Sure, the film contains one or two action sequences, but the whole thing is a slow moving art-house type feature. It's this years "Lost in Translation," a film the critics go crazy over but that would not appeal to regular movie goers at all.
And "No Country for Old Men" is deliberately being marketed as a traditional thriller. It isn't. It begins tantalizingly, proceeds slowly and goes through no satisfying storytelling motions.
Then it ends abruptly. Many people die between all this.
(Apparently most movie-lovers disagree with me and think this movie is great!!!)
[ December 18, 2007, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: the_Somalian ]
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
I loved the book. I am actually quite excited to see the movie. I hear that the Coen Brothers were faithful to source material, sometimes at the expense of the film. I am stoked anyhow.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
I've seen it twice. I thought it was awesome both times. My girlfriend thought it was slow and liked Hitman better (she was only at No Country the second time).
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I thought Anton Chigurh was one of the most terrifying/realistic/terrifying-because-realistic villains in movie history. He scares even me.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
I hated it, but my boyfriend liked it a lot. So did his roommate. You might want to mention somewhere in the title or opening post that there are spoilers.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
What spoilers, that it's not a suspense thriller?
Man, Chigurh really scared me. I was talking to somebody on the phone at work today whose voice/accent was a lot like his, and I started having flashbacks to the scene in the movie where Chigurh is in the store with the old man, imagining myself as the old man...
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I'll see anything the Coen Brothers make.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
This was a story that had big brass balls. The structure of the story telling completely messes with the usual expectations, and I loved it.
Plus, the silenced shotgun alone makes this one of the best movies of the year.
I'll never, ever understand someone that could dismiss the awesomeness of this movie.
Arthouse? Eh? It had a SILENCED SHOTGUN.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I loved it, and would go see it again.
Things I loved:
1. Chigurh is a real, honest-to-goodness Bad Guy. Not a super-cool anti-hero who only kills people who wrong him or whatever, like Hannibal Lecter or The Bride. Other Bad Guys are scared of him, but even he gets stuff wrong. He may get away with what he does, but there is still something pathetic about his existence.Even with the wicked weaponry.
2. Josh Brolin was seamlessly believable. He can really act. Who knew?
3. The complete lack of score. The sound design was a huge part of this film. Sometimes the silence felt oppressive. The Foley editor deserves some recognition, because when you don't have music the sound has to be just right, all the time. It rocked.
4. The whole "rain falls on the just as well as the wicked" thing. The point isn't that righteousness triumphs all the time, but that when good men struggle to do good, the struggle itself has meaning.
5. I thought the ending was also perfect. Nothing tied up in a neat little bow, but there was hope. No more and no less than anyone ever has of a just reward, but hope all the same.
6. Tommy Lee Jones' pitted, craggy face, and the talent attached thereto.
7. The Coens used the funny bits from the book and didn't embellish too much.
8. Stephen Root. That man never looks the same in any of his movies. I think he's a criminally over-looked talent because he makes it look so easy.
**********Spoiler**************************
9. Woody Harrelson went boom. I don't have a good reason for loving that part. I just don't like him much.
*********End Spoiler*********************
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
Why can I enjoy Charlie Kauffman movies but nothing by the Coens?
I've updated the initial post though to reflect that many of you loved this movie.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Is Olivet the only girl who liked this movie?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I adored this film. My wife loathed it.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
While the movie had a lot of really good parts, I just didn't like it.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
A masterpiece of filmmaking. This one goes into the top of all time. The best movie the Coens have done, and brother is that saying something.
If you saw this movie and didn't like it, read this analysis of the film, and especially the comments after.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
That scanners blog has some strong truth on it. There's a good case to be made that if you didn't like "No Country for Old Men," then you probably just don't like truly excellent movies.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
I loved this movie. I'd like to see it again. My friend said he doesn't really desire to see it on the small screen, but he saw it in theaters twice. I think it will be just as good in my living room as it was in the theater. The editing was remarkable.
My wife has no desire whatsoever in seeing it.
that is all.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Is Olivet the only girl who liked this movie?
