Chris wrote: And you are unbelievably banned. I warned you early on in the thread, but you just couldn't help yourself. Come back in a week when you're less hostile towards other members whose viewpoint differers from your own.
Amen to that Chris.....finaly.....
and to Aaron..if you think that BOX OFFICE is what defines Movie as god or bad..than you are a Big Ignorant....and it you who shuold take school- any school that would make you think !!.
Amen to that Chris.....finaly.....
and to Aaron..if you think that BOX OFFICE is what defines Movie as god or bad..than you are a Big Ignorant....and it you who shuold take school- any school that would make you think !!.
You just don't know when to quit do you? I suggest you do so while you're still ahead.
Yes. Matt is correct.
Franchise wrote: [Europe vs. America? I'm by far from trying to fan the flames in this area. I could care less whether or not America is liked on the European forum. I joined here to talk about movies and not about political choice. I was expressing that. I hope your hatred of jelly donuts doesn't find its way to a jelly donut forum or there will really be an online war.
I wasn't refering to you only, I was refering to a general theme I felt growing on this board. I stand by my original statement that your particular post didn't make any sense. Why did you add the bits about Europe?
£ukasz D, please let us speak for ourselves, and please don't try to insult readers who've already been banned.
Aaron, if ou do read this, I'm sorry that my opinon p**sed you off so much, but I was hoping to hear negative comments about the film as a film, like Franchise stated (minus the Europe bits). My point was that you or me not liking a particular film should have something to do with the film, rather than what the masses think about it. For you, the politics were the major flaw, for me it was the ocassional lack of subtlety whilst expressing those politics. I really was trying to keep the discussion to the film over it's politics, but apparently my statements were read as politically driven.
I wasn't refering to you only, I was refering to a general theme I felt growing on this board. I stand by my original statement that your particular post didn't make any sense. Why did you add the bits about Europe?
£ukasz D, please let us speak for ourselves, and please don't try to insult readers who've already been banned.
Aaron, if ou do read this, I'm sorry that my opinon p**sed you off so much, but I was hoping to hear negative comments about the film as a film, like Franchise stated (minus the Europe bits). My point was that you or me not liking a particular film should have something to do with the film, rather than what the masses think about it. For you, the politics were the major flaw, for me it was the ocassional lack of subtlety whilst expressing those politics. I really was trying to keep the discussion to the film over it's politics, but apparently my statements were read as politically driven.
ok...sorry if get to far with my comments 
But the most imp. thing I wanted to know is....do you like or not this film ????
But the most imp. thing I wanted to know is....do you like or not this film ????
The European bits were there because it made sense to me. I'm not blaming my condition as an ADD sufferer for the lapse in it, but it plays a minor role. I never review what I say until someone notices it. I should have put the European comments in 1 set of sentences and the thoughts of the movie into another set. I'll stand by what I said though because I didn't base my ideas on how this movie was produced or because it was a film focused on England. I enjoyed some of the undertones, but I didn't enjoy the overall feeling of being forced to see overtly placed reasons for the Ultra-Conservative government to be hated. I could have done with some subtlety.
Well, there you go. See how nice it is when we don't yell at eachother, everyone? I getcha now.
Gabe Powers wrote: Well, there you go. See how nice it is when we don't yell at eachother, everyone? I getcha now.
lol I don't remember being the guy that swore.
lol I don't remember being the guy that swore.
Aaron Schneiderman wrote: YOU GUYS ARE UNBELIEVABLY THICK.
I'm surprised no one took the opportunity to insert jokes here....lol
Although for the record, what he was saying about good word of mouth and quality films making more money is true - depending on your definition of a good movie. For most people it's an epic fantasy that will take them away from their daily lives for the duration of the picture. That's why more heavy-handed topics and smaller films tend to do worse financially.
