MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
"The pacing is strange."
So what? Can't movies have unique pacing, can't movies do their own thing? Besides, how do you define 'strange', and how can a pacing be 'strange', unless there's some unified pacing every movie always conforms to? You are not making ANY sense with these non-arguments.
The correct way to phrase your 'criticism' is, "I don't like the pacing". This is truthful and honest. What you wrote is just nonsensical garbage, that has nothing to do with the movie. You would have to explain this point quite a lot for it to become valid - how is the pacing strange compared to any other movies? There can be fast pacing, slow pacing, incongruent pacing, fluctuating pacing, pacing that ruins something because [reasons explained], and so on. But there can't be just universally 'STRANGE' pacing without quite a lot of explanation.
"Both characters basically transform overnight into their polar opposites. Eddie Murphy is immediately fine being a high-powered stockbroker."
This has nothing to do with pacing, so you fail again.
Second, no, they don't. It takes time, and even then, the movie CLEARLY explains the reasons why it can happen like that. There ARE suspicious and implausible things about Eddie's character change (like over-protecting his new house, when in reality, he wouldn't give a crap where anyone vomits, he can't get so attached to something so new so quickly, he would be one of the people just breaking everything and making a mess everywhere and treating the house as a toilet -- see, valid point backed up by an explanation, please learn), but that's not it.
Eddie's character knows human nature, he's smart and capable, and his street-smarts surprisingly come in handy in the stock market-scenarios. There's nothing 'strange' here, nothing 'plot-hole' here, it's just using a character's talent in a different environment. 'Street smart' people can sometimes have better intuition than stuffy office workers, that's ALL the movie was underlining.
"There are many other places in the movie when I just kept asking myself, "Why would this character say/do that?"
And yet you fail to list ANY of them, or explain WHY the character wouldn't say or do that. You are a miracle; you fail in every single possible way when trying to scold a movie.
Come on, this movie HAS its faults, why can't you get to the real ones already? Even if what you are saying is true (and so far, there's ONE explanation and just a lot of 'listing', together with many misunderstandings about what's going on, as if you didn't even watch the movie, or understand it AT ALL), these would be nitpicks at best, nothing that would bring down a whole movie.
It almost seems as if you were expecting something completely different, and when this movie is a bit more silly or whatnot, than you wanted it to be, you get angry and list the parts you didn't like (claiming they are 'plot holes'), without explaining why you don't like them (let alone why they would be 'plot holes' - they aren't).
You are supposed to take something that actually makes no sense, then write about it, and then EXPLAIN why it doesn't make sense. This is the basis of good, valid criticism. It might still be wrong, but at least then we could debate about it or have a proper discussion.
Now you are just a toddler throwing your own poop on the wall claiming the wallpaper is all wrong, without explaining why, and then just screaming WAAAAHHHH!!! for the rest of the evening.
Not good enough.
" Not exactly the most inconspicuous behavior."
Who said his behaviour needs to be 'inconspicuous'? He's not as much a spy anyway, as he is an insider trader that sits in a position of power. He's tough, ruthless, he doesn't care about other people's feelings.
In other words, he is EFFICIENT. If he was a timid nerd what you seem to want him to be (first time you at least TRIED to explain something, so at least finally we get something), he couldn't do that kind of job that requires him to be RUTHLESS.
He knows how to get people to do what he wants them to do with the minimum effort. Screaming to someone when they're hovering near you is the perfect way to give a bit of shock to them that makes them intimidated enough to clear off, so he can speak privately.
Where does he push off people to the ground, exactly? You are exaggerating without understanding, and this is your consistent sin here. You just don't understand, and your critique (such as it is), has no validity, because it's based on your own lack of understanding, not anything wrong with the movie itself.
This movie HAS many stupidities, bad sides and wrong things in it, but you have not listed any of the actual, valid ones so far.
