Jericho2000Mark

A remake of Passion of the Christ?

Flair isn't physically capable of a "classic."

me

My condolences to you and your family.

People pay for this shit?

Freddy Got Fingered is a guilty pleasure for me too. It's probably one of the most unique comedies I've ever seen and I'd gladly watch it over the countless annoying spoof movies that have flooded the market.

Awesome? But honestly, is it supposed to be a parody of Batman and 90's comics or is Miller just a parody of himself?

You're right. This is one of the better wrestling forums that I've come across as well, which isn't saying much... Like I said, I'll find something interesting or insightful from time to time. I wouldn't be posting here if I thought you were all idiots. But really, all I said was that Death Proof was a bad movie and Tommy Lee Jones is not a good actor. If you disagree with me, then at least try to conjure up something resembling an intelligible argument rather than being a chickenshit moron by posting my quote in here.

Honestly, most wrestling fans are too cowardly and uneducated to form their own unique opinions. However, every so often I read something insightful or interesting among the sea of bad jokes/posts by annoying, witless people such as yourself.

Being called dumb by dumber people doesn't have that sort of effect on me, but I guess being well-liked by strangers on a wrestling forum is that important to you.

JFK was a very good movie (despite Jones' performance) and Oliver Stone was at least a talented director at some point, and a lot better than Michael fucking Bay. I'd say those are more ridiculous statements than thinking the great Tommy Lee Jones isn't all that great... Maybe Jones is capable of better work, but I haven't seen Lonesome Dove or Coal Miner's Daughter so I'm just rating him based on what I have (which is actually quite a bit). If he is capable of better performances then that just makes him an inconsistent actor, leaning towards average.

Considering the vast majority of people who post here are moronic sheep (look above), I'll take that as a compliment. I didn't know Jones was such a highly revered actor, but then most of you think Flair is the best who ever graced the squared circle... Oh, and you liked Death Proof because it was "supposed to be bad."

Yeah, JN News is legit, I know him from another forum. He means well...

As well-built as Cena-Orton may be, I don't think the match is fresh enough to draw as the main event for WrestleMania. Most Mania main events are fresh matches or rematches from a year or two before (unless they have a match on TV that ends in a DQ, which shouldn't really count then). Cena and Orton last wrestled each other in September and I don't recall those matches drawing all that well to begin with. However, Cena-Triple H hasn't been done for a couple years, so it would be more appealing as a main event. Cena-Hardy could be interesting but it might be a little soon.

That's funny, it's even funnier when you remember that you posted this not too long ago: Shhh! Don't remind people that there's no way to objectively prove if a work of art is good in a concrete manner, then they get mad! But it is subjective, because there's always dissenting opinions. . Oh, right, I forgot that a person's opinion is only subjective if it agrees with yours. What a hypocritical troll. Coffin Surfer, I wasn't reaching so much as my eyes were reaching into the back of my head when I read your statement. Seriously, aren't you supposed to understand someone when they are delivering a line in a film? Last I checked, that was an important component of "delivery." I didn't care for him in Cobb. It just boils down to the simple fact that I don't believe in his characters when he's acting (except in maybe Men in Black and The Fugitive). And as annoying as Natural Born Killers was, he was certainly no help in that either.

Holy fucking shit dude. never again question me liking good writing or acting. Shit. Why? Because you won't be able to tell me what good acting is... Because you questioned my taste in acting because I didn't care for a movie starring Pam Grier and then go on to say that Tommy Lee Jones isn't that good of an actor. Yes, your questioning my taste in acting rights are revoked. Tommy Lee Jones isn't a good actor and I've never been impressed with anything he's ever done. I also felt he dragged down JFK with his horrid portrayal of a gay man, and then there's his role as Two-Face... But I guess it's somehow written in stone that Tommy Lee Jones is a good actor without any explanation as to why, and that stating otherwise revokes your right to an educated opinion. Pam Grier's performance in Jackie Brown is better than anything I've seen from Tommy Lee Jones. Just because she starred in low-budget exploitation films doesn't make her a bad actress. Jack Nicholson starred in low-budget "trashy" films for a number of years, but he's not a real thespian like Tommy Lee Jones, right? And to whoever thought Jones performance was the finest acting clinic ever captured on motion picture cinema film in the last 85 years or something, did you even understand everything he said without having to look up the quote on IMDB?

Holy fucking shit dude. never again question me liking good writing or acting. Shit. Why? Because you won't be able to tell me what good acting is...

