DVDizzy Forum

On Nemo, I felt it was a retread of a weak story... The lost kid, and the father searching for him: Madagascar, The Wild, etc.

Like I said, I do enjoy ALL of the Pixar movies, and just as there has to be a best of the bunch (probably Wall*E for me,) there has to be a worst of the bunch, and that for me is Finding Nemo and then Cars.


Regarding the adultry discussion, my mom and I have been watching several different police procedural/detective season sets recently - Bones, Psych, Monk, Without a Trace, etc. - and we found that we lost all sympathy for any victims who had been having affairs with someone.

Without touching on the thorny issue of whether gays have a choice to be gay, the two lovers in Brokeback Mountain chose to get married to people they didn't love, and they chose to break their vows to their wives.

I had a cousin who got married, and within a few months his wife found secret diaries where he was going out and having casual gay sex all over the place (literally meeting people in rest rooms, and so on.) That was completely despicible behaviour, and the pressures of society had nothing to do with it. I'd say the same if he was straight, as well.

littlefuzzy wrote:
Without touching on the thorny issue of whether gays have a choice to be gay, the two lovers in Brokeback Mountain chose to get married to people they didn't love, and they chose to break their vows to their wives.

Yes, but that's what the story is about after all.You can say that they made the wrong choise, and they paid for it. But I find it a bit of a strange argument to dismiss a movie or label it as overrated for the sole reason that you disapprove strongly of the behaviour of the main characters. This is what Disney's Divinity seems to do. I have heard no comments about the artistic quality of Brokeback Mountain: acting, camera work, dialogue, script etc. I think these things are very well executed.

Evidently, you coasted over my posts (not that I mind, since I made too many of them; ):

The fact that Brokeback caters to a homophobic audience while at the same time furthering stereotypical ideas of selfish, "gay" behavior is more than enough reason for me to call the film "overrated." It does nothing to honestly portray a real, undeniably loving romance between two individuals of the same sex and instead gives us two men, who one could question whether they are even completely homosexual in the first place (furthering the idea that homosexuality is "learned"), who selfishly love one another at the expense of others involved. The film is good on its own because no doubt there were men in this situation, but as an "acclaimed mainstream gay love story" it completely fails (making it overrated because it doesn't deserve that praise, imo).

I've also said several times that Brokeback presents itself very well, just that I don't believe it deserves the praise it gets as a great, gay love story (which is what you heard most people talking about; not so much about camera work).

Disney's Divinity wrote:Evidently, you coasted over my posts (not that I mind, since I made too many of them; ):

The fact that Brokeback caters to a homophobic audience while at the same time furthering stereotypical ideas of selfish, "gay" behavior is more than enough reason for me to call the film "overrated." It does nothing to honestly portray a real, undeniably loving romance between two individuals of the same sex and instead gives us two men, who one could question whether they are even completely homosexual in the first place (furthering the idea that homosexuality is "learned"), who selfishly love one another at the expense of others involved. The film is good on its own because no doubt there were men in this situation, but as an "acclaimed mainstream gay love story" it completely fails (making it overrated because it doesn't deserve that praise, imo).

I've also said several times that Brokeback presents itself very well, just that I don't believe it deserves the praise it gets as a great, gay love story (which is what you heard most)

I can see your point, but I do think you judge a bit harshly. Yes, love can be very selfish and at the expense of others, but this is a classic notion (think of the Arthurian legend: the selfish, adulterous love between Guinevere and Lancelot) Those who think it's stereotypical of gays to behave like that, haven't read their literature. I do not think -being straight myself- that BB furthers the idea that homosexuality is " learned", just that the protagonist did not dare to make a choice. Evidently, there are gay man who married, fathered a few children and had a gay lover in secret. This is what the movie shows: ' forbidden love'.
I myself regard BB as a 'tragic gay love story'.

For a 'great gay love story', or something close to it, you might watch the series Six feet under - oops no! I remember David wasn't always faithfull!