"..bathroom scene where the Dukes oh-so-conveniently reveal their entire plan explicitly"
Let me get this straight; you ADMIT they are finding a hiding place to talk about their plan, they even 'make sure' there's no one in the stalls before even talking about it, and you scold them for being 'explicit' and for talking about it 'conveniently' and openly?
Were you dropped as a baby or something? Your brain is not functioning properly, you should return it to the factory and demand refund - but it was probably one of those bargain-bin ones, marked down and all..
"..they openly discuss it in front of Eddie Murphy when he is there asking them about the payroll."
No, they don't.
"Bad/convenient writing. This kind of goes with the above point,"
No, it doesn't, because YOU DID NOT MAKE ANY POINT so far.
Also, 'convenient writing'? That's BAD WRITING already. You mean 'conveniences in writing' or 'plot contrivances' or something, right? 'Convenient writing' means the writing ITSELF is 'convenient', and this makes no sense. Perhaps the keyboard or typewriter was REALLY good, so the writing itself became convenient. See what I mean?
You can't even write basic english correctly or understand a simple movie parts, and you start writing a hate-post based on that. Your OWN limited understanding of the movie made you think the movie is something it's not, so you are basically only verbally vomiting your own hatred against your own limited understanding, not the actual movie here.
"..there's a lot of small details about the character choices that get under my skin."
There you go again, no clue. First of all, 'there ARE', not 'there's'. Then, you are talking about quantifiable things, so you should use 'many', not 'a lot'. You can have 'a lot of water', but you have 'many pebbles'. If it is quantifiable, you don't use 'a lot', but at least you are consistent in displaying to the world your intelligence level and understanding ability, so no one is surprised that you didn't get anything this movie showed you.
You are probably not smart enough to actually watch movies yet, try to evolve a bit before watching your next movie, or you'll misunderstand everything again and then rant against your own misunderstandings, thinking you're doing a good job criticizing a movie..
"Clarence Beeks, who is basically a spy for the Dukes, shoves pretty much everyone to the ground he passes by."
No, he doesn't. Where does this happen in the movie? He just shouts at someone to get them to stop hovering near him when he's trying to be secretive. Is this really that hard to understand? It establishes that this character is confident, experienced and tough.
"Clarence Beeks somehow passes for a gorilla in the most cartoonish looking costume long enough to get shipped to Africa?"
People don't look at animals all that closely - as one Columbo episode proved, 'people see what they expect to see'. If there is a real gorilla and this costumed version in a cage, people just see two gorillas and move on. They're not going to inspect every hair just to make sure it's not a costume - assumption pays a big role in what we observe.
It's not that cartoonish a costume, definitely not MOST cartoonish-looking (without hyphen, this means 'cartoonish is doing some looking') costume. Without further clarification, you are talking about ALL EXISTENCE, so you think some donkey kong-costume is LESS cartoonish? Please. You have a 'brain hole' before this movie has a 'plot hole'.
"And also can't just take the costume off?"
Did you even watch the movie?
This was explained in the movie. He's tied and gagged, he CAN'T just take the costume off. Why should he be able to? Explain.
" The group decides they all need to dress up in costume and risk discovery to make the briefcase switch?"
And?
What's 'plot hole' about this? You just LIST what happens in the movie, expecting people to somehow figure out why you think it shouldn't happen or why it's implausible, unrealistic or a 'plot hole'.
This is a costume party, of COURSE they are going to wear a costume. Also, it's not 'dressing up in costumeS (should be plural)', it's 'DISGUISING THEMSELVES'. Try to keep up. No wonder you don't like it, because you clearly don't UNDERSTAND any of it, or you misinterpret it through some kind of toddler-brain that doesn't live in the adult world.
You have proven that you don't understand the movie, or the term 'plot hole', and that's ALL you have proven so far. And someone respects your illogical list enough to quote the whole thing.. unbelievable.
"I feel like I could keep this section going for another three paragraphs but I'll move on."