Um... Looks like it, from this thread, anyway. *puzzled* Maybe I'm just a gay man with a uterus and ovaries...
BTW, when Ben said "my friend" I believe he was speaking of my husband. (I could be mistaken, but he and Ben went to see it while I took the kids to see Enchanted with Ophelia. Then my Beloved dragged me to see it a few days later, saying that it would not be as good on the small screen so I HAD to see it in the theater. I'm glad he did.)
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: If you saw this movie and didn't like it, read this analysis of the film, and especially the comments after.
I don't think reading any analysis will change the experience I had of wishing I was anywhere but there so I could have a break in the tension. I very much considered leaving the theater, but I would have had to climb over a whole bunch of people and I hate it when people get up in the middle of a movie.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I have to agree with MidnightBlue (even though I thoroughly enjoyed the constant tension and the overall movie experience).
Anyone who decides whether they liked or disliked something based on someone else's opinion has potentially serious life problems.
There have been plenty of movies that I have understood perfectly well but not enjoyed at all. Taste is a slippery thing and, especially in the case of entertainment, people need to be free to decide what they like or don't like. Regardless of what anyone else says about merit.
Even if almost everyone on the planet agrees that No Country for Old Men is a masterpiece of modern cinema, that still cannot make it an objective truth. It's still subjective, and I think that's one of the coolest things about modern life-- the plethora of choices we have and the individual freedom to decide for ourselves what the "best" is.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Taste plays a huge part. I guess I was thinking of all the criticisms people have made of the movie, usually something like "it just totally derailed at the end" or "it was great, but then it just got really slow and boring," or "what a dumb movie!"
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
:bump: So this won the Oscar, eh?
The Coen brothers have made some of my favorite movies, and I would normally be excited to see something by them. I guess I'm made hesitant by the idea that they are based in the source, which they didn't write.
I also don't need to go to the movies for intensity these days. Maybe it would put my current levels of stress in perspective, though.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Even if almost everyone on the planet agrees that No Country for Old Men is a masterpiece of modern cinema, that still cannot make it an objective truth. It's still subjective, and I think that's one of the coolest things about modern life-- the plethora of choices we have and the individual freedom to decide for ourselves what the "best" is.
It's probably obvious from my previous posts in this thread that I disagree.
Does anyone really think that the Beatle's Sergeant Pepper is only "subjectively" better than Green Day's American Idiot? Do you really want to argue that someone who believes Paris Hilton's recent movie Hottie or Nottie is better than Eastern Promises is just having a different of opinion?
There is good taste, and there is bad taste. Two people with good taste can have an honest differences of opinion - for example, a friend of mine really believes that Abbey Road is better than Sergeant Pepper. I disagree, but my friend isn't obviously and completely wrong.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What constitutes good taste has to be by consensus in the end (as opposed to purely objective criteria). If we were to constrain others to quantitative parameters, would we not be then forced to abide by them ourselves?
One does not have to live by the tastes of others, but allowing others latitude in their tastes is what permits us to make our own choices.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:or example, a friend of mine really believes that Abbey Road is better than Sergeant Pepper. I disagree, but my friend isn't obviously and completely wrong.
Of course he isn't, because Abbey Road IS better than Sergeant Pepper! Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:What constitutes good taste has to be by consensus in the end (as opposed to purely objective criteria).
Why? Anyone with a bit of aesthetic sense and knowledge can see when a work of art is doing something new. We can all see when one work is more complex than another. Some works of art keep people coming back for more decades and centuries later.
Both of us know that no one will be watching the American Pie movies 50 years from now. And we didn't need to do a survey to discover a consensus to know this.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Pssh, Sergeant Pepper is totally one of the Beatles best albums! And definitely better than Abbey Road Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Sgt. Peppers is one of the best Beatles albums, but Abbey Road is better. That is an objective fact.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:What constitutes good taste has to be by consensus in the end (as opposed to purely objective criteria).
Why? Anyone with a bit of aesthetic sense and knowledge can see when a work of art is doing something new. We can all see when one work is more complex than another. Some works of art keep people coming back for more decades and centuries later.
