Movies you couldn't even finish.

Hehe, nobody agrees?

Your issue here is homosexuality or sex for money?

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

no my favorite subject is watching river phoenix give head...like i said, male prostitution isn't my favorite subject, i don't have any issues with it i just don't find it an enjoyable subject to watch an entire movie about...hope i didn't offend you!

__________________
"Empire had the better ending. I mean, Luke gets his hand cut off, finds out Vader's his father, Han gets frozen and taken away by Boba Fett. It ends on such a down note. I mean, that's what life is, a series of down endings. All Jedi had was a bunch of Muppets." - Dante Hicks

Oh, so you're another homophobe that doesn't have issues with homosexuality....you people seem to be sprouting like mushrooms lately...

I think you're an undercover, homophobic lobbyist for the Catholic Church who's posing as an obnoxiously over-the-top, spectacularly easily offendable homosexual in an effort to create a deep-seated, subconscious resentment in the minds of every straight MoFo on this site towards real homosexuals! You people sure seem to be sprouting like mushrooms lately...

I don't think I'm easily offendable. I just take issue with dumbass homophobes. Unless you think his post doesn't have anything to do with homophobia?

I don't think his post has anything to do with homophobia... just because someone doesn't enjoy watching something of that nature does not make them homophobic...

__________________

Okay, since you told me I "best finish what I started", I guess I'll just ask you the same question. Why is it that anyone who displays even the slightest hint of a reservation towards homosexuality automatically a "dumbass homophobe"?

And I love how you say that you're not easily offended and then proceed to tell me you were very offended by my stupid post. I think you seem like a pretty smart person, but sometimes you're just ridiculous.

Word.

Homophobia!
The Worst Disease!
You Can't Love Who You Wanna Love In Times Like These!

How come? This is all guesswork here seeing as he didn't outright declare himself a homophobe (they rarely do), but from the tone of his posts, I assumed his problem wasn't that these people sell their bodies for money, but that they're males who engage in same sex intercourse. I don't think it's a far stretch to conclude that one who has a problem watching homosexuals on screen is a homophobe. Or maybe it is.


Um, I took offense because you called me an obnoxiously over the top, easily offendable homosexual.

Wait, first he has reservations about homosexuality, then he doesn't? Which is it?

If you're making a distinction between "having a reservation towards homosexuality" and "homophobia", I'll have to repeat my stance which should be clear to anyone by now that those two things are nowdays factually equal. Homophobia has long ceased to be a word depicting "fear" of homosexuals.

Um, no, I actually called you a heterosexual, homophobic lobbyist for the Catholic Church posing as an obnoxiously over-the-top, easily offendable homosexual. And I was joking.

And... hey! Are you implying, adidasss, that "homosexual" is a derogatory term?! A bad thing?! What a horribly homophobic thing to say... hmmmm.

I think he obviously has some kind of reservation towards homosexuality, but I don't think that's the worst thing in the world, either. And it doesn't make him a "dumbass homophobe". Of course, he could be a dumbass homophobe, but how would you know?

The reason why I said in my comment I didn't want to get into a whole big thing about this ruckus with you is because I know I have absolutely no chance in this argument. You're incredibly irrational and stubborn. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's so, so true. There is a gigantic difference between outright hateful discriminatory beliefs and mildly stated, rational reservations. If you can't see that, you're crazy.

I think you're actually being more spiteful towards me here than you would have because I don't like Bon Iver. Sorry I don't listen to lame, sad bastard music, man!

I took issue with the obnoxious part, which I think you meant. And I think you were genuinely annoyed...

Because he declares a film "horribly bad" and the only issue he apparently has with it is the male prostitution (I specifically asked so I wouldn't appear to be jumping the gun). Two and two=dumbass homophobe...


Rational reservations about homosexuality? And what might those be? Discrimination has various degrees, and I don't equate all homophobia with gay bashing, but they are related. And I'm certainly not going to apologize for having a zero tolerance policy for discrimination towards homosexuals of any kind. If you're looking for libertarians, Mikey's your man.

There are no various degrees of racism, you either are one or you aren't, how come the same treatment isn't applied to homosexuality?

Electra- Could have been so much better
Pirates of The Carribean: At worlds End-Expected so much more
Lady in the water-I gave M. Knight another chance after the village!

I'm sorry, I know how easily offendable you can be.

Well, fine. I feel a little silly defending a person I know nothing about, but it just seems like he was a bit put-off by the overt homosexuality in the film. So what? I'm curious, why does it bother you that some people, who aren't mean-spirited or violent about it, are hesitant about accepting homosexuality? He's not inhibiting anyone from doing their own thing and he even apologized to you. It has no effect on you whatsoever if someone is harmlessly, latently ignorant about homosexuality. He's free to think whatever he wants to think. That's not libertarian mumbo jumbo, it's common sense.

For the record, I think My Own Private Idaho is a good movie.

