Well, I'm Italian and in my 40's and whenever I wear a sign in Harlem, pointing out the shortcomings of African-Americans, they all just laugh at me.

Crazy, bald headed white-boy.

Yeah, but you don't wear a sign saying "I Hate N******"....right?

The TV version is funny. "I Hate Black People"

Yeah, "I Hate White People" would cause me to riot.

Nah, just a free Don Imus tee-shirt.

Okay, now I see why you want to bring in Hollywoodland here . Your handy tool to disagree with my rating.

I understood that RRA! I just wanted to know if he has anything further down, like a D or F or something like that or C- was the absolute rock bottom. Just to get an idea of his scale when he reviews more movies.

Yeah no problem...

F- One the worst films you could possibly see! Everything about is terrible or poorly done.

D- to D+ - A film that is very bad but has one or two good scenes that save the film from getting an F.

C- to C+ - This is an average movie that is held back from poosibly being very good. Most sequels will get this grade. There some good things about this film but some bad things will hold it back.

B- to B+ - These are good movies, not great, but definetly worth a viewing. The good things about about out number the bad. If the film was sightly better it could be in the A range.

A- to A+ - These are truely great films that fans of movies should stop what their doing and just watch it. These movies will go down as classics. Worth multiple viewings and a purchase.

Its also called a joke, like when somebody made fun of how I was a Michael Mann mark-whore (which didn't save ALI and MANHUNTER from average scores).

HOT FUZZ really is a great joke on the Hollywood action bullshit, and since you svsg have absolute disdain for it....one would have thought you would go for it.

Almost sounds like my 5-star system.

Though I never have done Zero or half-star(whats the difference?) but yeah, looks like Duff and me park our cars in the same garage.

Live Free or Die Hard is just a microcosm of what is happening to Hollywood as a whole. When a studio has produced a violent film with bad language they say "Hey, if we cut down some of the bad stuff we can get away with a PG-13 rating". You can't much money with an R rated film these days. Studios are very reluctant to make a R movie because they won't make a profit from it.

[quote=ronnierocketAGO looks like Duff and me park our cars in the same garage. [/quote]

Did you get that line from True Romance? Because I never heard that line before I saw it.

1/2 a star and no stars are basically the same thing in my book.

Is a rating system such as a star rating or letter grading a way of summing one's thoughts or providing a basis for one's thoughts? If, for example, an A means that "These are truely great films that fans of movies should stop what their doing and just watch it. These movies will go down as classics" and that they're "worth multiple viewings and a purchase", then does that mean the accompanying review is a verbose extension of that, or should it be taken separately?

Are you trying to tell us something about your sex life?

Hush or no teabagging for you tonight.

I usually think of the ratings-systems where I give my honest grade of a film, and the accompanying review is my explanation of that rating, thoughts, comments, etc.

I just watched, for the first time, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas on LLC's suggestion. It was done very well and was pretty true to the book. From what I have read, Depp did a good impersonation of the real Hunter S. Thompson, which was a little irritating at first because of the halting way of talking. But I got used to it and the movie was very entertaining. Some scenes were even funnier than the book, like the part with Gary Busey as the cop.

Anyone who thinks this movie glorifies drug use is retarded.

Most of my reviews do not elaborately and comprehensively talk about all the aspects of the film. I just mention the aspect that caught my attention most. Or sometimes random rants . Stars are to be taken separately in my case. It tells me what impact the movie had on me. Anything which I rate as 4 stars (there are several of them) is of significant impact for me. I also give recommendations in my review like "skip this one" or "highly recommended".

To be fair, I didn't react correctly to your post. Sorry. I am falling out of my appreciation for spoof genre. Somewhere they tend to become as ridiculous as the movies they spoof. Was Grindhouse a tribute or spoof? And what will make it better than the actual b-movies it was based on? Same goes for Hot Fuzz.

Watch what you say about GRINDHOUSE, it's Irish's birthday.

It's bad enough we're picking on Jeremy Piven AND the Yankees have a losing record.

The boy may just break down.

Yeah, Depp actually spent three months living in Thompson's basement, and following him around his farm up in Colorado, mimicking him. The two became something of best friends... Depp even threw down the $5,000,000 to construct the 300 foot canon that Thompson request his ashes be shot out of at his funeral.