Both of us know that no one will be watching the American Pie movies 50 years from now. And we didn't need to do a survey to discover a consensus to know this.
We can all see... = consensus.
I'm just saying that if you were to come up with a list of problems with the Paris Hilton movie and another list of virtues that it lacks that prove it's a bad movie, you have to live by that list in the future.
One of the great things about art is that it continually suprises us with bending, twisting, and reversing such parameters.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:We can all see... = consensus.
The consensus comes after the fact. Popularity itself is a sign of nothing. What accounts for most popularity - and therefore most consensus - is pleasure. The art that offers the most pleasure in return for the least effort on the part of the viewer is the art that becomes the most popular. But this consensus does not indicate quality or longevity.
quote:I'm just saying that if you were to come up with a list of problems with the Paris Hilton movie and another list of virtues that it lacks that prove it's a bad movie, you have to live by that list in the future.
I've already offered the two fundamental issues - newness and complexity. Certainly Paris Hilton offers neither.
quote:One of the great things about art is that it continually suprises us with bending, twisting, and reversing such parameters.
It surprises us by changing the parameters, certainly, but this ability to cause change is itself a sign of quality. Art changes things because it is good; you are reversing this cause and effect.
Are you really unwilling to clearly say that Eastern Promises or Citizen Kane are not genuinely better than Hottie or Nottie?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I wouldn't be willing to watch Hottie in order to make such a determination.
It's not that I can't have a preference. I am saying it's not possible to come up with objective criteria.
And I am troubled at the idea of someone saying "if you don't like X, you don't like quality movies."
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:I wouldn't be willing to watch Hottie in order to make such a determination.
Eeeexactly.
quote:And I am troubled at the idea of someone saying "if you don't like X, you don't like quality movies."
And I'm troubled by people who can only maintain their position by refusing to answer clear questions. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But your position is the one that calls for clarity. I'm taking an anti-clarity stance, because I dislike the products of formulaic filmmaking, such as Pay it Forward.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I find the argument about taste interesting. Always when it comes to films this critically popular that I don't care for it's hard not feel that I'm missing something that everybody else is picking up on.
I suggested to my older brother--who generally doesn't seek out independent/artsy films but doesn't avoid them when become mainstream--that he skip No Country For Old Men as it wasn't very good. He checked it out anyway and totally adored it, wondering how I could not recommend such an excellent film to him.
The movie didn't sit right with me. I didn't like its violent nihilism and its spirit "life is pointless and random and then you die." I didn't like lines like "Oh I've seen everything. I worked at Wal-Mart!" I didn't like Tommy Lee Jones's endless mumbling.
As for its win last night, all I can say is at least I'm no longer ambivalent about an Best Picture movie!
By the way it was funny watching Paul Thomas Anderson looking disappointed when his name wasn't called out.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet:
quote:Originally posted by steven: Is Olivet the only girl who liked this movie?
Um... Looks like it, from this thread, anyway. *puzzled* Maybe I'm just a gay man with a uterus and ovaries...
BTW, when Ben said "my friend" I believe he was speaking of my husband. (I could be mistaken, but he and Ben went to see it while I took the kids to see Enchanted with Ophelia. Then my Beloved dragged me to see it a few days later, saying that it would not be as good on the small screen so I HAD to see it in the theater. I'm glad he did.)
I loved the movie, as did the (female) friend who saw it with me.
-pH
Posted by seven (Member # 5367) on :
I'm female and I loved it too. I did not, however, like There Will Be Blood.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: Does anyone really think that the Beatle's Sergeant Pepper is only "subjectively" better than Green Day's American Idiot? Do you really want to argue that someone who believes Paris Hilton's recent movie Hottie or Nottie is better than Eastern Promises is just having a different of opinion?
Yes and no. I do believe that people who hold widely different views about what is "the best" are just having a difference (I assume you meant difference, not different) of opinion. But no, I don't want to argue. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: I didn't like its violent nihilism and its spirit "life is pointless and random and then you die."