I think there's a line between rational, thoughtful reservations and out-and-out discrimination, yes. Religion is a big factor in this, the environment a person lives in, etc. Most people don't have cut and dried, simple opinions about this kind of stuff. You're so quick to jump the gun at everybody when, most of the time, they're not only saying nothing worth getting upset about, but they're often on your side. I think you're so cartoonishly irrational about this, yes, it annoys me a little. I think you should take a deep breath and try to step in someones else's shoes and just look at things more objectively, man. And I realize you think I'm a dumbass homophobe, but I'm not.

Because homosexuals aren't people, silly.

And that was a joke, adidasss. There are a million reasons why there are varying degrees here, man. Some folks can't grasp the idea of people being born homosexual, for one, but you're not going to find anyone who can't understand why somebody was born with a different skin color. Homosexuality is such a departure from the established norm for some people and, of course, religion plays a huge role, too. There's no passage in the bible that says "black people are evil", but it does say homosexuality is unnatural and icky. I think you have to be more accepting of people who have a hard time coming to terms with homosexuality because of the way they were brought up or what they were taught. You don't have to tolerate abject bigots, but I think you do have to tolerate the people who are legitimately misguided or those who aren't hateful in their misgivings about homosexuality. I can still respect people who have mild reservations with homosexuality, and I definitely don't think it automatically qualifies them as a dumbass.

But, yeah, I guess you disagree, huh?

That almost sounds reasonable when you put it so vaguely. But what does 'having reservations' entail exactly? Does it encompass a belief that people ought to be denied civil rights based on a behavior/mindset that does not harm anyone? If so then how can suggest that such a mindset does not 'automatically qualify them as a dumbass?'

__________________
“A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished.”
-Mikhail Bakunin

That's my style, man. I keeps it vague and broad and that way it looks like I'm taking the higher ground. What I'm actually doing is spewing garbled nonsense, really. And, thus far, you MoFos have been none the wiser. Damn you, Lucifer Prometheus.

Anyway, when I say having reservations, I'm talking about someone's personal beliefs. I do think I made it pretty clear that I obviously don't agree with inhibiting basic civil rights based on sexual orientation. But I think it's almost as bad to assume someone's a dumbass for having relatively harmless beliefs they can't control that aren't mean-spirited and don't directly interfere with anyone else's lives.

I certainly wouldn't say that My Own Private Idaho is a terrible movie, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it good. I realize it's a post-1967 movie and all, with a few stunning images and some affecting performances, but it's also often boring and about 100 times more pretentious than Bon Iver could ever even imagine trying to be. Yes, it's a movie with some gay prostitutes (even if the Keanu Reeves character isn't really gay, in my opinion), but that's not really what the movie is about. It's about love and trying to belong. At least until that whack Henry IV stuff kicks in. I just prefer Midnignt Cowboy.

Also, this may seem naive to try to compare this, but should I really become offended when people say they hate old movies or don't want to watch certain films because it's a "chick flick" or stars some crummy actor such as Humphrey Bogart (Humphrey, what kind of name is that?) I think that it's well and good to call people out on something you believe, but I also think it's an alright idea to let some slide until you've "gathered your evidence". I often refuse to correct people anymore (at least on the net) when I believe that they may be condemning themselves with their own words. Nobody needs me to explain things for them. Of course, here I go again, explaining...

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I think when you go to watch a Gus Van Sant movie, you just have to accept it's going to be at least a little boring and pretentious. But I still get something out of pretty much all his stuff. Yes, even Gerry! And, actually, if My Own Private Idaho was made before 1967, I think I'd appreciate it even more. How do you like them apples, Mark?

I'll spit out a worm in them, if I find one.

Gerry has some good cinematography; at least for about five minutes.

Elephant is better that Gerry, but not by much. In fact, without the last 10 minutes, it would have probably gotten a instead of a highly-generous . Gerry is still the most monotonous and ridiculous movie I can think of. Is that what you're getting at, SC? I still finished both movies. Hell, I watched them both repeatedly to somehow assure me that I wasn't half-asleep ever (I never was!)

I never thought that Drugstore Cowboy, To Die For, and Good Will Hunting were particularly boring or pretentious, and I also have a soft spot for Psycho because the story is just so strong, and who could be better casting as Norman Bates than Vince Vaughn? (Well, I'll admit that Crispin Glover would have been good, but even so... )

I think both Elephant and Gerry are kinda weird, but the one thing I've never seen you mention when lambasting Gerry is how flippin hysterical that movie is! And sure it's meandering but it's a move about meandering so what do you really expect on that front? Gerry is like The Blair Witch Project if The Blair Witch Project was a beautifully shot, irreverent riff on how ridiculously foolish and naive every twenty-something in America truly is today.

And To Die For is one of the greatest movies in the history of movies, man, so yeah. Oh, and how can you say Vince Vaughn is a good Norman Bates? Vince Vaughn is 10 times cooler than Norman Bates should ever be. You might wanna just tune that out, though, because I don't like either Psycho all that much, so what do I know, really?