Which, is why if someone would make an award show that could compete with the oscars and honor those movies that are so insanely popular, more people would watch
I'm surprised no one took the opportunity to insert jokes here....lol
Although for the record, what he was saying about good word of mouth and quality films making more money is true - depending on your definition of a good movie. For most people it's an epic fantasy that will take them away from their daily lives for the duration of the picture. That's why more heavy-handed topics and smaller films tend to do worse financially.
Which, is why if someone would make an award show that could compete with the oscars and honor those movies that are so insanely popular, more people would watch
Jonny "Me You" wrote: Which, is why if someone would make an award show that could compete with the oscars and honor those movies that are so insanely popular, more people would watch 
It's called the People's Choice Awards, and no one watches it.
and I'm just a swearing kind of guy, doesn't mean I'm mad, just swearie.
It's called the People's Choice Awards, and no one watches it.
and I'm just a swearing kind of guy, doesn't mean I'm mad, just swearie.
nah, the people's choice awards nominate only 3 or 4 things in a category and they are usually way to old to be considered relevant anyhow.
The MTV movie awards are closer to what I have in mind, only with more class.
The MTV movie awards are closer to what I have in mind, only with more class.
Aaron Schneiderman wrote: YOU GUYS ARE UNBELIEVABLY THICK. Hey - he's right! I have put on weight!
Aaron Schneiderman wrote: Yeah, I would say smarter... "Batman & Robin" may be bad and it may star the ego-maniac, George Clooney, but I would much rather sit through that film again rather than being fed the c**p dished out in "V for Vendetta." ...and I am quite confident that I am an intelligent human being.
Geogre Clooney has the smallest ego in Hollywood
Geogre Clooney has the smallest ego in Hollywood
I was really hoping this was serious discussion about the movie, but the again, I should have really expected it to be what it is seeing how other threads go on controversial political movies.
What a brilliant film.
Up their with Fight Club as the best films about Anarchy.
I cheered when Paliament blew up.
Up their with Fight Club as the best films about Anarchy.
I cheered when Paliament blew up.
I like this film. I hate to sound so cliche, but the book was better, much deeper, and over flowing with more meaning, but for it standing on it's own, the movie was very entertaining to me from the begining to the end. The cast was perfect, the action was great, the story was captivating, and the DVD release will be bought.
I'm not sure, I love the film and I love the book
and I heard the dvd release date is 7th or 17th of july. I forgot but it's out in July
Mr.Badass wrote: and I heard the dvd release date is 7th or 17th of july. I forgot but it's out in July
I think the rush to DVD hurts most cool chances at marketing the product. In the rush to get the DVD out, and miss an obvious choice date for release, added to the fact most people would not get it (or care)... They should release the DVD on November 5th. Not only would that tie it into the Holiday gift giving season, it would tie it into the movie.
The most expected answer is that I am right, and most people DON'T care or get it, so I know I am answering my own statement, but I care about the missed chances at adding to the coolness of the world, but it is all about the greater dollar.
I think the rush to DVD hurts most cool chances at marketing the product. In the rush to get the DVD out, and miss an obvious choice date for release, added to the fact most people would not get it (or care)... They should release the DVD on November 5th. Not only would that tie it into the Holiday gift giving season, it would tie it into the movie.
The most expected answer is that I am right, and most people DON'T care or get it, so I know I am answering my own statement, but I care about the missed chances at adding to the coolness of the world, but it is all about the greater dollar.
It's is also gonna be a Delux dvd. (when I read it, I forgot what site though, I think it might have been here)
Mr.Badass wrote: It's is also gonna be a Delux dvd. (when I read it, I forgot what site though, I think it might have been here)
i belive..and hope it would be something like Batman or Constantine- so the Deluxe Edition with book.........
if you find anything about this release post it
i belive..and hope it would be something like Batman or Constantine- so the Deluxe Edition with book.........
if you find anything about this release post it




BTW, your 'similar' argument would hold more weight if less than fifty percent of the films you mention actually had something in common with 'V'.