Of course you feel like that, because all you have to do is LIST things and not explain anything. You never said WHY you think any of this is wrong or a plot hole. Just listing things that happen in the movie is worthless, we know what happens in the movie. For you to actually have ANY validity to anything you are saying, you better explain the REASONS you feel any of this shouldn't happen, and then explain HOW you think things should have happened.
You might still be wrong, but at least your post would have context, at least you could be respected for trying to make a point (and probably failing anyway).
Of course you'll move on, because you weren't saying anything in the first place, the only thing you can do is move on. Sigh. I hate when people do this, they just list stuff and then 'move on' and never make an..
.. _A_C_T_U_A_L___P_O_I_N_T_
..which would make it SO MUCH MORE INTERESTING for the reader!
"Plot holes. I felt like I was suspending my disbelief every five seconds to get through this movie. Eddie Murphy perfectly understands stock trading after five minutes of explanation? Dan Aykroyd has all of his assets stolen by the bank because he's a criminal (Who never actually faces charges or the legal system or anything)? Aykroyd's big plan to get his job back involves clumsily planting drugs in Eddie Murphy's desk drawer?"
Those are not plot holes. First of all, this quoted poster isn't explaining WHY any of those things are 'plot holes' or wrong in any way. I am not saying they're not, just that listing things without explaining the logic of WHY you are listing them isn't saying anything, it's completely worthless.
Why can't his assets be taken away, since they weren't fully his anyway? Also, taking something back from someone that doesn't own those assets is not stealing. Explain.
Never faces charges? Did you even see the movie? He was arrested and there was a bail. That's how it works, what's so confusing to you about any of this? He would only face charges if someone PRESSES charges, but that might be too difficult for you to comprehend, if you can't even understand what a 'plot hole' actually is.
" Aykroyd's big plan to get his job back involves clumsily planting drugs in Eddie Murphy's desk drawer?"
Yes, and? What are you objecting here, that he HAS a plan, or that the plan is CLUMSY, or that it involves planting drugs? Because all those are very well explained in the movie, it all fits his character perfectly, especially considering he's drunk and desperate. What's 'plot hole' about ANY of this?
Of course I have to end with a stupid DISCLAIMER; I don't condone or support actual racism, I think ACTUAL racists should face consequences of their unfair actions and judgments.
However, I think people are TOO EAGER to call each other racists for the smallest of 'crimes'. People are too sensitive and label something 'racist' way too easily. People have a disproportionately enormous reaction to a very mild forms of racism, which might not even be serious (I mean, just jokes).
Then there are provocateurs, which people call 'trolls', although they should be called at least 'trollers', that enjoy stirring the pot. They might not even think any racist thoughts, but they say the most crude, racistic insults out loud JUST to get reactions.
There are variations of this, that just simply want to be free to joke about anything and everything, but would never want to cause any harm to anyone based on their biological body (or otherwise).
When we are shocked about 'black face', we should also think about freedom, equality, and backlash-reactions gone too far - the historical idiots mocking black people that way SHOULD get some kind of consequences, but _JUST_ paint on skin should not make anyone angry. It's just paint, it doesn't necessarily mean ANYTHING.
I am tired of people being so robotic about this; 'black face' somehow (how?) automatically means racism, but 'white face' doesn't. Logic? Because some people used that tool to mock a group of people, so the tool itself should be banned. The same logic dictates kitchen knives should be banned, because someone has murdered someone else using that tool. Roads should be banned, because drug smugglers have used them. So 'black face' has to be banned, because idiots have used that tool to be racist.
Logically thinking, WHY is 'black face' bad besides that historical connotation? Can anyone name HOW a 'black individual' will become oppressed, injured and fired from their job if someone in a movie shows a painted face?
We live in a world, where we are not allowed to FEEL perfectly natural human emotions, feelings and experiences. We are quiet about our true thoughts or our true fears, and we try to conform to an insane norm.
The people of this world know at least some kind of mild racism exists pretty much everywhere, but they're not allowed to talk about it. Sexism also only matters when it's against a certain gender, but not when it's SYSTEMATIC AND BLATANTLY PAINFUL against the other.
