Jericho2000Mark

45. He's a bathturd and his mommy said so

You must not be a fan of good writing or acting.

Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown were great movies, Death Proof isn't even a consideration for being in the same league.

Good riddance. Overpushed, bland, terrible promos, but...I'll miss laughing at his scrunched up "angry face".

No.

No one said anything about expecting it to be nominated.

I agree, American Psycho had some good supporting performances but you don't really notice them until the third or fourth viewing.

Same here, on both counts. And the blaxploitation films that I've seen are criminally underrated. I really liked Coffy, Black Caesar and the original Shaft. If you're suggesting that Death Proof is the same quality of film as those three then we see things completely different.

Inane chatter can work if the actors are there but these girls were atrocious. The Oscars get it wrong about 95% of the time and I don't like any of the three films you used as examples. I don't need other people to tell me what is and isn't good, I can spot bad acting and I know a movie is bad when I can't find any reason to like it.

Best Picture: There Will be Blood (given), 3:10 to Yuma, Rescue Dawn, No Country For Old Men (given), Planet Terror Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis (given), Christian Bale for both Rescue Dawn and 3:10 to Yuma, Josh Brolin for No Country For Old Men Best Director: Robert Rodriguez for Planet Terror, James Mangold for 3:10 to Yuma, Werner Herzog for Rescue Dawn Best Actress: Rose McGowan for Planet Terror Best Supporting actor: Javier Bardem (given), Peter Fonda for 3:10 to Yuma, Ben Foster for 3:10 to Yuma, Paul Dano for There Will Be Blood

Whatever. I'm no cock-monkey for Taratino but I'm pretty sure the fact that he was greenlit for this gives him free pass to make any kind of film he wants - just like any other filmmaker out there in the same position. I'm also pretty sure that you don't understand the concept or the genre that Death Proof was built from - otherwise you'd understand that those movies were also filled with horrible acting, ridiculous dialogue, etc. You don't HAVE to like it - but calling it a fucking disgrace has to be the biggest misuse of hyperbole I've seen on this board in quite some time. Thanks for the refreshing insight but I'm obviously not trying to dictate what movies he can and cannot make. He has a right to make a bad film and I have a right to point out just how fucking awful it is and how stupid you sound for using the excuse that he's paying tribute to a genre of mostly bad films to imply that it is somehow redeemed for being horrible. Grindhouse pictures were low-budget with horrible actors, cheap gimmicks and paper thin plots, I know, but you don't see anyone calling those films great or even good. And if you still can't comprehend my argument; a bad movie is a bad movie, bad acting is bad acting, nothing happening for 30 minutes but inane chatter is still boring, regardless of the filmmaker's intentions.

There Will be Blood was a great film and I'd rate it ahead of No Country for Old Men because the ending was more satisfying and Daniel Day-Lewis gave one of the best performances I've seen since Christian Bale in American Psycho. I have absolutely no complaints about Paul Dano's performance because honestly, it's hard for anyone to look like a great actor when they share 90% of their scenes with Daniel Day-Lewis. It's kind of like how none of the other actors really stood out in American Psycho because Bale's performance was so dominant.

Death Proof is a fucking disgrace. Horrible acting from B actresses (save for Rosario Dawson and Rose McGowan), unrealistic and tedious dialogue, nothing happening for 95% of the film and the biggest cocktease of an ending I've ever seen. And Canadian Destroyer, just because he's paying tribute to a genre of mostly bad films doesn't give him a free pass to make an awful film himself. Those grindhouse films were universally panned by critics and I'll bet good money that the majority of them had more redeeming qualities than DP. Planet Terror stayed true to the spirit of Grindhouse films and still managed to have good acting, dialogue and a point. Robert Rodriguez deserves an oscar nomination simply for making an excellent film out of a genre that churns out so much crap.

I felt this was an excellent film with the cat and mouse game between Moss and Chigurh being the clear highlight, although I definitely felt that the ending was unsatisfying, anti-climactic and different for the sake of being different, and Tommy Lee Jones isn't a good enough actor to hold my interest with long-winded speeches. However, I thought Josh Brolin stole the show and was an excellent flawed, film noir protagonist who you knew was doomed but couldn't help getting behind anyway. Hopefully he's able to land more leading roles after this because he has a great screen presence and isn't a youthful looking heartthrob with little charisma, like most of the new breed of American leading men.

