Posted on 02/18/2005 1:10:19 PM PST by mrustow
I did not rant. All I said to the original poster was AMEN and then I was called a "movie hater".
Yes, Absolutely. I'm a Yankee fan.
But why? Even if I was a movie buff and loved lighting, editing, and such, but don't care for the plot, why should I give my money to Hollywood. That is an endorsement that I like the story and plot. This gives Hollywood the impression and the motivation to make more movies in this genre, which I don't like.
A minor point but the character's name is Maggie Fitzgerald.
Good point.
You will cry all right (I sure did) but I had problems with the ending. Too many irrationalities..... first and foremost why would such a character as Maggie, so full of life and fight, ask her manager and surrogate father to 'put her down'?
I think Hildy, at #119, came up with the best explanation for that.
I found out my parents went to see this movie. They liked it, and fell for the euthanasia bit hook line and sinker. Kept saying "Well in that situation, I agree that it was the right thing!". I told them that is how the left works, they attach their core issues to emotion in order to suck you in.
They go see about 6 movies per month, I keep telling them not to support the degenerates in Hollywood. I learned a lot about Hollywood by reading some of the testimony from the HUAC...especially Ayn Rand.
I hate that industry as much as I do the MSM. America needs a "Conservative" Hollywood......
"Hummm...I wonder haw many people who will read this and say "yah, you uptight busybodies need to get a life" were so level headed when it came to discussing Fahrenheit 911?"
LOL, I was about to respond to him and say the SAME thing. Great minds think alike ;)
But why? Even if I was a movie buff and loved lighting, editing, and such, but don't care for the plot, why should I give my money to Hollywood. That is an endorsement that I like the story and plot. This gives Hollywood the impression and the motivation to make more movies in this genre, which I don't like.
If you weant to speak intelligently about a movie, rather than come off as a hypocritical ignoramus, you have to fork over the money and see it. Otherwise, your comments reflect only on yourself, and not on the movie.
You've gotta see Rocky III. It was the best Rocky since Rocky I. Except for maybe Rocky II.
I want to see the one where Sylvester Stallone comes to the center of the ring pushing his walker. Let's see. The villain could be the Ice Man they found in the Alps a few years past. He could melt and come to life. He will be madder than Hillary on a bad hair day because his compatriots left him there to die. A guy that tough will be hard to beat, and he will work his way to Rocky Balboa killing all his opponents because he sees in their face the guy most responsible for leaving him.
He will prove he is a villain because he will hammer the cop just about to arrest the guy that stabbed OJ's ex, so OJ's quest must go on.
The rest of it will be the usual Rocky formula.
You just don't get it, do you? If I fork over the money, as you say, I am telling Hollywood that I want more movies with this type of social message which I don't agree with.
Secondly, I am not hypocritical because I'm not pretending I saw the movie and the name calling reflects on you, not me. I know what the movie is about from all of the reviews, commentary, and the hoopla, and I don't want to see it.
Thirdly, why should I listen to you to and see the film? Why does the "see the film" crowd have any more weight than the "don't see the film" crowd? Many in the "don't see the film" crowd have seen the film and don't recommend it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.