that doesn't mean he can't wear cruel shoes.

Walrustitty just doesn't like D&D. If he did, he'd be saying all the right things about the Two Towers.

by **Ghost of Siskel** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 10:49 am

Jethro Q. Walrustitty wrote:I'm not going to get dragged into a movie debate, but Christ on a CROSS, Jonsey - you put crap like Mallrats on your top ten - to say nothing of the "Mummy Returns with Elves" Two Towers movie - and there's no sign of Street Trash? What's WRONG with you? (Besides, Peter Jackson will never top Dead Alive aka Braindead - his masterpiece.)

PETER JACKSON WILL NEVER TOP DEAD ALIVE. Read that sentence over and over. And over again. Keep reading it. Keep doing it until the flaws in that way of thinking start shining through.

However, good luck with the marriage and the Groucho site.

A "post your top ten movies" thread.

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: A "post your top ten movies" thread.