No. It's going to be Triple H-Cena II. There's no way they won't put Cena in the main event. Not to mention that they usually like to deliver fresh matches or prolonged rematches and Orton has wrestled both Cena and Triple H within the past year. Actually, you have 4 faces (and two heels who have zero chance of winning the chamber). Yeah, Orton winning at NWO...probably by a run-in by someone costing Cena the title (have no idea...Batista?). Orton (hell) vs. HHH (face). Book it and lock it. huh? No, it's Triple H-Cena II.

No. It's going to be Triple H-Cena II. There's no way they won't put Cena in the main event. Not to mention that they usually like to deliver fresh matches or prolonged rematches and Orton has wrestled both Cena and Triple H within the past year.

Firstly, the car chase scenes were just fucking awesome. I usually don't give a shit about car chases, there have been thousands of them and most of them all look alike. But the ones in Death Proof were truly spectacular. Even if the rest of the movie was nothing but Tarantino sitting on a couch and eating Cheetos for an hour, I still would give it a thumbs up just based on the carmageddon alone. Secondly, I thought Stuntman Mike was a hell of a villain. The way Russell played him, he could be creepy or charming, sadistic or cowardly, and it all worked. He was a memorable and unique entry in the Sociopathic Heels of film history. Thirdly: your main problem seems to be with the actresses and their dialogue. Well, I liked that part too. I thought all of them did just fine in portraying their characters, even if Tracie Thoms's lip-smacking recitation of her overbaked 70s blaxploitation one-liners did get old by the end. I had no problem with all the dialogue scenes, I found them amusing. I would willingly watch an entire movie of just these girls talking, with no car chases, and probably be entertained by it. Would such a movie be better than Jackie Brown? Of course not. But just saying "Jackie Brown > Death Proof" doesn't mean that the inferior choice is worthless. Well it takes a little more than a good car chase/crash to make me enjoy a movie, otherwise I'd be a big fan of most action flicks. Although the car chase in the French Connection was far superior and that movie had good acting and an actual story to go along with it. I like Kurt Russell but I found his role as Stuntman Mike to be a rather uninspired performance. Maybe I need to watch it again to notice the little subtleties of his performance but I was pretty underwhelmed from what I saw. Last night I listened to a one hour interview with Tarantino discussing Jackie Brown and he repeatedly mentioned how he wanted us to "hang out" with the characters in JB. Well I think he ran a little too far with that idea when making Death Proof. It was a lot more fun to hang out with the characters in JB because, a) they had vastly different and interesting personalities, and b) actually did something of interest in the film. All the broads in Death Proof were the same annoying bimbo with no distinguishable traits or empathetic qualities.

So let me understand what you're trying to say... Tarantino deserves credit for making a bad movie on purpose but you think it's better than Jackie Brown (which you said was OK, meaning better than bad) because of its shorter and has over-stylized dialogue? I don't know what you mean by "attention to detail editing". Is it the car crash being shown at different angles? Well almost every Tarantino film has an over-stylized script, including Jackie Brown, but Jackie Brown actually has a plot and a point, and I don't understand how you could sit through (and enjoy) 90 minutes of annoying "girl talk" but a 2 hour and 30 minute movie that moves at a steady pace bores you... And this may seem a little out of left field, but I like the quote in your sig.

I already explained why I didn't like it. Then someone made an incredibly stupid comment about the actresses in Death Proof being better than Pam Grier in Jackie Brown without even bothering to explain why, so I called him out on it. Honestly, can any of you tell me how Death Proof is good without saying "because I liked it" or "it's supposed to be bad"? Oh, and BTW, Jackie Brown's "talky scenes" give far more depth to the characters in significantly less time than anything in Death Proof.

I've been reading some of your posts and either you have a life worthy of a tell-all book or you're a really creative writer. My Grandfather on my mother's side survived the Armenian Genocide (he lost three brothers), had 18 children (16 with my grandmother), with his last child coming at age 71 and he died at age 95. My other grandfather fought in WWII and died young. I'm not sure if he died in the War though.

You must not be a fan of good writing or acting. Oh suck my ass, Jackie Brown featured the "acting" of Pam fucking Grier each and every single person with a line in Death Proof who wasn't the director is a better actor than her. I liked the "pointless" stuff about Death Proof. It gave the characters depth. None of the characters in Death Proof had "depth", they were cardboard cutouts of dumb, annoying whores that nobody but dumb, annoying whores could empathize with and their pointless conversations came across about as sincere and as genuine as a second grade play of Romeo and Juliet. And before some idiot feeds me a line of bullshit about how everything is subjective, you would have to be blind, deaf and really dumb to actually convince yourself that any of the girls in Death Proof had a better performance than Pam Grier in Jackie Brown. That, or you never saw the movie. There's a difference between subjectivity and ignorance.