February 28, 200521 yr Out of all the critics, reporters, and audience members throughout the country, you are the only one that thinks so. Both articles I read on ESPN.com said it sucked. SPOILERS MAYBE First she's on the undercard of a guy who is going for heavyweight champion AND WINS...then she goes to Clint's gym and has 0 skill? The fighter at the end sucker punches her and injures her and Swank LOSES?!?!? END SPOILERS MAYBE
February 28, 200521 yr QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 04:15 PM) Both articles I read on ESPN.com said it sucked. SPOILERS MAYBE First she's on the undercard of a guy who is going for heavyweight champion AND WINS...then she goes to Clint's gym and has 0 skill? The fighter at the end sucker punches her and injures her and Swank LOSES?!?!? END SPOILERS MAYBE What are you talking about? Have you seen the film?
February 28, 200521 yr What are you talking about? Have you seen the film? No, I was just referring to the ESPN articles I read. Nice quoting of spoilers though.
February 28, 200521 yr QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 08:34 AM) Did anyone see all five best picture movies? I saw four of five...sideways being the missed film. Finding Neverland was my pick. anyone else? i saw finding neverland. cool flick.
February 28, 200521 yr QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 09:37 AM) I'm kind of embarassed to say I haven't seen one of the 5 that were nominated for Best Picture. But I did see Hotel Rwanda and a bunch of the other nominees. Neither have I. I did want to see Finding Neverland though. I just haven't had time to get to the theater in a long while. Plus being $10 a ticket (or just about), we have a hard time handing $20 over to see a flick that we can see for about $4-6 a few months later. When we do find a movie he and I want to see, we can't seem to find the time to go.
February 28, 200521 yr Author I saw 4 of the 5. Didn't see Finding Neverland. Saw all of them in the comfort of my living room, too. Perhaps I shouldn't admit that.
February 28, 200521 yr QUOTE(Brian @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 08:54 AM) Out of all the critics, reporters, and audience members throughout the country, you are the only one that thinks so. which furthers my belief that I'm alot smarter than most critics, reporters, and audience members. and this idea of "suspending disbelief" is a terrible defense of clear plot flaws and inconsistency in the characters. Million Dollar Baby was the Britney Spears of movies this year.
February 28, 200521 yr QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 03:10 PM) which furthers my belief that I'm alot smarter than most critics, reporters, and audience members. a lot
February 28, 200521 yr QUOTE(qwerty @ Feb 27, 2005 -> 11:17 PM) How you guys think chris rock did tonight? I thought Chris Rock did a good job last night. His monologue was funny and relatively short, the taped piece at the Magic Johnson Theater was a good bit (man alive do I love Albert Brooks!), and throughout the night he had good lines and kept things moving. I don't think he hit it out of the park, but it was a solid double driving in a couple runs. I'd grade it a B overall. I think looking at the ratings and the way he was received by the audience in the seats and on stage (Sean Penn's humorlessness not withstanding), they'll probably ask Rock back again in future years. Don't know if it'll be next year necessarily or if they'll try to keep mixing it up a bit, and I don't know if he'd even take the job again, but yeah, he'll definitely be asked back. Albert Brooks would make a great host. As would Gary Shandling. But despite being incredibly brilliant comedic minds who are lightning quick on their feet, the producers of the telecast will never have them host the show. They don't have enough of the kind of brand-name recognition that makes advertisers and network executives get chubbies. And their deadpan styles would be feared too subtle. I'd like to see Steve Martin come back a couple more times as host too. But as the Chris Rock experiment payed off for them, if they start trying new faces for the duty I'm sure they'll keep skewing younger rather than older. I hope Conan O'Brien gets his shot in the next few years, and I wouldn't be surprised if he does (his work on other awards shows in recent years has been building a good resume for the job). I think he'd be very good too, lots of fun. Of course this is coming from one of the lone voices in the wilderness who thought Letterman was far and away the best Oscar host in the past fifteen years, so.... Jon Stewart may well start getting offered the gig, and while I love him and think "The Daily Show" is beyond brilliant, I suspect Jon will turn them down. I wouldn't be shocked to hear Ben Stiller's name thrown into the mix in coming years either, and he'd be a pretty good choice. But Shandling, Albert Brooks and Letterman are all at the top of my Oscar host wishlist...and I don't expect to see any of them actually get the job. Unfortunately.
February 28, 200521 yr QUOTE(Yoda @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 04:14 PM) I thought Chris Rock did a good job last night. I think looking at the ratings and the way he was received by the audience in the seats and on stage (Sean Penn's humorlessness not withstanding), they'll probably ask Rock back again in future years. Sooo.. can anyone give me a general synopsis of the Rock/Penn exchange? I missed it.
February 28, 200521 yr QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 03:10 PM) a lot Q. (from T.) Hi. I am obsessed with grammar, and I have been so resistant against the rule that "a lot" is always "a lot" and never "alot." In know this is the rule that has been drilled into my head forever; however, I have a foggy recollection of hearing that rule has been outdated, but I cannot find any evidence of that. Am I not remembering correctly? I always tell my students to avoid using "a lot" because it's not formal anyway, but I would like to know for sure if there have been any rule changes for the "a lot vs, alot" question. Thanks A. Well, that is a very good question, because you want to know the definition of "correct." Of course, in English, that's always debatable. Regarding "a lot" and "alot," I'm sure that all English teachers would say "a lot" is the only correct form. However, English undergoes many changes that emerge from the ground up. I'm sure that in email and other informal writing, "alot" is used more and more frequently. Regards, Susan Coakley University of Delaware English Language Institute you're right and wrong, but thanks.
