28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Winston*]

...prompting one of the greatest things in movies I've seen recently:

[

Show Spoiler

Joan Allen delivering the line "Release the Dreadnought!" Its destruction by the Death's Head spike wall was spectacular demolition porn.

]

Oh man, I forgot it was called that. So funny.

[Sven]

I was speaking metaphorically, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

Metaphorically, like, you are me? Or I am you? Five minutes represents however long I remember it? Exaggeration is not a metaphor.

Anyway, I can't speak for you, but I find it very obnoxious when people tell me what I think and what I will and won't do. That's all I was getting at. Second person in critical contexts is like lemon juice on a canker sore.

[Sven]

I remember giggling a lot during this movie, and I think I certainly was during this part.

ritch:

Ah, the memories!

ritch:

[Bosco B Thug]

An attempt at temperance, because in no way, shape or form is Death Race "awesome."

It's twinkie entertainment. You might enjoy the consumption and get a rush from it, but you'll also forget all about it 5 minutes later.

That's quite a segue between acknowledging Russ's gracious moderating, and further tirading. Now has anyone declared Death Race a timeless masterpiece yet? What, no one has?

To side with Irish, though, I use that 2nd person address a lot when I'm trying to make a point.

In conclusion: Death Race is satisfying gross spectacle.

[Sven]

To side with Irish, though, I use that 2nd person address a lot when I'm trying to make a point.

I understand that to many, it is an easy go-to figure of speech. However, it is one that must be eradicated.

[Winston*]

What's worse in film criticism: second person or first person plural?

[Bosco B Thug]

I understand that to many, it is an easy go-to figure of speech. However, it is one that must be eradicated.

Pish posh, let me condescend snappily to the people now and then, why don't you.

[Bosco B Thug]

Also, Sven, I see you thought Tucker & Dale vs. Evil was a "stupid" movie. It is. It doesn't quite create an air of irreverence enough (in fact, it's somewhat incompetent at it) to not make all the fatal mishaps anything but eye-rolling.

But, to the supporters and those who think they might like this, I'll admit to enjoying the genre-deconstructing premise and characters and film overall a good bit, though. It's quite likable.

And I'm wondering why this is having such a hard time getting to DVD, it was out in Sundance a year ago.

[Sven]

Also, Sven, I see you thought Tucker & Dale vs. Evil was a "stupid" movie. It is.

Oh man. Forgot all about that one. Lovable lunkheads, sure, but something so incompetently executed is hard for me to recommend.

[Irish]

Anyway, I can't speak for you, but I find it very obnoxious when people tell me what I think and what I will and won't do. That's all I was getting at. Second person in critical contexts is like lemon juice on a canker sore.

Collective use of "you" versus the personal. Difference.

Metaphorically, like, you are me? Or I am you? Five minutes represents however long I remember it? Exaggeration is not a metaphor.

Metaphor and hyperbole are used to create emphasis and effect. (Remember high school English?)

For example, when Bosco says ...

Now has anyone declared Death Race a timeless masterpiece yet? What, no one has?

... he's using hyperbole (and sarcasm) for a specific effect.

(And no, Bosco, nobody called it anything approaching a masterpiece. My only point was that calling Death Race "awesome" -- both in its strict dictionary definition and its slang meaning -- is an enormous reach.

That's why I tried to temper Sven's enthusiasm with the words "entertaining," "cheesy," and "forgettable," lest anyone actually think this movie is good.)

[Sven]

Collective use of "you" versus the personal. Difference.

No less presumptive and certainly no less obnoxious. That it's even up for question is weird. It's irritating English. But I can drop this if you can.

Metaphor and hyperbole are used to create emphasis and effect. (Remember high school English?)

Yes, but you weren't using metaphor. Is all I'm saying. And I know you were exaggerating about five minutes. Still, it's a silly thing to insist that I will forget about the film. You have no idea what kind of retaining power my brain has.