You can go to any asian village and find at least some kind of racism there. But we can't talk about it as something natural and normal to the human condition. When you don't know something, when you face the unknown, something that doesn't conform to the norms you are spanked into you, it's only natural to feel some kind of fear, resentment or hostility, even if you have to keep it bottled up inside of you.
Think about some foreigners in a Japanese train. The japanese are used to trains being very quiet, people are basically not supposed to even talk on phone, even if it's in a quiet voice. It's a ridiculously strict and rigid cultural norm that the japanese will get angry about, if broken. It's another 'how dare you' situation, in other words.
Now, foreigners might not know or understand the severity of their crime, just happily chatting away loudly, possibly a bit drunk, having fun with their friends, talking on phones, laughing very loud and all that.
Now, I ask you; what should a japanese salaryman or a housewife feel, when they sit near this crowd, in this culture that expects everyone to be 100% quiet (and odorless) in the train? Is it racist if he/she feels angry about the situation? Is it racist if he/she starts hating and fearing foreigners based on this incident?
We should be more understanding and less judgmental to fellow human beings. What we call 'racist', might just be someone that had a rough day and couldn't take it anymore, because they've kept it bottled inside.
What I am saying is, we all have the right to do whatever we want with our physical body, and a 'black face' belongs within those rights - it is also NOT inherently racist.
Eddie Murhphy has done 'white face', no one cares. What kind of equality is it, that everyone minds Dan painting his face - well, it wasn't really even black, more like brown or something..?
If we remove the 'historical context' and think logically, WHY would it be ethically wrong, why would it be bad, why would it be automatically racist to put some kind of paint ANYWHERE on your body, including the face?
This is the problem with these 'racist' accusations, when you dig through them with logic and from the perspective of freedom for ALL, not just some groups, they fall apart, because without the historical context, where someone can accuse YOU of being a racist slavemaster and a whip-crácker, there's REALLY no case.
Dan is not mocking the black people in this movie, he's not trying to make anyone feel bad. It's just a bit of silliness.
We live in a DARK world indeed, if we can't allow a bit of silliness - you know, in a COMEDY movie..
What about other colors? Are black people with relatively light skin hue allowed to paint their faces black? What about asian people doing a 'white face', as Japanese have historically done?
None of it makes any sense, unless we all start understanding the value of freedom and equality. We should ALL be able to say ANY words we damn well please, we should ALL be allowed to wear any mask or paint our faces in any shape or figure or color possible, and if someone mocks someone or ACTUALLY BEHAVES RACISTICALLY, then _THAT_INDIVIDUAL_ALONE_ should face the consequences, not the WHOLE BIOLOGY that the individual might be using at that moment.
I won't even talk about the racistic black people that hate white people - for some reason, that is allowed, accepted and the norm.
I think even xenophobia is understandable to a degree.
My point is, that when you see the 'black face' in this movie, you might not know what to feel or think about it. In one hand, it's innocent, it's not used to mock anyone. On other hand, you are SUPPOSED to be 'outraged', because 'how dare they'.
If you think logically, there's nothing wrong with it. You can paint your shoes any color you want, no one brings a moral outrage. You can paint your fingernails back - no backlash. I am sure you can even paint your shoulders any color you wish.
However, when it comes to face, suddenly all hell breaks loose. Why is face such an implication, why not some other body part?
Does everything have to be always, FOREVER, judged by 'historical context', because some idiot did something stupid and insulting back in the day, so now you can't do the same because people will remember that idiot in the past that you have nothing to do with?
I mean, anything can be used to insult. In my opinion, logically thinking, 'black face' itself is a neutral thing, you CAN use it to mock and insult (as was done in history), but you can also use it completely innocently, or even to praise. It doesn't have to always be a mark of racism or racist.
Are people so afraid, they have to ban tools? Why not ban water, because you can use it to drown somoene in it? Why not ban roads, because .. well, you get the idea.