Now let's go back to the original topic.

littlefuzzy wrote:Without touching on the thorny issue of whether gays have a choice to be gay,

It's not a thorny issue, because they haven't. That's a fact.

littlefuzzy wrote:the two lovers in Brokeback Mountain chose to get married to people they didn't love, and they chose to break their vows to their wives. [...] and the pressures of society had nothing to do with it. [...]

Yes, it did have everything to do with society's expectations.

Goliath wrote:

littlefuzzy wrote:the two lovers in Brokeback Mountain chose to get married to people they didn't love, and they chose to break their vows to their wives. [...] and the pressures of society had nothing to do with it. [...]

Yes, it did have everything to do with society's expectations.

That's like saying a poor person is FORCED to become a criminal, because there is no other way out of the ghetto for them.

littlefuzzy wrote:That's like saying a poor person is FORCED to become a criminal, because there is no other way out of the ghetto for them.

That also has a lot of truth in it.

BelleGirl wrote:Peter Pan -shock! horror! - Sorry guys, I think it's just a lightweight. And captain Hook is such a pathetic villain!

I agree.

littlefuzzy wrote:On Nemo, I felt it was a retread of a weak story... The lost kid, and the father searching for him: Madagascar, The Wild, etc.

I didn't like Madagascar and The Wild was horrible. Nemo is clearly better than both.

Oh, and... Nemo came out in 2003. Both of those movies you're saying it re-tread - came out later. So if anything, they ripped off Nemo.



And Fuzzy, about the adultery thing... There is a difference between gay people committing adultery and straight people. A huge one.

Lazario wrote:

littlefuzzy wrote:On Nemo, I felt it was a retread of a weak story... The lost kid, and the father searching for him: Madagascar, The Wild, etc.

Oh, and... Nemo came out in 2003. Both of those movies you're saying it re-tread - came out later. So if anything, they ripped off Nemo.

I was just about to make that point as well.

Lazario wrote:

littlefuzzy wrote:On Nemo, I felt it was a retread of a weak story... The lost kid, and the father searching for him: Madagascar, The Wild, etc.

I didn't like Madagascar and The Wild was horrible. Nemo is clearly better than both.

Oh, and... Nemo came out in 2003. Both of those movies you're saying it re-tread - came out later. So if anything, they ripped off Nemo.

I've seen half of Madagascar and thought it was very insipid. The sequel got some good reviews but I'm quite sure I will not like that either.
Haven't seen The Wild. Comments tell me it isn't worthwile.
Finding Nemo is infinitely better than Madagascar!

And Fuzzy, about the adultery thing... There is a difference between gay people committing adultery and straight people. A huge one.

Not so much if they live with a gay partner, I think.

Lazario wrote: And Fuzzy, about the adultery thing... There is a difference between gay people committing adultery and straight people. A huge one.

Gay, straight, if you are in a "committed" relationship with someone, and you cheat on them, I find it despicable.

BelleGirl wrote:Not so much if they live with a gay partner, I think.

Depends on the couple because some gay couples don't care about their partner having a fling or two on the side, but then again, the same thing can be said about straight couples.

But yes, I agree with them on this one, Laz. Adultery is adultery, gay or straight, unless the couple has an open relationship.

xxhplinkxx wrote:

BelleGirl wrote:Not so much if they live with a gay partner, I think.

Depends on the couple because some gay couples don't care about their partner having a fling or two on the side, but then again, the same thing can be said about straight couples.

But yes, I agree with them on this one, Laz. Adultery is adultery, gay or straight, unless the couple has an open relationship.

I once saw a movie on Cole Porter, De-Lovely. if I were to believe this bio, Porter had a loving relationship with his wife, and at the same time she knew he was gay, and apparently did not mind that he was "having a fling or two on the side" as xxhplinkxx expresses it.
Nice movie, by the way.

I never saw De-Lovely but from all I've read of Cole Porter that's true as well as for a lot of Hollywood and Broadway stars who were/are married and in the closet...that's why I can't look at them as harshly as I do straight people who commit adultery....sorry if that offends anyone but I just think the situation's different.