That's why I tried to temper Sven's enthusiasm with the words "entertaining," "cheesy," and "forgettable," lest anyone actually think this movie is good.)

Lest anyone decide to take Irish's word for it, I am going to go ahead and repeat my claim of the film's awesomeness, knowing full well how that word is defined, and I'm going to go one further and suggest it is also good, in the traditional sense.

[Ezee E]

So Somewhere. Forty minutes in and I've decided to call it a night. I'll watch the rest tomorrow and hope it improves.

[Henry Gale]

So Somewhere. Forty minutes in and I've decided to call it a night. I'll watch the rest tomorrow and hope it improves.

Nah, you probably already got the gist of it.

Just imagine some more scenes of Dorff and Fanning playing Guitar Hero, eating, or sitting together comfortably for long, uninterrupted shots as Coppola presses play on her iPod / husband. But don't forget, just because they haven't spend a whole lotta time together before doesn't mean they can't start now!

[transmogrifier]

Using the second person when talking about films should be grounds for banishment.

Making silly proclamations about simple rhetorical devices should be grounds for a severe wet-willy.

The difference between "you can't help but feel confused" and "the movie is confusing" = 0.

I like how the second person reads.

[Boner M]

Australian rating certificates on DVD/Blus are the most annoying thing ever.



FFUUUUUUUUUU

[transmogrifier]

I understand that to many, it is an easy go-to figure of speech. However, it is one that must be eradicated.

Whatever. You find it creates a more intimate relationship between the reader and the writer - subtly calling you in to the conversation and making the discussion seem more universal.

I mean, when someone says "Man, you can't help but wonder what goes into a sausage" do you get all indignant and shout "I have never wondered that! Stop thinking for me!"

Because that would be crazy.

No less presumptive and certainly no less obnoxious. That it's even up for question is weird. It's irritating English.

It's up for question because, luckily, your word is not law. Because if it was, you'd find the English language to be a whole lot less interesting.

[Scar]

From Paris with Love is an extravaganza of, "What, really?" From Rhys-Meyers's douchebag VanDyke to a bodega that apparently has an attic filled with mounds of cocaine to one of the most ridiculous twists I've seen in a while. At least the shootouts were fun. 3/10

Man, I absolutely LOVE this movie. Absoultely, gloriously over the top.

[B-side]

Australian rating certificates on DVD/Blus are the most annoying thing ever.



FFUUUUUUUUUU

Wow. Completely murders the aesthetic of that cover, which would have otherwise been very pleasing.

Nice World's Greatest Dad rating, btw.

[dmk]

Come on, World's Greatest Dad is maudlin shite.

I'm proud of Australia's ratings. And obviously OFLC are too, as our covers carry the largest fucking certificates in the world.

[B-side]

Come on, World's Greatest Dad is maudlin shite.

Maudlin is about the last word I'd use to describe that movie.

[Spun Lepton]

Maudlin is about the last word I'd use to describe that movie.

Agreed.

[Sven]

The difference between "you can't help but feel confused" and "the movie is confusing" = 0.

The subject of those two statements is different. One is talking about the movie and the other is talking about the viewer. Also, one is uglier. Hint: it's the one with more words that makes fewer assumptions.

You find it creates a more intimate relationship between the reader and the writer - subtly calling you in to the conversation and making the discussion seem more universal.

And if I don't? There's nothing subtle about it at all. Universal? Dictatorial.

It's up for question because, luckily, your word is not law. Because if it was, you'd find the English language to be a whole lot less interesting.

Would I, though? And "interesting" is not the way I'd describe your use of the second person here.

[Qrazy]

Sunday Bloody Sunday - Love me some Schlesinger.

[soitgoes...]

Sunday Bloody Sunday - Love me some Schlesinger.

Schlesinger fails me.

And yes I know, I fail you. Or my mom fails me. Or something.

[Qrazy]

Schlesinger fails me.

And yes I know, I fail you. Or my mom fails me. Or something.

You just don't get him. :lol: