The Oscars (we want a nice clean fight :-P) -or do we? :)
Posted: Mon, 25th Mar 2002, 8:56pm
Post 1 of 67
all i have to say is:
oscar, im EXTREMELY disappointed in your best actor selection
hehe, i had to add that in the title:)
[ This Message was edited by: Cypher on 2002-03-28 01:05 ]
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 12:02am
Post 2 of 67
who won ?
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 12:04am
Post 3 of 67
Bagger it, it will not help in any case.
The only films I went to in the last year were Shrek and TLOTR. (No life assosiation)
DVD creating tutorials at :www.highvid.com[ This Message was edited by: Scuba on 2002-03-26 00:04 ]
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 12:37am
Post 4 of 67
I turned it off after Ben Kingsley got the hatchet for Sexy Beast. If he didn't get a "golden midget" for that performance, than you knew the whole thing was totally rigged and not worth watching.
On Denzel's win, his character in Training Day (Alonzo) is no worse than any of the 5-0 here in Toronto. They could have hired one of our "pigs" and told him to just act normally and pretend it was a routine day in the field
-The Chosen One
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 1:06am
Post 5 of 67
they picked denzel washington over russel crowe.
i see about a film a week, considering a work at a theatre, and its free
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 4:14am
Post 6 of 67
Yea, saw "A Beutiful Mind" tonight (finnaly!), and the acting was superb! I live 5 minutes away from Princeton, maybe I can get a glimpse of him walking to the school one day. Don't want to bother him of course, just want to see him in real life!
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 6:17am
Post 7 of 67
LOTR: FOTR should have won Best Picture. period.
I am a huge fan of Animation, and have been studyinjg it as a hobby for a number of years now, and frankly, Shrek was not a good movie. (bracing for impact) Monsters, Inc. should have creamed it.
That said, however, I must wonder if anyone in the academy even listened to Randy Newman's song from Monsters, Inc. He sucks. Listen to any of his songs, from toy Story 1 or 2, Monsters Inc., or any other movie. They all stink.
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 11:01am
Post 8 of 67
Good thing I DON'T have a TV
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 12:40pm
Post 9 of 67
What did Lord of the Rings win?
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 1:55pm
Post 10 of 67
lord of the rings won the best visual effects award.
and something else
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 4:09pm
Post 11 of 67
You know what? Shrek did suck.
The jokes were cliché, generic, and unoriginal. There was no plot. The animation was subpar. The voice Shrek was mismatched (they were originally going to have chris farley play him).
Why would you cast a british, austin powers-voice for an ogre?
Monsters Inc. on the other hand, had a good, original plot, original jokes, groundbreaking animation (it was the first time true fur has ever been animated.), and it didn't make you feel embarassed when you heard the jokes.
I think the only reason there was such a rave about shrek is because it was the "cool" movie to see, and if you liked it, you were up with the times.
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 4:52pm
Post 12 of 67
On 2002-03-26 00:37, Neo wrote:
On Denzel's win, his character in Training Day (Alonzo) is no worse than any of the 5-0 here in Toronto. They could have hired one of our "pigs" and told him to just act normally and pretend it was a routine day in the field
You stupid, stupid, stupid, racist ignorant pig. If only there was a way of sending myself through email to where you are, I will break your **** neck in a snap.
Listen to yourself.... everyone's entitled to their opinion but those remarks above is way outa line. The fact is Denzel has been long overdue an Oscar. He's been around for time and he is one of a few elite, black actors around. He has been cheated time and again for his blistering acting performances over the years. And to have finally won an oscar for best actor.. (which he was)in the early hours of Monday morning (GMT), I was estatic....and to read stupid comments like yours with no real substance makes my blood boil. I once heard that some peeps can talk poo outa their ass holes but I did not believe it until today. You better watch what you say in future!!!
PS: Samuel L Jackson is another exceptional black actor who has been cheated time and again, and still remains cheated. The Academy should be ashamed.
cum in soon.
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 4:57pm
Post 13 of 67
Oscar has always been political. Hell, they even call it a campaign as the studios try to get their movie to win.
And if you look at it in that light you can see why Crowe did not win. The reason being that little incident after the British awards, when he slammed the director of the show against a wall and screamed at him for cutting him off as he read some poem. Crowe lost a lot of support in Hollywood for that stunt.
And if you do not think Hollywood is political, does anyone realy think Crowe's performance in Gladiator was the best of the year ? General concenous is that he won last year, because he did not win for the year before. When he gave a far better performance.
And consider the fact that Ridley Scott did not win best director when the picture did.
Everyone always rants about how important the director is to a movie. So if this is true how can the best picture not have the best director? Poltics.
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 5:15pm
Post 14 of 67
The Oskars sucked...
LotR should have won more... a beatiful mind was a great movie, but lotR was, very simply, BETTER.
And com'on... I can say I know something about 3D Animation too and SHREK was better than Monsters Inc. Technically, no question; and from the story... well, thats tase, I guess... Shrek deserved the oscar, but beautiful mind didn't..
(and the Randy Newman: Did you listen to what he said? He didn't want the oscar for this song... Cmon.. I mean, the poor man has been nominated 16 times before he finally got one...)
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 6:29pm
Post 15 of 67
Monsters was much better in every aspect.
a beautiful mind was better than LOTR through message, story, (they didn't capture the essence of the novel), acting, music. Pretty much everything.
as for denzel not winning before, that should have ABSOLUTLEY no regard in this years oscars
though i think Crowe is one of the best actors today, his Gladiator performance was worthy for a nomination, but not the win, where as for insider he definetly deserved it over spacey, and this year, no doubt the oscar was his
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 8:36pm
Post 16 of 67
Well, let me throw this in the mix:
There was a thing on NPR last week. They had som folks talking about the Oscars and how the whole process works. And what everyone on the program who has worked inside the whole deal agreed to was that it is NOT an award for the artistically best, but for the politially best.
For example, any movie that deals with a heavy social issue that does well at the box office is a shoe in, no matter how crappy the film and acting actually are.
I don't watch Oscars or Grammys or anything. Its all polotics. Politics mixed with politics, and more politics made palitable by a touch of politics.
I freaking hate award shows. Why does anyone even bother? What a joke.
A bunch of pansy ass Hollywood freaks in clothes that cost as much as the U.S. defense buget. What is the freaking point?
I can point out a dozen or so indie films I've seen on ifilm.com that are better than anything they gave an award to!
Egos and politics. I don't like 'em one bit. Don't watch, don't care. Cause it reflects someone's influence, not their artistry. Period.
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 8:57pm
Post 17 of 67
if that is true, than they suck
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 9:01pm
Post 18 of 67
russel crowe.. well i don't y, but i really hate his guts. The fact that he came to hollywood in the last few years and has achieved what many other exceptional actors strive to accomplish their whole lives makes absolutley no sense to me.
gladiator = horrbile movie. and what is worse! it was factually incorrect from the very first scene! the romans, in the movie, used long bows! well at the time the movie took place, long bows were not created. and the romans never used them. long bows were initially used by the english, many many many years later.
gladiator is a joke of a film, and how he won a best actor for that role makes no sense. maximus had no emotion and was not very human or likebale, for that matter. he is completely 2 dimensional. all he strives for is bloody revenge. ok, i don't think your wife and kid would want u to to go on a killing spree to avenge their deaths. jeez. for an almost 3 hr film, nothing really happens of u think about it. honestly. a bunch of fight scenes then he kills the emperor (antagonist). wow....original....
and for Russel crowe--the guy is an ass, plain and simple. he actaully believes the hype that he is one of the best actors there are. that is so sad.
o, i think i just figured why russel crowe is as huge as he his now--- his accent.
that is what it comes down to. he has a good acting voice which, believe it or not, can make a HUGE diffenece in acting. if he had a hardcore new york accent, do u really think he would be cast as maximus? hell no. Because of his accent, he was cast in his 1st few small films, which led to gladiator-his 1st big break.
all in all, i am incredibly relieved russel crowe did not win. Beautiful mind is a great movie though, and russel did do a good job in it. but there was nothing too special to his performance. i think people liked his performance beacause his mannerisms in the movie are so different from real life that it entertained the audienece. seeing russel crowe as a shy nerd type is fun.
anyways, denzel washington's work in training day was nothing too special either, but i am glad he finally won an oscar that he so deserved to get the last couple years. he has been acting for MUCH longer than russel crowe.
anyway, that's my rant.
Posted: Tue, 26th Mar 2002, 11:18pm
Post 19 of 67
i disagree pretty much with EVERYTHING you just said
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 12:10am
Post 20 of 67
You're right. Gladiator is historical nonsense. But it never acts like it be a historical movie. It's an entertainment with a slight touch of philosphy, nothing more and nothing less.
When you test everything on it's reality or correctness, you gotta say that many movies suck.
Take sci-fi movies and exploding spaceships for example... There is not oxygen in space so there can't be any fire or explosions as most sci-fi movies show (including star wars)... or bullets under water. Hardly any bullet gets deeper than a few centimeters when you fire in water...
It's called "freedom of art". If you do a historical movie, be historically correct. If you want to do entertainment, then you can give a damn about what was real and what wasn't, as long as it fits your personal idea of visuality as a director.
Gladiator was a good movie. Well played, great camera, superb cut and professional lighting. if you say anything else you have no clue about movies, sorry...
And yes, Oscars are too much close to politics, unfortunately. Especially this year. Very sad...
[ This Message was edited by: Sollthar on 2002-03-27 00:11 ]
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 1:22am
Post 21 of 67
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 1:23am
Post 22 of 67
maybe they should rename it to some like the "election year awards" and we take the oscars and make them based on the product
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 6:46am
Post 23 of 67
look, i didn't mean that gladiator is a bad movie, it is just that it is not as great as people claim it to be. The movie is satisfactory at most. There is nothing to the movie. it is entirely too linear. the last thing i want to watch is a movie where i know exactly what is going to happen before it happens. not to mention all the stereotypes in the movie. it's ridiculous. if u want a movie that is more than average, go check out sixth sense, the insider, clockwork orange, shindler's list, raging bull, fight club, or midnight express. now those, in my opinion atleast, are truly great movies. not gladiator, a movie with a stereotypical, linear script, medicore acting, and dozens of under-developed characters. the only thing it had going for it were a handful of exciting action sequences, which i loved btw. the camera work was also good, but anyone can tell you that there is much more to a movie than lights and cameras.
oh, and i know more about movies than u think. atleast ucla seems to think so...
anywho, that's the end of my angry rant again. sorry if i talked too much.
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 6:58am
Post 24 of 67
I thought the animation, the actual movement and timing and realism of motion, in Shrek was good. It wasn't great, but it was good. The rendering and texturing was excellent. But Monsters, Inc. was better on all counts. Shrek was poor in the story department, Monsters was superb- it is finely crafted, every scene moved the story and character development along. And in my opinion, Shrek just wasn't funny. I saw Monsters 3 times in the theatre and I am still laughing at it. I think Boo should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actress.
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 7:43am
Post 25 of 67
yeah, i totally agree with u. shrek wasn't that great. i just saw ice age, and although it wasn't as nice as some of the visuals in monster's inc., it is really entertaining.
my fav cg animated films:
1.toy story - started it all. tom hanks and tim allen r a +
2.monster's inc. - nice story and visuals
3.ice age - fun movie
4.toy story2 - funny, but nothing new
5.bugs life - not as good as 'toy story's
6.final fantasy - nicest visuals, but bad bad bad story. and cheasy dialogue.
7.shrek - not very funny. annoying voice actors, story isn't too clever either. but man oh man, is that gingerbread man awesome or what..
8.antz - not bad. woody allen is cool. shrek beat it by a talking cookie. :]
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 11:13am
Post 26 of 67
Going back to the best actor award...
Denzel Washington was good in Training Day but I think the fact that Russell Crowe has been acting like a right idiot of the screen didn't help his chances.
A Beautiful Mind was a good film, and probably Crowe's strongest mainstream role to date but the way he has been acting at interviews and other awards means that maybe they were right to go with Denzel. Notably, Crowe accosted the BBC director of the BAFTA's by holding him against a wall and telling him "I'll make sure you never work in Hollywood!".
Maybe not getting this award will bring Crowe back down to reality where his behaviour is not acceptable, but I doubt it.
As for Shrek vs. Monsters Inc, its got to be the Monsters all the way for me. Better story, better charaterisation, better Animation - but thats just me :smile:[ This Message was edited by: schwar on 2002-03-27 11:18 ]
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 11:34am
Post 27 of 67
We can argue endlessly over whether the various awards were right or not, and whether people deserved them or not.
But I think there's one thing there is no dispute over - that Sidney Poitier's speech was a powerful and evocative and genuine moment in the evening. A very inspiring man.
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 12:48pm
Post 28 of 67
So, obviosly the taste of a good story is very different. I thought the story of Monsters was too simple for a film of that length. And it wasn't really funny for me... The best thing on that cinemanight was the trailer of ice age and "for the birds", I think they both have beaten Monsters. To me, Monsters is good, but pixars worst.
In Shrek I was laughing my head off. I don't think I every laughed that much in the cinema as while seeing Shrek. It's me Nr.1 animated movie...
There is more than camera and lighting to a movie, yes. But I always had a problem that many people just ignore handwork in a movie and say, if a movie has a bad script, it's a bad movie.
I think thats not fair for all the others that work on a movie. There is so much in making a movie, creativly AND tecnically. And one cannot just ignore all other aspects.
As in Gladiator, you're absolutely right... the characters we're not very deep and the story was very transparent. The screenwriter did not do a good job. But all other did. And that still makes it a good movie.
"movie" is a word, collecting almost all forms of art existing. And I think anyone involved deserves respect. Saying that the work of all the others is less important would be very wrong and unfair...
But this is my personal opinion.
Yes, Sidney Poiter is a great man and he deserved the Oscar.
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 4:28pm
Post 29 of 67
I felt compelled to write this based on the accusation made against me on the previous page. This is truly intended for those of you who I have been in contact with here in the forum, but mostly for Schwar and Malone who I’ve talked with at length on the Chat Channel and helped during the ALAMDV2 Beta testing. While we are able to “talk”, we truly don’t know oneanother here. I feel it is unfair to pass judgement and/or make untowards comments against any individual until you’ve heard them speak. I had hoped that something like this wouldn’t be necessary in this type of “community”, but obviously it is. So here it goes:
In my post I said “Denzel's character was no worse than the Police here in Toronto” and that he could (Denzel, the actor) be “replaced by one of our Pigs”. The last time I audited the Oxford English Dictionary (which was obviously more recently than our esteemed anonymous poster), racism was defined as “discrimination against an individual based on creed, origin and/or ethnicity”. My remarks were used (sarcastically) to describe what I consider substandard acting. Never once, did I make innuendos or untowards comments about Denzel Washington’s creed, origin and/or ethnicity.
Tossing out a word like “racism” is a very dangerous thing to do. As a Professional Educator, Producer and member of Amnesty International as well as my businesses Equity Council, I would encourage anyone on this post to seriously examine the very word “racism” before they use it improperly in the future; the word is “prejudice” in itself. Using the word “racism” stigmatizes an individual with an implied fundamental difference inherent in our genetic makeup. Illustrating the obvious may be best: while many of us are from different religious, cultural and geographic locations on this planet, none of us are a member of a different “race”. We all contain the same DNA and genetic material (homo-sapien). Darwin illustrated this point flawlessly in the Origin of Species: “Habitat and Community play an integral role in determining different behaviour in individuals, not genetic composition”. We are all the same (genetically/racially) and different socailly (cultural/geographical). Our society thrives on dignifying difference (a horrendous error) rather than focusing on our comminality as a “race” and even as indivudal personalities despite our geographical/cultural origin. This is the true tragedy of this whole affair.
As for my shot against the T.O. "Pigs"........I stick to it. According to our media you would be able to hire out any of the “officers” from our cities’ “Vice Squad” (which is currently mired with accusations of corruption in our major Newspapers) and they would be able to give you a comparable performance based on personal experience without formal theatrical training. If Denzel Washington’s melanin were of a different pigmentation such as blue, green, orange, white, neon pink, red or yellow it wouldn’t matter in my opinion (lets not forget what this forum is about- opinions!). He shouldn’t have won an award for that role. It should have been given to him long-ago but not suprisingly, wasn’t (I agree with the anonymous poster on this). Perhpas we should look at the Academy and FoxTv who Broadcast the awards here in Canada last Sunday night, and ask them about their “prejudicial” and “stereotypical” treatment of individuals in their media coverage of the event. Why did they feel compelled to single out Afro-American Actors and Actrices in the audience when Sidney Poitier, Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won? Why did they continuously focus on Sir Ian McKellan in the front row with his partner, waiting for them to hold hands or share a private moment?
I suggest whoever that anonymous poster is/was, you learn to read (and read between the lines) before you make ridiculous, offensive and detrimental remarks like that again. Consult your dictionary and attend a public lecture or two in you area on identifying and dealing with prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes. You appear to be more of a victim, rather than an advocate against prejudice. I've seen some ignorant posts, but that takes the cake. I would also like to applaud you on your courage to post anonymously. Very bold of you indeed.
If anyone knows of a Police Officer in the Metro Toronto Area who is offended by my remarks surrounding corruption in law-enforcement, than I would encourage them to discuss this matter with me in person, but not on this forum. If I have offended any Police Officers, than I apologize to you personally for the remarks I made regarding the “Pigs” (my sense of humor). Deal with it. This is not in the same league as accusing someone of "racial discrimination", which is far worse (these are the words I believe the anonymous poster lacked the vocabulary to characterize my comments). I do not make any compensations for my comments about Denzel Washington’s acting in “Training Day” compared to the other Actors nominated in his category, many of which "I felt" were more deserving this past year. Nor do I feel I should appologize for the sarcastic remark I made regarding his replacement with on eof my cities law enforcment officers (Pigs). I was re-enforcing my opnion of his acting ability with a little humor. As he has demonstrated in the past, Denzel Washington is worthy of much more. The real shame is that the Academy’s “politics” have interfered with his recognition in the past. Two wrongs, never make a right.
Hopefully we all learn something from this. If anyone wants to discuss this further, lets not do it on this forum, email me here:email@example.com
Perhaps worse, would be the “sterilzation” of this “forum” because of a few individuals. Consider me quiet on this matter. I’ve said my piece/peace. I appologize to Schwar and Malone for wasting the space on the server with this reply but I felt it was entirely necessary given the circumstance and content of the anonymous posters rebuttal to my obvious sarcastic remarks.
Peace to y’all.
PS - Not that it matters, but my wife of 5 years is an Afro-Canadian and an Attorney with Harcourt and Brace Ltd. (a legal partner of CSIS and INTERPOL). We’ve been called every name under the sun and a few that even I wouldn’t have thought of, yet we both remain open minded, accepting and hopeful of/for the future. I'd be happy to forward you an abstract that she printed for me from the Canadian Criminial Code (which is enforced internationally by INTERPOL) outlining the canticles that you (the anonymous poster) violated by making the slanderous remarks and the threat to my physical well being ("snapping my neck") in a public forum like this. She took a look at your comments and my original post and passed them on to one of her legal partners who suggested that I/we pursue action against you if you are ignorant enough to post anything other than a formal apology hereafter. Be thankful that my wife, her colleagues and I have better things to do with our time than waste it on ignorant cowards like you. I am willing to give you the opportunity to recant some of the things you said (including the threats, which I trust you didn’t really mean, only said in misinformed anger). However, should you make another comment along the lines of the aforementioned nature, I/we will make an example out of you legally. If you’ve read this last paragraph, you’ll realize your anonymity won’t help you either. I will say no more on this issue, you’ve been warned, but not threatened.
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 6:48pm
Post 30 of 67
Hey Neo - I think the fact that nobody else made comments such as those by the Anonymous person clearly shows that he's alone in his thoughts.
Thanks for a responding in a calm manner, let's hope he apologises to you and we can get back to doing what we do best - discussing heatedly the value of the Oscars.
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 8:48pm
Post 31 of 67
well back to the oscars, all in all it was a pretty entertaining show. ben stiller and owen wilson were funny and cirque du soleil was cool too.
but the actual awards were rigged. i guess the academy thought, "hey since september 11, we whould make our oscars be extra special. and to show that we r an open-minded country/academy, let's have an african-american sweep"
it just seems to me that you should recieve an oscar depending on your work, then your race. And dezel and hale's performances were good, not great.
it was obvisously rigged with the poitier, berry, washington winners. don't get me wrong, it's okay that they won, but having all these winners strategically placed in one night is kind of weird. y didn't they honor Sidney Poitier anytime in the last 15 yrs? i think he deserved it as much, say, 7 yrs ago as he does today.
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 8:54pm
Post 32 of 67
neo, great body of work. though, i dont know about the toronto police issue in the newspapers, tho i live in thornhill.
anyway, crowe may not have been correct with that producer, but why should that effect his performance?
it should be based on his performance, and his performance only, and that is why i have lost faith in the "Academy" i wont even post what i think of them.
anyway, to sort of lighten things up, whoever said that 2 wrongs dont make a right, heh, think about this:
you all probably have but,
-two negatives, equal a positive.
-so, transfer that to physical blahblahblah:
i hit a friend, he hits me back. He is retributed for my violence against him. It's balanced out, though the pain does stay. Its an eye for an eye theory.
anyway, for the *joke, the above statement is why revenge works
just a bit filler, hope you found it slighlty comical like i do.
anyway, schwar, why exactly did you change my topic? didn't my ARGHHHHHHHHHH make enough sense? [ This Message was edited by: Cypher on 2002-03-27 20:55 ]
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 8:56pm
Post 33 of 67
Cypher - maybe schwar doesn't like shouting?
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 8:59pm
Post 34 of 67
Binjder - you do realise that it could all just have been a happy coincidence, yes? Sure, it could have been 'rigged' - I have no idea whether it is or not. But don't let your (perhaps justified) cynicism of the Academy lead you to unsupported conclusions...if, in fact, it was all genuine and on the level, it would be a great shame to take away from the actors' achievements through needless negativity.
Looking at it another way, perhaps Halle Berry and Denzel Washington *were* both voted the Best, by pure coincidence - you've got to admit that's entirely possible - and *then* they thought "hey, y'know we've been discussing giving Sidney Poitier an award? How about we do it this year? That'd make a nice statement."
Just a coupla thoughts.
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 9:06pm
Post 35 of 67
but what i dont see is why most of the academy would think denzel was better than crowe.
he wasn't, and i think neo is right, though he went to extreme with it
Posted: Wed, 27th Mar 2002, 11:46pm
Post 36 of 67
The Academy is, I think, full of carp.
The fact the Fight Club not only didn't win anything, but wasn't even nominated, points to that fact.
They have consistently Got It Wrong.
There's a good article on this in the latest Empire mag.
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 12:31am
Post 37 of 67
in the end, does it really matter what some award show says?
i think, afterall, all that matters is that we enjoy the actual movies, right?
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 12:37am
Post 38 of 67
I think all that matters is that we each form our own, individual opinions, and let everybody else do the same.
Although, of course, my opinion is the most correct.
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 12:51am
Post 39 of 67
Thanks guys. Now that I'm off the serious kick I can go back to being a freak. It comes much more naturally.
What did you guys think about the supporting actor Oscar? Have you seen Sexy Beast? Ben Kingsley was unreal. I'm not sure why he got passed up!? Perhaps the films origin (UK as opposed ot the US.......?)
Cypher - I actually live up at Dufferin and Rutherford Road. I used to live @ Bathurst & St. Clair. Sound like we're close.
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 1:00am
Post 40 of 67
cool, im litteraly a 6 minute walk from the Promenade mall, near the new Winners(God i hate the traffic from it!)
i haven't seen sexy beast or iris, so i cant really say, but waht i do know is this:
crowe as much better than washington
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 1:03am
Post 41 of 67
btw, i dont know why, but i think Fight Club was a pretty bad movie.
i saw it on PPV late at like 1, didn't like it, many ppl said it was great. saw it again, still nothing.
i actually downloaded it and gonna give it one more try, but the first 2 times i thought was below average.
and im not really saying norton/pitt or fincher directing were bad, just the movie itself was not good, but not horrible either
talking about fincher, im definetly going to watch PANIC ROOM, and according to Ebert, no freaky-deaky ending
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 3:25am
Post 42 of 67
Yeaaahhhh! Suuuuuppppp son!
Tell it like it is brother.
As much as I think Russell Crowe is an ego maniacal knob, he split Denzel (this year) furious in the acting department. A Beautiful Mind was heavy, and he made the flick totally hype. Personally, I'd have given the big "D" an Oscar for "Malcolm X", but I've never been one to understand the academy.
Agreement on Fight Club. I would give it a 6 out of 10. Entertaining, but nothing too special (Ed Norton was better in American History X).
Panic Room looks cool. I try to never underestimate a flick no matter how cheez the previews are + it stars one of my favourite actors, Jared Leto. I might wait until it comes out on DSS. We'll see......
You a fan of Darren Aronofsky's stuff (Requiem for a Dream, Pi)? Good sh%t. His cinematographer (Matthew Libatique) knows how to work a camera and bend you noodle. Freaky as hell. Check those movies. Both are on DVD at the Rogers near your/my crib (Winners Plaza). Gotta get some zz's. Peace.
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 3:37am
Post 43 of 67
i sadly didn't see requim for a dream.
i would rent it, but there was.....some......unpleasentness...i can never go back.
actually, i have like a $30 late charge and i dont feel like paying. and i live directly behind it! dont ask me y they were late. cuz the answer is, simply, LAZINESS!!!!!!
DSS? u mean DirecTV?
man, it rules for me cuz my dad has been buddies with a guy who sells em and we get our cards fixed for free!
i got this really nice black oval-shaped, none of the circular Bell Xpress-VU crap
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 4:35am
Post 44 of 67
no one responded to my revenge joke
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 4:47am
Post 45 of 67
Well now that someone mentioned Darren Aranofsky I have to make some comments. Requiem for a Dream is an amazing movie. You have to watch it twice to really get it, because you will probably spend the first 30 minutes of it wondering what is going on. Marlon Wayons was particularly impressive, which just shows what someone regarded as a bad actor can do with some good material. However, its definently not for those with weak stomachs.
As for Pi, I couldn't get into that at all. My friend loves that movie, but I tried to get the hang of it over and over but it just lost me. A very, very, strange film to say the least.
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 2:41pm
Post 46 of 67
Cypher - If you are talking about that beeatch who works their with the glasses, I've sprayed some venom her way as well. You might be talking about my technique which got me in the bad books with Blockbuster : Buy, Burn, Return. Eventually they caught on to my little game......
Yeah man. D TV is the Sh@T! Couldn't live without it. If your Card Contact ever goes bling, I've got my own programmer. Email me and I can hook you up (no charge).
Orion- I agree, but Pi is my favourite flick. I've seen it millions of times. Check out the official site if you didn't quite get evrything. The site is a total trip but addresses most of the madness in the movie.http://www.pithemovie.com
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 3:33pm
Post 47 of 67
one of the guys at rogers is cool, he doesn't give damn
he let me rent AI when i had the $30 fine.
i dont even use my card, just phone.
i dont like the way they rearranged it tho, and the flow of PS2 games has slowed
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 3:37pm
Post 48 of 67
The whole race thing at the oscars annoyed me, because it shouldn't be surprising that there were 3 black nominees.
It is blatently political cos its a bunch of hollywood old boys who give out the awards.
I am annoyed that Halle Berry won hers because she blatently did not give the best female performance this year and the fact that it was given for racial issues takes away from Denzel who was very good in training day.
I think a lot of actors who are supposed to be good, the most obvious example being Sean Connery are always the same character. I think that the mark of a good actor is that they can be completely different sometimes and I think Denzel was that.
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 3:42pm
Post 49 of 67
I've got an Xbox. I'm a bit more bummed that Microsoft feels inclined to release a game every 2 months......can't believe I ditched my PS 2......especially after having a whack at State of Emergency.......looking at a potential swap.......
All award shows suck. I can't believe the chaos that they cause (here there and everywhere). I'm gonna host my own show in my basement with a .40 in one hand and a blunt in the other.
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 6:28pm
Post 50 of 67
Kid, if you think thats what makes an actor better, than you must agree tha Russel Crowe rules.
Look at his body of work, From Romper Stomper, to Virtuosity, to Quick and The Dead, to Insider, to Gladiator (Beautiful mind is based on someone, so like the insider)
i think he truly is one of the gifted ones
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 7:16pm
Post 51 of 67
What was that crazy movie hid did in Australia with all the Skinheads? Was that Romper Stomper? I saw it at like 2:30 am on IFC (Dss)......bloody nuts, but not bad as well. Said something good for Australian films/filmakers.....
Posted: Thu, 28th Mar 2002, 7:51pm
Post 52 of 67
ya, thats romper stomper
Posted: Fri, 29th Mar 2002, 4:18am
Post 53 of 67
That has been tripping me out all day. That movie was out of control. Russel Crowe was almost "too good" in that role. Makes a man wonder how close to home that madness was........as much as I like his acting, I'm not sure I can forgive him for Proof Of Life. What the fudge was he thinking? If I were in Fight Club, I'd fight Meg Ryan.
Posted: Fri, 29th Mar 2002, 3:56pm
Post 54 of 67
proof of life is his worst, but the last 20 min of action were good, and you cant deny that
Posted: Fri, 29th Mar 2002, 4:14pm
Post 55 of 67
hey, neo whats your email? its not publisized in the profile
Posted: Sat, 30th Mar 2002, 7:11pm
Post 56 of 67
The mayhem at the end was quality, but I would have paid triple the entrance price to see Meg Ryan's head blown off her body!
