OWWWWTCH!Mr. Arkadin wrote: Following your logic, perhaps we should all post our pictures and vote on who is worthy to post here.
As a Founding Father here, please record my vote as a resounding NAY !
OWWWWTCH!Mr. Arkadin wrote: Following your logic, perhaps we should all post our pictures and vote on who is worthy to post here.
No one is putting words in your mouth. I saw your original post which you edited, admitting it was too harsh. I can reprint the comments that remain, but what would be the point? You then became upset because other posters condemned your views, and stated that you felt your opinions were valid. I agreed that you should be able to express your thoughts and tried to explain why others might feel it is unfair to judge a person on their looks or appearance.mrsl wrote:I dislike coming back to defend myself but when you put words in my mouth, I get very angry.
Yes, exactly.mrsl wrote: I was judging his LOOKS not his WORKS.
Not me. I never asked you to see anything by him. The only person I recommended a film to was movieman57. You came into a thread that was already two pages with a long-winded rant. I have no problem with criticizing a persons work, but you attacked him personally and have continued to do so.mrsl wrote:You challenge me to see his works, but I have, which is why I feel I can put in my opinion, which is, I do not like his work.
I'd say however a person chooses to present themselves, as long as it doesn't break the code of moral decency, is their own business.mrsl wrote:Unfortunately that goes along with the fact that I do not like the way he looks - but not because of any God given imperfections, because of a seeming laziness to clean up.
Again, you are quoting the wrong person. I did not say this.mrsl wrote:To me Uma Thurman is unattractive, to you she may be beautiful. I would never say you're wrong about that, just as I suggested you revisit some of Davis and Hepburn's earlier movies.
You are certainly entitled to your own views and opinions. I merely tried to explain why those views and opinions were not well received.mrsl wrote:When I state my feelings, or opinions of them, maybe I'm a little too 'in your face' for you, if so, I'm sorry for that, but I'm too old to change now.
I suppose it's my mistake for not initially asking you to establish that this is, indeed, a fact. Judging from these recent talk show clips, I must admit I don't know what you're talking about. His hair looks fine to me. Whatever you may see as you watch these clips, he certainly doesn't look as slovenly or unhygienic as you insinuate.mrsl wrote:is Tarentino your brother, that you have to defend the fact that he doesn't wash his hair?
Oh, come on. Free thinking is as free thinking does. If you'd said "I don't like Tarantino's work because graphic violence repels me" or "I don't like his depiction of women" or "His scripts are replete with gratuitous vulgar language," then cited examples to support your claims, everyone here would've understood and, whether he/she agreed or disagreed, would have responded respectfully with their opinions. Claims such as those are certainly worth any open-minded individual's consideration when viewing Tarantino's films and would've probably led to a profitable discussion/debate. That's how these message boards are intended to work.mrsl wrote: I have always been under the impression that this was a free thinking board and opinions were permitted whether agreed to or not. I am not a first grader who likes someone because they like some one else as in; "You can't be my friend if you're her friend."
No one here would deny you the right to express an opinion, but you seem to have this habit of using such incendiary language that it's as though you're aiming to be as offensive as possible.mrsl wrote:Uma Thurman has got to be the plainest, least attractive female ever to 'grace' a movie screen. Naturally if you look at Tarantino, you can understand why none of his actors believe in washing their hair, and prefer the greasy dirty kids' look. He doesn't need pyro-technics in his movies, or CGI, just looking at his actors can give nightmares.
I have no problem with incendiary language and -- I guessing here -- you (srowley) don't either. It can be thought provoking and lead to a deeper understanding of the art of movies.you seem to have this habit of using such incendiary language that it's as though you're aiming to be as offensive as possible.
Yes, you do . . and for all the right reasons!ChiO wrote: The fear of the bloodletting is a problem for me (I'm a weenie at heart). But now I have to see this one.
What?! No Jackie Brown?ChiO wrote:[ I love PULP FICTION. I really like RESERVOIR DOGS (yeah, Timothy Carey would have made it better). That's all I've seen. The fear of the bloodletting is a problem for me (I'm a weenie at heart). But now I have to see this one.
What? Andre de Toth -- Mr. HOUSE OF WAX -- doesn't meet your elitist standards? I suppose the monocles of Erich Von Stroheim and Fritz Lang don't count?but to use your standard, John Ford and Nicholas Ray would be a couple of cyclops
Well, I don't really keep a list on all the visually challenged directors, but we make lists on just about everything else don't we? Do they get the girls? That's an interesting question. I'm not really eager to poke my eye with a sharp pencil to find out though.ChiO wrote:P.S. Oooo, Mr. Ark, you've made me soooo angry!!!
What? Andre de Toth -- Mr. HOUSE OF WAX -- doesn't meet your elitist standards? I suppose the monocles of Erich Von Stroheim and Fritz Lang don't count?but to use your standard, John Ford and Nicholas Ray would be a couple of cyclops
I don't recall ever seeing a picture of Mrs. Ford (maybe she looked like Ward Bond or Walter Brennan. I don't know. I'm just sayin'. Or, in the parlance, IMH(uninformed)O). But, given that de Toth was married to Veronica Lake, and Ray was married to Gloria Grahame, maybe the next debate topic should be:
Resolved: Directors Cyclopses (or, is it Cyclopsi? "i". "eye". Get it?) get all the hot chick actresses.
And, please, stay on topic.
I guess my closing comments were too vague. From where I was standing in my earlier post, yes, I've become weary of it. I was remembering the Golden Globes discussion from earlier this year, the "voyeurism in cinema" thread, and now all this. It's as though each time, out comes the hatchet, and to what end I really haven't a clue, though in each case the (misinformed) thrust seems to be that civilization and culture are going to hell in a handbasket thanks to these greaseballs, perverts, and drunks of today. Then indignation all around. So it goes.ChiO wrote:
I have no problem with incendiary language and -- I'm guessing here -- you (srowley) don't either.