| Author |
Message |
|
| billyweeds |
 Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:53 am |
 |
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Spread is a dramedy about a Los Angeles gigolo in which Ashton Kutcher actually gives a fine performance. He plays a good-looking (duh) young layabout who preys on rich women but earns his keep by providing hot sex. The story meanders and the pace is uneven, but the actors, notably Kutcher and Anne Heche as his cougar-of-the-moment, are excellent. |
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 2:27 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
| You'd have to pry my eyes open with toothpicks to get me to watch Spread. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:41 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Marc wrote: You'd have to pry my eyes open with toothpicks to get me to watch Spread.
And you call yourself a movie fan! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Marc has criticized me a number of times because I didn't want to see some film or other. Mind you, he wasn't alone.
I'm not hot to see Spread either. It's the kind of movie that will make it here too. They cater to the lowest common denominator. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:28 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Gary, Marc--I too was struck by the hypocrisy Marc demonstrates by his unwillingness to see a movie when he knocks you and others for the same unwillingness.
Everyone--Meanwhile, you can all safely skip The Answer Man, in which a soddenly earnest script reduces even the usually fine Jeff Daniels to a robotic mouthpiece for the sentimentality of a story about a Salingeresque writer whose best-seller purported to be a conversation between him and God. People, amazingly, believed him. I didn't, so the "surprise" was meh. The movie is not terrible, just dullsville from beginning to predictable end. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:30 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
marantzo wrote:
Marc has criticized me a number of times because I didn't want to see some film or other. Mind you, he wasn't alone.
I'm not hot to see Spread either. It's the kind of movie that will make it here too. They cater to the lowest common denominator.
Spread didn't get much distribution when it was released last year, so don't hold your breath for its Colombian opening. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:20 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Quote: Gary, Marc--I too was struck by the hypocrisy Marc demonstrates by his unwillingness to see a movie when he knocks you and others for the same unwillingness.
Am I supposed to see every fucking movie that comes out in order to prove that I'm open minded? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:08 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Marc wrote: Quote: Gary, Marc--I too was struck by the hypocrisy Marc demonstrates by his unwillingness to see a movie when he knocks you and others for the same unwillingness.
Am I supposed to see every fucking movie that comes out in order to prove that I'm open minded?
Ummmmm....yes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Geez, this is better than the Lincoln/Douglas debates. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bartist |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:57 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6963
Location: Black Hills
|
He, he!
I see movies because they look to be entertaining. I see other movies because I'm willing to be dragged to them (and then often am glad I was dragged). Once in a while, I see a movie because it's turning into some kind of cultural cornerstone, everybody refers to it, quotes it, etc. and I don't want to be left behind. (oddly, that didn't happen with Lord of the Rings, so I'm still a Tolkien virgin...) But I am not going to start seeing movies to be open-minded. Here's open-minded from me: if you want to see some flick with the Nikon pitchboy as a gigolo, I will resolutely defend your right to do so. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| whiskeypriest |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:47 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 6916
Location: "It's a Dry Heat."
|
bartist wrote: He, he!
I see movies because they look to be entertaining. I see other movies because I'm willing to be dragged to them (and then often am glad I was dragged). Once in a while, I see a movie because it's turning into some kind of cultural cornerstone, everybody refers to it, quotes it, etc. and I don't want to be left behind. (oddly, that didn't happen with Lord of the Rings, so I'm still a Tolkien virgin...) But I am not going to start seeing movies to be open-minded. Here's open-minded from me: if you want to see some flick with the Nikon pitchboy as a gigolo, I will resolutely defend your right to do so. |
_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:23 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
AVATAR is a major cinematic achievement and should be seen by anyone interested in the medium. If SPREAD were a significant work of art I would see it even if the subject matter and cast didn't interest me.
Gary avoids films because of subject matter. I do not.
I have seen films I might not otherwise see because of recommendations made by Third Eye members based on my understanding of their taste and where they converge with mine. Billy has favorably reviewed many films that I don't like - SIGNS and LEAVING LAS VEGAS being two. I'm not taking a chance on SPREAD. I will be watching SPARTAN. Billy's recommendation, combined with the director and cast, makes it seem like a good bet. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:23 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| I saw Avatar. It was not a significant work of art. People who skipped it because they doubted they would enjoy it probably made the right decision. And going to see it for historical reasons is, I think, bogus. The first 3-D movie was Bwana Devil. Anyone who felt the need to check it out because of its historical import wasted their time. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:24 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
In the event this needs explanation (I didn't think it would but now am having second thoughts), I was joking. Marc's post directly above echoes my own attitude toward whether or not to see a movie.
And just for the record, I wasn't even strongly recommending Spread, though I do think Kutcher and Heche give excellent performances in it.
About Avatar, I agree with Marc and disagree with Joe. But then again, I loved the movie, so there you are.
Unsung movies I recommend without reservation and with two guns blazing are Spartan, Big Fan, World's Greatest Dad, Julia (the Tilda Swinton one), and Sleeping Dogs Lie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:18 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
| Joe, I did not call AVATAR significant work of art. I called it "a major cinematic achievement". And it is. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