Posted: Sat, 30th Mar 2002, 11:54pm
Post 57 of 67
i sent you an email
btw, have you heard that meg ryan is going to have hot scene and take off her shirt?
one question, HOW OLD IS SHE???!!!!
Posted: Wed, 24th Apr 2002, 2:18pm
Post 58 of 67
This post is in specific response to the latter post by Neo, on Wed Mar 27 2002 at 4.28pm regarding the Oscars topic!
" I will make an example out of you legally"
Who do you think you are?
Listen, you must have me mistaken for some uncivilised uneducated drunk who lives on the streets drunk. I hate to disappoint you but I am neither. Honestly, I dont give a flying @@*% what your status in life is, or whether you are close buddies with Schwar and Malone, or for the part you played in developing AlamDv2 or for being a member of Amnesty International or for the fact that you are married to an Afro Canadian for the past 5 years. (Congratulations). I am happy for you really, but that dont mean a damn thing to me, especially the remark you made about your wife being Afro Canadian and an Attorney. How ARROGANT are you? Do you think that laws and hot shot lawyers dont exist in any other country apart from Canada? (slap slap). Regardless of how big you think your dick is, there is always someone out there with a bigger one than you have. Now thats a fact of life, so get off your high horse and think about it.
If you are as smart as you claim, answer me this? Why do you think I reacted to your post specifically in the way that I did when other users in the forum expressed similar views huh??? I tell you why. Its because of what you said and the way you arrogantly implied it to Denzel's character in Trainning Day. I personally found those remarks highly offensive, with no real substance and was opened to all sorts of interpretation. The reason why I interpreted them as being racist remarks was because it was my understanding that you were comparing Denzel Washington's character in Trainning Day to that of a "PIG" (as in the animal kind) and that "PIGS" (as in the animal kind) can act as good as Denzel did in Trainning Day. (never once said in your original post that you were talking about the POLICE). Furthermore...
Quote: "as for my shot against T.O "Pigs".... I stick to it".
What gives you the God damn right to refer to the Toronto Police or any other Police force for that matter as "Pigs". No Police force is perfect but at the end of the day, these people are individuals like you and me, the vast majority of who do a good job, putting their lives at risk to protect and serve the likes of you and me. (liked the way you sucked up in the end though by claiming that quote: "it is my sense of humour") Who is the coward now aye?
I dont know of any Oxford English Dictionary that you so proudly claim to use or any other dictionary for that matter that defines the word "PIG" as the POLICE, you foolish twat. Therefore to sum up my defence, Mr Professional Educator, who claims to use the Oxford English Dictionary more times, been to more lectures than I have, and yet still talks out of his bum hole, I got news for you.... a "PIG" as defined in the Collins English Dictionary, (the one I use) is and I quote "animal kept and killed for pork ham and bacon". And on that note, I totally justify myself and the remarks that I made specifically to your original post.
Furthermore, as far as cheap accusations are concerned about not being able to read, well thanks for your concern but I have learnt to read very well. However it is not up to me to learn to read between the lines. I aint mystic meg. You should have made yourself as clear as ice so no one can read between the lines and misinterpret what you say.
" I'd be happy to forwad you with an abstract that she printed for me from the Canadian Criminal Code (which is enforced by INTERPOL) outlining the canticles that you ( the anonymous poster) violated by making slanderous remarks and threat to my physical well being ("snapping my neck") in a public forum like this"
... you make me laugh. On the count of slander, you seem not to have grasp the true meaning of the word in the legal term. I dont think you fully aprreciate what this means in an International court of law. Lets get one thing straight, I too have consulted with my attorney, (we call them Barristers/Solicitors here in England), and the joke is you do not have any and I repeat ANY grounds for issuing a legal law suit against me for that. (damn, for a so called Professional Educator, you suprise me). You are just grabbing at straws and spitting any old legal mumbo jumbo to make yourself look good. Well, im really scared. As for threats to your phyiscal well being, I did no such thing. Dont twist what I said and stick to actual quotes. I specifically said and I quote: "If only there was a way of sending myself through email to where you are, I will break your **** neck in a snap". Since there isn't any form of human electronic transportation that allows me to send myself physically as an email attachment to where you live and break your neck in a snap, your accusations of posing a threat to your physical well being are flawed, you BIG FAIRY. You have been watching too much sci fi movies. I also dont appreciate being called a coward. I am no such thing, far from that. I did not post my messages as an "Anonymous poster". The reason why I did not register to the forum was because I did not see the point of registering the same details twice, (one for the login and the other to use the forum). I posted about 4 other messages regarding Premiere, After Effects and Mini DV cameras, making sure that I always use my trademark signature, dirtyGeeza, cum in soon. You need to check your facts. I registered on this site on February 24, 2002, you registered on the March 6th 2002. Do the maths. Now that this inconvenience have been rectified, my details should be freely available for all to see.
Finally yet importantly, in conclusion I accept that after reading your latter 50,000 word dissertation reply post regarding this whole Oscar issue, you are not a racist. I too have provided you with a 50,000 word reply that provide a full and honest account of my interpretation and explanation of your original post for why I called you a racist, and in doing so vindicates me of any accusations of slander and physical threats. So thats that.