February 28, 200521 yr QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 03:18 PM) Sooo.. can anyone give me a general synopsis of the Rock/Penn exchange? I missed it. Chris Rock joked in the beginning of the show by asking who is Jude Law? Knowing that Law has been around for some time now in the last couple of years. Later on, when Penn showed up, he seriously answered Rock’s question by saying that Law is a fine actor. The man has absolutely no joy in him. Takes everything too serious.
February 28, 200521 yr QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 09:10 PM) which furthers my belief that I'm alot smarter than most critics, reporters, and audience members. and this idea of "suspending disbelief" is a terrible defense of clear plot flaws and inconsistency in the characters. Million Dollar Baby was the Britney Spears of movies this year. It's not a defense, it's a basic premise in movie making. It's fiction, fantasy, make believe. They have a category for REAL films, they're called documentaries. Many 'flaws' are there, EVERY movie has them. Ask a Dr. how many inaccuracies there are in films with medical situations, tons. Ask a cop or judge about crime movies. How about 'action movies'?.....their entire premise is ridiculous. Cowboy cops blowing things up left and right. How many times a year does the President get kidnapped in movies? How about sports movies?......Rocky took a beating in that film that would never have been allowed in the sport, it won an Oscar. Your problem with characters not behaving the way you think they would have is just that....the way YOU think they would have. Films in which they don't behave that way are far more interesting than when you can see their reaction coming from a mile away. They're called plot twists. You had a problem with the film's message. That doesn't make it a bad film.
February 28, 200521 yr Chris Rock is really the only thing that made the VMA's good. However, he only liked doing that every other year, because stuff in the music biz hadn't changed enough from year to year. I'd imagine he'd think the same with the movie biz.
February 28, 200521 yr QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 05:51 PM) This thread reminds me of a joke.... Why didn't the two tampons get along? I don't know but it probably has something to do with being stuck up.
March 1, 200521 yr Pretty sure that's more a product of nobody having seen the movies up for awards than Chris Rock hosting.
March 1, 200521 yr QUOTE(Spiff @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 07:19 PM) Pretty sure that's more a product of nobody having seen the movies up for awards than Chris Rock hosting. I guess that's also a possibility, but personally I like the more traditional choices.
March 1, 200521 yr QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 03:34 PM) It's not a defense, it's a basic premise in movie making. It's fiction, fantasy, make believe. They have a category for REAL films, they're called documentaries. Many 'flaws' are there, EVERY movie has them. Ask a Dr. how many inaccuracies there are in films with medical situations, tons. Ask a cop or judge about crime movies. How about 'action movies'?.....their entire premise is ridiculous. Cowboy cops blowing things up left and right. How many times a year does the President get kidnapped in movies? How about sports movies?......Rocky took a beating in that film that would never have been allowed in the sport, it won an Oscar. Your problem with characters not behaving the way you think they would have is just that....the way YOU think they would have. Films in which they don't behave that way are far more interesting than when you can see their reaction coming from a mile away. They're called plot twists. You had a problem with the film's message. That doesn't make it a bad film. wow, you are so right... thank you for helping me understand I didn't have a problem with the message of the film. I had a problem with the hopelessness that Maggie's character was placed. She had the backing of the WBA plus god knows how much $ from a law suit that in real life would have happened...but all she got was a mediocre hospital that failed to check for bed sores leading to an amputation and poor security which led to her death. I didn't have a problem believing that she could actually get to the title fight, which was nearly impossible...I had a problem with the lack of realism in order to force the characters into a horrible decision, which if were made by actual living and breathing people wouldn't have had the same outcome. I REALLY enjoyed acts 1 and 2 of this movie. I did not like the contrived and manipulative ending. but what the hell do I know?? I voted for bush...and hate homos :headshake
March 1, 200521 yr I forgot. The answer to ANY question, joke or riddle is: "Because you touch yourself at night."
March 1, 200521 yr QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Mar 1, 2005 -> 03:16 AM) wow, you are so right... thank you for helping me understand I didn't have a problem with the message of the film. I had a problem with the hopelessness that Maggie's character was placed. She had the backing of the WBA plus god knows how much $ from a law suit that in real life would have happened...but all she got was a mediocre hospital that failed to check for bed sores leading to an amputation and poor security which led to her death. I didn't have a problem believing that she could actually get to the title fight, which was nearly impossible...I had a problem with the lack of realism in order to force the characters into a horrible decision, which if were made by actual living and breathing people wouldn't have had the same outcome. I REALLY enjoyed acts 1 and 2 of this movie. I did not like the contrived and manipulative ending. but what the hell do I know?? I voted for bush...and hate homos :headshake PA, I wish I could explain it to you, but I just don't think you can understand something so complicated until you're 26, at least. It's grown-up stuff -- you understand, right?
March 1, 200521 yr QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 10:05 PM) PA, I wish I could explain it to you, but I just don't think you can understand something so complicated until you're 26, at least. It's grown-up stuff -- you understand, right? my bad.... I'm the kid for looking critically and analytically into the message, story and characters of a movie? ok. bored? yes wrong? no
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.