Anyone who thinks the movie is even about drug use is retarded. The movie is about drugs like The Godfather is about the mafia.

But, I'm glad you liked it. I don't think they could've made a better adaptation. Everything about the movie is perfect. Even the cinematography and the weird camera lenses that seemed to warp a few textures make you feel intoxicated throughout the film. A great feat, considering Gilliam says he's never done any psychedelic drugs.

By the way, if you still have the DVD at hand, check out the deleted scenes. The one from the DA from Georgia is exceptionally funny.

EDIT: Did you catch the real HST's cameo appearance?

Busey, with his drug addled persona, was perfect for the film.

The film had some great cameo's... most of whom, coincidentally, have a rough history with drugs.

My favorite cameo from the film has to be Flea from Red Hot Chili Peppers, as the bassist of Jefferson Airplane, when he walks in on HST doing acid in the bathroom, and starts licking him.

Agreed, but I doubt it was a coincidence!

No, where was he? I'm going to watch it again so I'll look for him.

In the flashback scene in the night club. Depp, as Duke, comes in on the narrative track, and says, "There I was... Jesus, there I am!" right as he turns to his left to find the real HST, in his old age, sitting at a table with a couple of young women.

Actually, FEAR & LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS inspires people NOT to use drugs (unless they want acid trips of lounge lizards fucking)



The good spoof films are those that piss on the genre cliches.

While Irishman eats up the last few shitty spoof films that only mock recent films, the best spoof movies were from the ZAZ clan before they had to job.

Like TOP SECRET, which pissed on the Elvis star movies and the spy/thriller pictures.

Or AIRPLANE!, which obviously mocked the disaster genre's over-seriousness.

Or NAKED GUN with the stoic police procedural.

I read your Die Hard thread, so I gotta ask, why all the hate for Die Hard 2? I watched it again the other night and thought it was pretty good. Not as good as Die Hard with a Vengence, but easily better than Live Free or Die Hard.

One thing I realized more as I watched the film was the extreme amount of violence. I remember I read an article stating that Renny Harlin had to cut the film down just to warrant an R rating. I was reading a review on the fourth installment and it mentioned only two scenes where blood is shown...that's a far cry from Die Hard 2.

I don't think it inspires people to do drugs, and I don't think it inspires them not to do them. I don't think drugs are the focus at all. In my opinion, it's stupid to be pro-drugs, and it's also very stupid to be anti-drugs (I'm talking drugs with little-to-none addictiveness and very little harm if used in responsible moderation... Marijuana, LSD, shrooms, alcohol, etc... I can understand opposing heroin, cocaine, meth, crack, and so on...)

HST is a smart individual. I think he's smart enough to accept the responsibility of drug use, and smart enough to realize that certain drugs really aren't as harmful as the media plays them up to be if used in very, very careful moderation. He must've, after all, he never had any health issues regarding drug abuse, never OD'd, or anything of the likes. I think he recognized which drugs were--mostly--safe to experiment with, and I think he knew which ones he had to be careful with.

It'd just stupid to take sides in this sort of a matter; I'd never recommend that someone try drugs, and at the same time, I'd never try to talk someone out of it unless they were about to go and do something utterly retarded like try one of the drugs I'd group into the category of "world's most dangerous drugs" (this entails heroin, cocaine, crack, meth-amphetamine, PCP, ketamine, and many others...) or if they were about to do something equally retarded with less dangerous drugs (IE, go off and eat acid before trying less intense drugs).

I think that's basically the attitude the film takes on. Its message really has nothing to do with drug-use. And, although they're a theme in his writing, I don't think HST ever really wrote a piece that was about drug-use. I think his attitude towards drugs was very indifferent.

I thought my review made it clear, but if not:

The reasons why I really can't stand DIE HARD 2 at all are:

CHANGE IN CHARACTER - John McClane in DIE HARD and DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE is a charming wiseass of an incredibly tough bastard Irishman...who also is a complete asshole when outside of his comfort zone. He gets incredibly pulled into insane shit that just hits the fan.

He alienates everyone around him. Yeah he was a hero in LA with the events of DIE HARD, but that was 7 years ago. Since then, his wife left him again, nobody in his NYPD precinct wants anything to do with him, he probably smarted off way too many times against his superiors, and oh yeah...he's a damn alcoholic.

Sure you had Al the LAPD cop in DIE HARD being charmed by him, but imagined after awhile of McClane's behavior...even he would get tired of this jackass.