PS: I have been busy over the last month or so filming and editing a small pilot show for a cable TV network, here in England, in addition to checking with my legal sources to find out where I stood on this matter, hence the reasons for the delay in my reply. I will challenge any
remark (s) that I personally find offensive or dont agree with, any time of the day, any day of the week. electronically, verbally, legally and otherwise from you or any other member on this forum. you can bet your bottom dollar on that one. This is what public newsgroups/forums are here for. As the old saying goes....
IF U CAN STAND THE HEAT, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN
Posted: Wed, 24th Apr 2002, 4:23pm
Post 59 of 67
I have one thing to say to you dirtygeeza and Neo:
"You have too much time on your hands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
dirtygeeza, since you claimed this to be a public whatever forum, why would you care what anyone else really says, and then write a "50,000" word thingy to prove/disprove.
i find that quite pointless. but whatever, its your time (and mine for reading it, heh.
just one thing, you said that Neo should have written what's in between the lines...um, your quote here:
I specifically said and I quote: "If only there was a way of sending myself through email to where you are, I will break your **** neck in a snap". Since there isn't any form of human electronic transportation that allows me to send myself physically as an email attachment to where you live and break your neck in a snap, your accusations of posing a threat to your physical well being are flawed, you BIG FAIRY.
refereing to what you said way back when, that can easily be viewed as a threat. So what if you actually cant make ur self microscopic and 'email' etc, you still threatened him.
Here's an example:
Say someone who is still reasonably young, and lives halfway around the world, gets into an arguement and would say "i am going to bomb your village and kill you". would that be viewed as a threat? Does anyone believe that this youngster is capable of getting a hold of a bomb, finding exactly where you live, and than somehow bombing that area. I dont think so.
Regardless, that is a threat, no matter if its actually possible, because a threat is said with the intention of doing it (under whatever circumstances).
whatever, this was just annoying me, if you guys still want to argue these issues, please email each other privately and do so. I did not want my thread regarding the oscars to be like this.
Ive wasted enough time.
I hope you two shake hands and drink a beer.
ps: oscars were still rigged!!!!!!!!
*NOTE: I am sorry if I 'somehow' 'offended' anyone with the bomb example (people will probably interpret this in a wrong way...)
Posted: Wed, 24th Apr 2002, 4:53pm
Post 60 of 67
I can't believe this is still going on......I had forgotten about this nonsense until I saw the note from Cypher.
Offence taken, appologies (of some sort) given on both sides (this is mine......yours I believe is above).
We all have better things to do with our time as Cypher said. If you feel better, great. I felt very insulted by what you said originally (a sensitive issue for me obviously) - same for you in turn, from my "reply comments" judging by your response posted above. Which I will give you, were also out of line (like your original post). Perhaps the lesson both of us should learn is not to take this too damn seriously and watch our "vocabulary" around here (to a degree).......
(I'm still for free thought!).
Consider this a virtual beer.
Drink it or pour it as you like.
.....why doesn't someone just delete this thread?
Posted: Wed, 24th Apr 2002, 5:02pm
Post 61 of 67
because im still upset at oscar
Posted: Thu, 25th Apr 2002, 11:23pm
Post 62 of 67
Oscar is evil.
Look at the madness he brought out in people here!!!!!!!!
Posted: Thu, 25th Apr 2002, 11:33pm
Post 63 of 67
hey, neo, have you checked ur emails lately?
i sent you one abouta week or two ago
Posted: Fri, 26th Apr 2002, 2:17am
Post 64 of 67
Here are my details
Posted: Fri, 26th Apr 2002, 2:25am
Post 65 of 67
I accept your virtual beer bro!!!
Posted: Fri, 26th Apr 2002, 5:45am
Post 66 of 67
.....why doesn't someone just delete this thread?
I'm not going to delete the thread, but since the thread is actually about the oscars, this whole issue is actually off-topic. I will purify the thread, if you like, so that only the oscar-related posts remain.
Posted: Fri, 26th Apr 2002, 8:10pm
Post 67 of 67
Maybe you shouldn't......perhaps like I said before, there is a lesson to be learned in the madness exhibted by myself and the Dirtygeeza. This got way out of hand and too emotional. I sort of feel that people should see that everything is aces and the air is clean...but I also think the views of the Dirtygeeza should be respected. If he wants to leave this madness here, then leave it, if he wants it "cleansed" than I've got his back as well.
Dirtygeeza, I don't wanna harp on this, but I feel I owe you one more thought on this stuff. I got miffed quickly as well because the kids/students in my class often browse the "Board", so it made for a real bad on me when they first saw the "Denzel" thing (they know I use the Alias "Neo"). Some of them lack the better judgment and ability to interpret, reconcile, read, etc. like adults....don't we all......
.... but I know it's all cool now anyway (so do they). Hope that clears it up for you bro. This has actually been a good lesson for some of them (certainly for me).
Whatever you think is best Axeman but I'm not bothered. Cheers to the Dirtygeeza then for the beer.
-Neo (originally born and raised in the UK!)