What happened to individual responsibility? If someone uses 'black face' to insult and to be racist, then that individual should face the consequences, not the neutral tool that individual uses.
If you sit a four year-old kid to watch this movie, and they see the 'black face', and they have not been taught anything about that kind of stuff, will they automatically think it's bad and racist? No, they will probably laugh at the funny man, whose face is black. How about all those jokes about falling to some coal chute and having your whole body be black? What about 101 Dalmatians, the cartoon, where puppies are 'disguising' themselves?
I mean, the doctors in movies are the most unrealistic part.
A real doc would not only have given him all kinds of medications happily (that's what they do, especially since many of them own stock in the pharma corporations), he would've checked his records/file/whatever, to realize he has mental problems, and he would have held him in the hospital or sent him to another hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.
Especially after what Narrator said about waking up in strange places, no idea how he got there - this can be dangerous, he can definitely be a danger to himself or others, this is not a case of 'chew some valerian root and go to some meeting', this is a case of 'mental illness history, serious symptoms outbreak, immediate medication and evaluation', especially since, at least according to the book, he has actually -escaped- a mental hospital, which means there would be some kind of warrant for his arrest or whatnot (I don't know the technical terms for this kind of thing).
He wouldn't just say 'you need to lighten up / healthy sleep' - no one goes to a doctor if the fix is that easy and simple, for crying out loud. This doc is almost as unrealistic as the one in 'Innerspace', who -also- doesn't send the obviously mentally ill patient for a psychiatric evaluation and/or pump him full of big pharma big bucks chemical neurotoxic concoctions.
In any case, whatever detail you focus on in this movie, it probably doesn't make sense.
The ethical thing to do would be to ANNOUNCE to the world that no one has to remain a vampire, there is a cure, and then manufacture and spread that cure as much and as wide a possible, so anyone wanting to get away from that curse, can do so.
Also, were the 'old vampires' really THAT bad, considering they were trying to 'co-exist' with their 'food' (which is so stupid, because your thirst for someone's biological body doesn't define THEIR intelligence or soul level in ANY WAY!), and make contracts and all that instead of just rampaging everything.
This means they're at least considering/trying to take the higher road, the more intelligent, the more sophisticated approach and if they found out there's a cure (which would or would not work for them?), might actually consider giving up their ongoing, boring life being cursed with an immoral lust, and just want to live a few decades as a 'normal human' and then get the sweet release of deincarnation. (I won't call it 'death', because death only exists for the body, only for things that have a beginning have an ending, and life is eternal energy, and energy can't be destroyed).
But sure, let's not even mention ANY of these _MASSIVE_ implications, she just cured herself and now everything resets and Blade can go to russia to murder innocent people just because those people are cursed. Way to ignore massive implications, movie..
Someone was tlaking about 'ranking' things, so let's do it.
1) Blackadder Back & Forth (1999) - Weird that the best thing about Black Adder (weirdly spelled as 'Blackadder' here?) was made in 1999 instead of the glorious eighties. Oh, well.
2) The whole fourth season, 'Goes Forth' - number one being, of course, the Flashheart episode (forgot the name, but it's about the flying and all)
3) Third season - more fun, more funny and more energetic and quirky than the stuffier seasons.
4) Second season - kinda stuffy and boring, but has it's brilliant moments and hilarious episodes, plus, it has a very 'historical charm' that's hard to put to words that elevates it quite a lot. Much better than the DREADFUL first season.
5) ALL the other specials
6) ALL other comedy shows ever made in any history of any planet/baseship/location/non-location on any dimension in any plane of existence/non-existence/dream/imagination/plan/fanfiction
7) Every single movie ever made
8) Every non-comedy TV show ever made
9) Any book you haven't read
10) Anything lying in the bottom of the deepest ocean
11) The crud you can find in your ears sometimes
12) The brains of IMDb and now moviechat posters
13) The insides of the all the septic tanks in history
14) First season
This is not 'any good', this is absolutely MAGNIFICENT, in addition to being hilariously brilliant, mocking the french and being ridiculously funny. Plus, it has TIME TRAVEL in it.. need I say any more?