See, I didn't see that in this movie at all. I saw the rain falling on the just as well as the wicked, and the just doing their best to do the right thing even when it seemed pointless. I saw hope. I left feeling energized and inspired, even though I went in expecting to come out slitting my wrists. Go figger.
That is a big part of why I think most art is an ink blot type of thing. Like, I get why PT Anderson's stuff is supposed to be high drama, but to me it's basically obtuse satire of something that is supposed to be important. The original choreography for Le Sacre du Printemps was reviled in its day, but some folks now think it was merely 100 years or so ahead of its time. Such things are naturally subjective.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
I read that Scanners analysis that Resh posted earlier, and it nearly made me sick...
It blatantly applies deeper meanings to scenes than even the directors likely intended. You can take ANY scene, from ANY movie and apply some deep, abstract, and completely subjective meaning to it. By the logic in that review, anything that occurs more than once in a movie is suddenly a "Theme" and has deep purpose. I'm so incredibly sick of people taking completely subjective aspects, and building a cult around them. 90% of the reasons stated in that review have nothing whatsoever to do with why the movie was good.
I didn't read the comments, as was suggested, but I must assume that they contain more of the same.
This is not to say that I didn't like the movie. As has been stated, the villain was pretty cool, and the acting was superb. I typically don't notice the cinematography of a movie the first time I watch it, as I generally get very absorbed in the story. Same applies to the music except where emphasis is placed on it. What I liked about the movie is that the characters were neither stupid, nor over-the-top. They were realistic. Most of the time, you say to yourself "I would probably do the same thing." Even the mistakes made by the characters were believable.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:The movie didn't sit right with me. I didn't like its violent nihilism and its spirit "life is pointless and random and then you die." I didn't like lines like "Oh I've seen everything. I worked at Wal-Mart!" I didn't like Tommy Lee Jones's endless mumbling.
I didn't see it like this. I agree with Olivet, but I would like to add that part of the movie's point is that even when we do our best, sometimes bad people win. That's life. "No Country" leaves the hope that Chiggurh will be caught someday because he makes enough mistakes, it just doesn't happen.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: That is a big part of why I think most art is an ink blot type of thing. Like, I get why PT Anderson's stuff is supposed to be high drama, but to me it's basically obtuse satire of something that is supposed to be important. The original choreography for Le Sacre du Printemps was reviled in its day, but some folks now think it was merely 100 years or so ahead of its time. Such things are naturally subjective.
Meh, I agree with you in principle, but The Rite specifically is a poor example, or rather a difficult one to use.
Historical accounts muddle the music in with the terrible performance of the ballet, which was by most accounts singularly vile. The combination of an underprepared orchestra with a poorly directed ballet led most people at the performance to jeer, while others loudly contested the jeering, and so the whole thing was a mess.
What we are sure of is that none of the presenters had confidence in Nijinsky, the great dancer who choreographed the ballet. Although his vision fit somewhat with Stravinsky's, his performance as a director and choreographer was dubious. For instance, by most close accounts, including Stravinky's (though he had a stake in disowning the performance ), Nijinsky had a poor understanding of the music, and directed the dancers from offstage with handclaps. The problem was that he couldn't hear the orchestra, and the convention for Ballet Russes at the time was to count to 40, in russian. As the words got longer, he got farther behind, and the dancers moved at a different tempo from the orchestra.
Recreations of the ballet have to necessarily excise all of the elements that Nijinsky had bungled, and take a fair amount of license to make it more workable. The piece has also become a standard repertoire piece, which makes it easier to combine with a ballet, since more people are familiar with it all around.
Ahead of its time, probably, but I'd say it took more than the public to catch up- the Rite had to catch up to itself.
Edit: Regarding the topic itself, it's been my impression that "No country" has been universally accepted by audiences and critics as a success- the naysayers remain the minority. How ahead of its time can a thing be if we are ready to accept it now? It seems to be just of the times, which is really fine, maybe preferable.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader:
quote:The movie didn't sit right with me. I didn't like its violent nihilism and its spirit "life is pointless and random and then you die." I didn't like lines like "Oh I've seen everything. I worked at Wal-Mart!" I didn't like Tommy Lee Jones's endless mumbling.