In DIE HARD 2, John McClane is reformed into this ready-go yuppie LAPD copper who is proactive. In DIE HARD and DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE, he tries his best to let other (better) people over the job for him, but he's always reactive against the threat, never proactive. Did he bomb the building to stop the baddies?

No, he bombed the building in DIE HARD because Alan Rickman's character was continuing to overkill the hell out of the downed-SWAT team, and McClane was fucking pissed. He's REACTIVE, not PROACTIVE.

In DIE HARD 2, he becomes this indestructable superhero. Willis in DIE HARD and even DHWAV was brilliant because he played McClane as a very vulnerable, yet tough, action figure. If it was Arnold or Stallone leaping off a building tied with only a firehose, we wouldn't be impressed.

But we saw McClane in pain, struggling in his epic guerilla war, and when he prays to God for him to survive this insane shit, and he does somehow escape the explosion, its thrilling and incredibly...we don't take the action heroics for granted.

In DIE HARD 2, he falls off a fucking AIRPLANE at full speed during take-off, hits the ground...and walks away from it. Renny Harlin, and Wiseman would do with LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, never shows McClane get the shit kicked out of him or in actual pain or anything to make us wonder if he will survive or not. Whatever.

With LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, you see McClane break/seperate his shoulder, get shot hard once, but otherwise indestructable.

CONTRIVED OBSTACLES - Back to my REACTIVE/PROACTIVE point, The difference between the bureaucratical obstacles in DIE HARD/DHWAV and that of DIE HARD 2 is that for the vast most part, the bureaucratical police actually are doing their job.

Its just they're uncreative, arrogant in assuming the dumbest of criminals they're dealing with, and ultimately asskicked by the smarter-baddies. But otherwise, they try to do their job.

In DIE HARD 2, the bureaucratical police get in McClane's way for....well, for no reason, except to create contrived drama as McClane is having to save the day. Nobody does their job, everyone is fucking useless, nobody is noble in their professions, just unprepared for the task at hand.

I mean, you have this guy that defeated terrorists a year ago telling YOU the head of Airport security that he saw something suspicious at the terminal. Wouldn't you at least check it out as part of your responsibility?

Thats why I give some break to LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD. The Feds do their jobs, they try...its just they're dealing with a smarter villain. Besides, unlike DIE HARD 2, the police listen to McClane.

DIRECT SEQUEL - DIE HARD 2 brings back characters from DIE HARD that don't matter at all. Al the cop, the asshole reporter....who cares? They're dead weight and artificial (unlike in the first film.)

Especially the reporter. In DIE HARD, he was like a reporter in our current media culture: Threading a very thin line between Real Hard news and Sensationalism, with a touch of irresponsibility.

In DIE HARD 2, he sets off a panic for no reason except to give the hero's woman a chance to kick his ass again. WHATEVER.

Though that begs a question....the airport has explosions, gunfire, and insanity going on but most people at the airport don't realize that something wrong is happening until the asshole reporter leaks it? HUH?

Plus, DIE HARD 2 ends exactly in coda like the first movie. This is the Coca Cola franchise effect, to quote Francis Ford Coppola.

VILLAIN'S MOTIVATIONS - LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD tows the line of DIE HARD and DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE in that we accept the villains causing mass chaos, killing innocent civilians, and hiring/investing in these complex schemes simply for one massive shitload of cash.

With DIE HARD 2, it makes a critical mistake like Michael Bay's turkey THE ROCK commits.

William Sadler (a good actor mind you) plays this ultra-patriotic American war hero who, with his spooks, try to fear an imprisoned Latin American coke dealing-Commie fighting Dictator (Noriega!) for the greater good of fighting the Soviet Union.

But like THE ROCK, as much as we want to believe such uber-patriots would go to great lengths to go against their nature and country for whatever their motivations are...

...the audience doesn't buy his or his fellow American henchmen the willingness to kill civilians or crash passenger planes into the ground.

People have and will continue to kill people for materialistic progress.

You're right, but my point WAS that the movie gave me a reason or two why to not try to mess with mind-reality altering substances.

Ah, alright. I thought you were trying to say it was an anti-drug film of sorts.

And that can't be right, because I snorted like, ten lines of heroin, OD'd, then snorted another three lines right after I saw the movie.