But I also agree that gay couples who cheat are just as bad as straight couples unless it's agreed that it's ok for them....didn't that used to be called swinging???

sorry this has gotten so far off topic...

Jon

littlefuzzy wrote:Gay, straight, if you are in a "committed" relationship with someone, and you cheat on them, I find it despicable.

It is dispicable.

However, if gay people got the right messages from society, they wouldn't be in Sham Marriages to begin with. They're told to stay in the closet by politicians and the church tells them it's a sin and that they have to become straight. Not to mention being gay means you have an unbelievable amount of hatred heaped upon you verbally and physically, much of that potentially exploding into violence...

You're being unrealistic if you don't accept that this puts a huge load of pressure on people. They think they can lead a straight life and almost everyone who does try finds after they've started that it's impossible to keep up. We can't blame people who have been programmed wrong. We need to blame the programmers.

You might understand this better if you had any personal experience with some of this pressure. There is nothing a white heterosexual male has to deal with that is anywhere near as burdeoning and hard as it is being gay.

People are not programmed; they have their own free will. They know it's wrong to cheat, and just because you're of a different sexual orientation doesn't mean you have the right to.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:...and get this thread closed before the week is done!

Um, guys I know it's been 10 days already, but I was joking. You knew that right?

PeterPanfan wrote:People are not programmed; they have their own free will. They know it's wrong to cheat, and just because you're of a different sexual orientation doesn't mean you have the right to.

If you don't think people are programmed by parents, teachers, priests, media etc., you don't understand the world you're living in.

So...how about them overrated movies?

Citizen Kane - I've dodged tomatoes for this most of my life. But really. It's not that inspiring of a movie, and aside from the technical innovations, there's little that I enjoy about it. I always felt that it's come to a point that it now seems an industry standard that everyone should love and bow down to this simply because of its reputation, when in reality it's not much.

Raiders of the Lost Ark - I'm sorry, Dr. Jones, but it's just a personal preference thing. I've always loved Temple of Doom more than the first movie, and it's grown to a point where I feel the first movie - because it's the first - gets too much praise. On the plus side, it knew what to do with Marion Ravenwood, as opposed to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, where she seems shoehorned in to establish a bit more continuity to the trilogy. If they wanted to shoehorn some continuity out of left field, they could've brought back Remy from the "Young Indiana Jones Chronicles".

Titanic - If you asked me my thoughts on Titanic like, 5 years ago, I'd have probably said something like "OMG, what a crappy movie, I hate it so much." But over time my feelings have mellowed and I appreciate it for what it is. But it's still got its flaws and has become a film most call overrated because they don't know how else to complain about it (aside from shallow excuses of "Oh, it's a historical chick flick"). James Cameron really needs to learn a lesson in both editing and pacing. The first half of the film drags, the second half has too much happening, and all the while there's too many characters to follow with not enough time because of the Jack/Rose saga. And the whole bookending with Old Rose feels forced now. But then, maybe it's because I've taken to just watching "The Jack Edit" whenever I feel like watching the movie. It's a fan edit that condenses the film to 2 hours by telling the story entirely from Jack's point of view. So deleted scenes with Jack are integrated back in, the present-day stuff and Old Rose narration is edited out, and it just flows more like a good historical fiction.

albert

Escapay wrote:Citizen Kane - I've dodged tomatoes for this most of my life. But really. It's not that inspiring of a movie, and aside from the technical innovations, there's little that I enjoy about it. I always felt that it's come to a point that it now seems an industry standard that everyone should love and bow down to this simply because of its reputation, when in reality it's not much.

We are watching this in English class this week (well, we have actually had four snow days in a row, so Friday and Monday) and I have to tell you, it is probably the most boring movie I have ever watched. There is nothing of interest, at all, and the "innovative" stuff that they did doesn't seem that innovative, not even in 1941. Too bad I still haven't to sit through it to the bitter end. The very bitter end.