(Well, back when that meant something was going to be good and imaginative.. of course nowadays something having time travel in it means automatically that it's really, really bad, in addition to sucking like a Siamese.. So much I would wish to put to words that I can't.)
Not only that, but they are on the wrong grammar as well. It's 'hilarious', not 'hilerious', unless they meant some kind of pun about the name 'Hillary' or whatnot.
Poster 1: Talks about a movie, wondering why certain events took place in the way shown, even though it doesn't make sense.
Poster 2: Talks about a poster, blaming them for talking about a movie in a place that exists for that very purpose.
So the second poster is doing the EXACT same thing, but it's more pointless, because he's talking about a poster instead of a movie in a MOVIE discussion forum, he's insulting and shaming someone for doing the very same thing HE is doing, he's implying it's sad and people should have better things to do and feels sorry..
I mean, this guy is shaming someone for being SO SAD they have nothing better to do than write about a movie in a board - by showing HE has nothing better to do than insulting someone in the same discussion forum.
You are writing in the same forum, so obviously YOU don't have anything better to do, either! At least the poster you insult is saying something interesting, signifigant, non-insulting, non-toxic and well-researched and analyzed. They're using their brain for thinking about what they were presented, dissecting and analyzing it, and presenting questions about it for us to read.
All you do is insult someone, try to put them down for doing something you are doing yourself without seeing the irony... now, THAT is sad. At least say something meaningful about the movie, don't just insult someone and leave.
" I would almost feel sorry for you if you weren't such a lost case."
It's 'lost cause', not 'lost case'.
Also, your reply could've used a bit more brevity. How about;
"Do you really not have anything better to do than question someone in a discussion board of a 28 year-old * movie?"
Ok, the non-brief part so characteristics of my posts begins here..
*kids don't enter into it, and you should've written " kids' ", not " kid's ", as it's not some individual kid's movie - but even so, children do not have ownership of this movie, ANYONE can watch it. If anything, it's a 'family movie' - it's not cartoony, 'safe', etc. enough to be just a 'kids' movie' (however you define this anyway), it's actually pretty scary and traumatic for someone very young.
I don't understand people who question people doing things that are meant to be done in the places they're doing it in, and then start making judgments and declarations without explaining or proving them at all, or even basing them on anything. Anyone can just claim anything, but could you elaborate on why you THINK this is a 'kids' movie'? (Please note the correct place for the apostrophe).
This kind of post consists of questioning someone writing a post about a movie in a discussion board that exists for the purpose of writing posts about movies.
It's like going to a swimming hall and starting to berate people for swimming in a pool that was built 21 years ago, and then exclaim that pool is meant for kids, and that the speaker feels sorry for the swimmers.
This kind of posts make no sense.. unless it's to make the poster feel better.
They are quite ironic, though, because an angry hater like this never realizes they are doing the VERY same thing they accuse and berate someone else for doing, except their version makes less sense.
"Unfair Criminals Unlawfully Imprisoning People Without Due Process Based on Their Corporeal Status"
..might be a tad long, though, but way more accurate.
No, it wouldn't and no, you wouldn't.
Costeau is a powerhungry IDIOT, very stupid man that has no idea how anything works, can't make intelligent decisions, can't understand consequences of his stupid decisions, and so on.
If you want to see something INTERESTING, just watch all episodes of 'Yes, Minister' and maybe even some episodes of 'Yes, Prime Minister' (mostely a rehash with more filler and not as ingenious ideas or performances, but it has its moments).
If you want to see what's basically an 'intelligent version of Cocteau', you will love 'Yes, Minister' - however, the first episode is a bit slow, so you might want to skip that one.
Modern discussion in a discussion board - create a clickbaity title, then just paste an URL. What a great conversationalist..