I didn't see it like this. I agree with Olivet, but I would like to add that part of the movie's point is that even when we do our best, sometimes bad people win. That's life. "No Country" leaves the hope that Chiggurh will be caught someday because he makes enough mistakes, it just doesn't happen.
This is also what makes the final scene such a vital part of the film. It's a depiction of the hope that greater things and understanding lay ahead of us- it's not nihilistic, even if the tone of the scene and the way it is framed makes it appear so. Bell is dubious about the dream he has had, but he acknowledges that it continues to haunt him, and that it remains in his dream life- even if it is separated from his waking life.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's the way I read the film:
Chigurh represents the random inevitability of death. He embodies it. It is only at the end of the film, after Carla Jean forces him to choose to kill her by abdicating her responsibility in her death to him, that he loses this representational status. (Immediately thereafter, he suffers a random, grievous harm and loses the attitude of complete control that he's otherwise carried with him throughout the movie; he is forced to rely on the basic decency of strangers.)
There are at least two larger themes. One is simply a basic nostalgia for a time when it was possible to see the role of good people as lightbearers bringing civilization into dark places; now civilization is everywhere, and the dark places are scattered within it. The second is a form of nihilism: bad things happen, and they are inevitable, but it is absolutely vital to pretend to yourself and to everyone else that they are not; the struggle to prevent bad things which cannot be prevented is what makes life livable -- but this struggle cannot be won, and at some point, for the sake of your own peace, you must lay it down in the hope that other people will pick up arms after you.
[ February 27, 2008, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
LOL! Orincoro, I'm well versed in the history of the piece, thanks anyway. The point was that opinions are just opinions. No matter how many millions of people share any given opinion at any point in time, tastes can shift. The preponderance of opinion is validating, maybe, but that doesn't mean the opinion has somehow been converted to a quantifiable fact.
Also, I never said No Country was ahead of it's time. Just that art that was considered grotesque and unpalatable by many people can be seen as transcendent to others, and both can be correct, as far as that goes.
I understand why some people didn't go for No Country, but I think more than half of what you get from a work of art like that is what you bring to it-- your individual experiences and expectations. I have the sudden urge to link to Penn and Teller's BS on "The Best" but it doesn't seem worth the bother. The difference between fact and opinion is simple enough, and individual taste can't be quantified.
Tom- That was lovely. I was surprised by how energized and optimistic I felt at the end of what seems to be a fairly grim movie. It actually made me happy. Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
Tom, you just made me like and understand the movie a hundred times more than before. wow. very nice.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Hey, just for kicks, could someone who thinks taste is just about opinion do an analysis like Tom's of The Marine, without it sounding like a bad parody?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet:
I understand why some people didn't go for No Country, but I think more than half of what you get from a work of art like that is what you bring to it-- your individual experiences and expectations. I have the sudden urge to link to Penn and Teller's BS on "The Best" but it doesn't seem worth the bother. The difference between fact and opinion is simple enough, and individual taste can't be quantified.
Yet, I always question need of that assertion. Of course there is uncertainty, and of course there is individual preference and experience, but someone the Coen brothers are good enough to appeal so broadly to so many different people. It's like with music that has a broad historical appeal, affecting new generations in new ways- of course the artist is not aware of how this will play out, but it's clear there is something different about the broadly appealing and the lasting works that has more to do with its creation than with individual interpretation. I think I have a very Kantian approach to the usefulness and criticism of art- I think that ultimately the appeal of the piece is a testament to its truth to the subject of the soul.
"No Country" feels like Shakespeare to me, it represents a range of emotions, contradictions, and subtle applications to our nature that transcends the individual to appeal to us all- and yet I feel that the appeal is a recognition of something we'd all agree on if we were all in a place to accept the elements of the work that make it necessarily flawed, ie: it's in one language, it deals with a specific situation and its biases, it depicts characters that we may not identify with, and shares similarities of execution that remind of us inferior works.