Count me as someone who thought Batman Returns was better than Batman. I also liked Superman II a lot better than the first. And LOL to whoever said V for Vendetta was either 1 or 2. 1. Batman: Mask of The Phantasm (excellent film noir, and I believe TAS is the definitive interpretation of Batman) 2. Batman Begins 3. Superman II 4. The Crow 5. Sin City 6. Batman Returns 7. Batman 8. Superman 9. X-Men 2 10. Blade

Agreed completely. He was one of the best hoss workers in WWE. He sold fine, moved around the ring well and executed his moves crisply, and they weren't generic hoss moves either, he actually had a pretty unique moveset in WWE. Judging by the popular views on the IWC, it's easy to see why WWE thinks wrestling fans have a short attention span because a lot of the IWC obviously didn't pay much attention to A-Train's WWE matches.

ouellete did join Storms team, Storm even "gave" him the hardcore title, but he was gone within a week or 2 I meant that I thought he would return.

Yeah, around November 2003 is when I stopped ordering the weekly PPVs. Michael Shane was one of the reasons why. His boring, slow paced style basically killed any momentum that the X Division had by that point. Not to mention the Jericho-esque booking of AJ Styles title reign and the push of Erik fucking Watts.

I thought Jericho would wind up main eventing WrestleMania 2000 in the four-way instead of Foley. I thought Jericho would win KOTR. I thought Jericho would face The Rock at SummerSlam 2000 and possibly win the title. I thought Jericho was the one who ran over Stone Cold. I thought wrong. I thought Lance Storm would get a main event push in WCW with Bret Hart as the commissioner who would rule all his matches as "Canadian Rules" and let him cheat as much as possible. I also believed Bret and Carl Ouellette would join Storm's Team Canada stable. And I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I expected RVD to win the ECW and WWE Titles a lot sooner.

The Dark Knight. And although I'm not a big fan of Hulk or Iron Man, the casting choices are good enough to get me to watch them both.

That's not accurate at all. Way to make yourself look like a complete moron (again). It's very different from most of the books and the guy is brutally honest. There are negatives, but the positives greatly outweigh them. I'm not finished yet, but it's easily the best wrestling book I've read since Foley's first, and I think it might be better than that as well. Was the last line of your post sarcasm? It's not accurate? Hmm.... He doesn't do any of what I said? He even tries to forgive himself for cheating on his wife countless times, which I'm sure he left out a couple dozen of times. Ever hear about his tours in Japan? Yeah, he was awfully faithful. I mean, we can sit here all day and call each other names for no real apparent reason, well, obviously to be dicks, but what does that actually accomplish? Calling me a moron, or whatever you decide to say is really irrelevant. Does it make your internet browsing seem better, more enjoyable per say? I'm serious, does it make you feel good that you can throw civilized conversation right out the window and start with attempted insults? I mean come on now, you're one of the labeled "smart guys" on this board, or so some claim, but attacking me because my opinion differs from yours is absurd. If you get that annoyed, I feel bad for your kids, or future kids. Sheesh. And yes, it was sarcasm at the end of my post. Because you know damn well they'd do the same thing Hart/Hogan/Flair/Kid have done. Foley is possibly the only guy who doesn't put himself 100% of the time. IIRC, Funk even put himself over considerably in his book. No, you are a moron, and it's not to sound like a dick, it's because you are knocking a book you never read and assuming something that you haven't the slightest clue about. In fact, I'm pretty sure he mentions in the book that he was unfaithful in Japan.

Bret states in the book that "Konan" taught him the sharpshooter. Sounds like Bret doesn't appreciate the push Vince gave him. Without Vince, Bret wouldn't be as respected as he is today. Montreal aside, Vince did wonders for Bret's career. At least give him props for getting his career shot right to the top. He does. Here's an interesting concept, why don't you read the book before you make comments about it?

Ok, where am I?

Who?

Yeah, that was probably TNA's best booking ever, which isn't saying much at all. The Jarrett-Raven fued was good and AJ Styles was built up pretty well.