I think the worst thing to happen to this movie was being labeled a thriller. This film is a tragedy, and better, a tragic comedy.
I agree pretty much with Tom's second assertion about nihilism, but I think the film keeps a strong reign on hope. The tragic and comic aspect is so clear in the final scene, with Bell, the formerly robust and talkative wise man hushed to silence by the power of his own view of the world. His cynicism coming into focus for him, revealed in the way it is by the hope that he carries inside, is tragic and comic. I just can't think how that scene could have been better handled- with Bell juxtaposing the hope in his dream with the moment that he woke up, and was confronted again with his own vanity and cynically wise worldliness. It's as if to say: my foolish self laughed in the face of the person I believe myself to be, and my foolish self might have been right.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:"Basic Instinct 2" feels like Shakespeare to me, it represents a range of emotions, contradictions, and subtle applications to our nature that transcends the individual to appeal to us all- and yet I feel that the appeal is a recognition of something we'd all agree on if we were all in a place to accept the elements of the work that make it necessarily flawed, ie: it's in one language, it deals with a specific situation and its biases, it depicts characters that we may not identify with, and shares similarities of execution that remind of us inferior works.
I think the worst thing to happen to this movie was being labeled a thriller. This film is a tragedy, and better, a tragic comedy.
Have I made my point yet? I'll stop now.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
This was in response Orincoro. I didn't see Foust's post. Yes. As to the need for that assertion, I was just responding to Foust, specifically. Taste is subjective, and opinion is a different thing than fact. Hottie or Nottie might be some poor soul's favorite movie. I'd question their taste, but I wouldn't say they were objectively wrong. It's just how I process reality.
"My house is too cold" = opinion "I am uncomfortable with the temperature in my house" = fact
*shrug* My brain makes those distinctions naturally, and I have no reason to fight my nature at this point. But it's not worth arguing about, as I said to Faust.
[ February 28, 2008, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
Tom, you read the film so much better than I did. I share Adam_S's gratitude.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Have I made my point yet? I'll stop now. [/QB]
No, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't misquote me- it's not exactly fair.
Actually I'm trying very hard to restrain myself from telling you how pissed I am at what you did. Please don't do that.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:No, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't misquote me- it's not exactly fair.
Actually I'm trying very hard to restrain myself from telling you how pissed I am at what you did. Please don't do that.
Do you actually think that I intended for anyone to think you made those comments about Basic Instinct 2? Do you actually think anyone on this board didn't realize what I was doing?
I guess I should have been more explicit that I was changing your post, but your anger is off-the-charts irrational.
Edit: Fixin' HTML and correcting an idiom
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I was pissed at how lazily and pointlessly you chose to express your view. I also don't understand it, so it wasn't effective, at least in that regard. I'm a little young to remember Basic Instinct, it did come out like 16 years ago.
I was pissed, and I feel rightly, that I had sat down and tried to express my feeling about something in an effort to share what I thought about it- and the only response I get is to have my words mocked by you. Not rebutted even, not with substance, just openly mocked. That sucks. Whatever clever point you thought you were making at the expense of actually expressing yourself is also lost.
I would like to know how you would deal with a poster who had nothing to add but to jump in and skew what you've said to make fun of it. I know several people who do this almost exclusively here, and that's pretty lame.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I can see how that would piss you off, Orincoro, but I think Foust was trying to make a point and figured that was an elegant way of doing it. In fact it was, because his point was illustrated perfectly. I didn't think his purpose was to simply insult what you wrote, though I may be wrong about that.
Doesn't change the fact that his point is stupid, though...
To sylvrdragon, you should have read the comments. The reviewer makes some good observations, but that forum is kinda like Hatrack, it's a conversation, and people's opinions develop as the conversation continues. Many of the comments are of the Tom Davidson sort (on this thread in particular, not the sort of blather he usually produces... Hi Tom!!!)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I saw the alcohol thread underneath this one, and read "No Alcohol for Old Men"
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)