bencook2 wrote:
It is long and not as action packed as I would have liked.  But so worth watching.  George Clooney as usual does an excelent job.  There are many well made and important points in this movie.

Having taken two semesters of Arabic, I particularly like that a great deal of Arabic was spoken.  More Farsi than Arabic but still I got excited when I recognized a word.

They did get one thing wrong.  The movie said "Emir" means king.  It does not.  It means prince.  Malik means king.  Emir can also mean commander.

It is amazing George Clooney is good in anything.

Model Sarah wrote:

It is amazing George Clooney is good in anything.

uh ... "It's amazing George Clooney is good in anything" or "It's amazing, George Clooney is good in anything". Which is it?

The first suggests Clooney couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag to save his life. The second suggests he's a really fantastic actor and does a great job whenever he takes a role. What's really amazing is what a little comma between "amazing" and "George" can do. It changes the meaning by 180*. But then, punctuation and spellin' don't mean nuttin'. Right?

But then again, when you come right down to it ... I haven't a clue which you mean. Help me out here.

Joe Kozlowski wrote:
uh ... "It's amazing George Clooney is good in anything" or "It's amazing, George Clooney is good in anything". Which is it?

The first suggests Clooney couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag to save his life. The second suggests he's a really fantastic actor and does a great job whenever he takes a role. What's really amazing is what a little comma between "amazing" and "George" can do. It changes the meaning by 180*. But then, punctuation and spellin' don't mean nuttin'. Right?

But then again, when you come right down to it ... I haven't a clue which you mean. Help me out here.

Can you not read? The last time I looked at my response there wasn't a comma.

George Clooney is a horrible actor. I hope that clears up any invisible commas.

Model Sarah wrote:

Can you not read? The last time I looked at my response there wasn't a comma.

George Clooney is a horrible actor. I hope that clears up any invisible commas.

I have to disagree with your assessment of George Clooney's acting skills, regardless of Batman & Robin. Having seen Syriana, I will agree he did an amazing job in it, as did all the other actors.

I hope all my commas have illustrated my points accurately, and not been misleading in any way, shape, or form.

Model Sarah wrote:

Can you not read? The last time I looked at my response there wasn't a comma.

George Clooney is a horrible actor. I hope that clears up any invisible commas.

I read it without the comma ... and that's exactly what it says.

But you know as well as I do, most folks don't know the difference between "Eats, shoots and leaves" and "Eats shoots and leaves"... hence my question. The question was a plea for clarification. Thanks you for clearing that up. It's nice to run across someone who says what they mean.

Next question ... do you really need to be so defensive? Of course I can read.

I happen to think Clooney is an OK actor (just OK) but he's got a heck of an eye for a good story -- considering he gets to pick his parts at this point.

But thanks for clearing up the ambiguity.

John Lavery wrote:
I have to disagree with your assessment of George Clooney's acting skills, regardless of Batman & Robin. Having seen Syriana, I will agree he did an amazing job in it, as did all the other actors.

I hope all my commas have illustrated my points accurately, and not been misleading in any way, shape, or form.

Aside from his disgrace in Batman and Robin his problem is he plays the same character in every movie. That was my point. Which equals: no acting skills.

I havent seen these last few movies he is in so maybe my opinion will change.

But for now, George Clooney is just as horrible as, say Keanu Reeves.

Joe Kozlowski wrote:

I read it without the comma ... and that's exactly what it says.

But you know as well as I do, most folks don't know the difference between "Eats, shoots and leaves" and "Eats shoots and leaves"... hence my question. The question was a plea for clarification. Thanks you for clearing that up. It's nice to run across someone who says what they mean.

Next question ... do you really need to be so defensive? Of course I can read.

I happen to think Clooney is an OK actor (just OK) but he's got a heck of an eye for a good story -- considering he gets to pick his parts at this point.

But thanks for clearing up the ambiguity.

Actually it is funny, the director of Good Night and Good Luck told him He "needed to be a better actor" if he wanted to be in this movie.

I rest my case.

Not defensive just clearing things up (hence the smileys)

Model Sarah wrote:

Aside from his disgrace in Batman and Robin his problem is he plays the same character in every movie. That was my point. Which equals: no acting skills.

I havent seen these last few movies he is in so maybe my opinion will change.

But for now, George Clooney is just as horrible as, say Keanu Reeves.

Whoa.

Joe Kozlowski wrote:
or Kevin "Master of the Wooden Performance" Costner ... but ... ya gotta give it to him - he picks good stories to be wooden in.

agreed!!

Chris Mills wrote:
To be honest, I just didn't get it. I know it was about corruption in the oil industry and how they're in bed with the government and all, but I thought the seperate storylines did a really bad job tying together.

Who the hell was that old guy who was always hanging out at the lawyer's house? Was that his dad??

Yeah, that was his dad. Not sure why it was in there. Maybe they were attempting to illustrate how much stress this guy has in his life?

John Lavery wrote:

Yeah, that was his dad. Not sure why it was in there. Maybe they were attempting to illustrate how much stress this guy has in his life?

Dad was ashamed of him, I think.  And he, ashamed of dad for being a drunk.

Model Sarah wrote:
But for now, George Clooney is just as horrible as, say Keanu Reeves.

Now that's just ridiculous! Clooney is perfectly serviceable and Keanu is literally a piece of wood! Seriously, I don't think he's actually human, I think he's a wood carving turned into a robot operated by remote control. Come on Sarah, I mean Reeves is easily one of the worst actors in the history of stage, screen, or even home movies, and Clooney is at the very least competent and average. There is no comparison.

Model Sarah wrote:

Actually it is funny, the director of Good Night and Good Luck told him He "needed to be a better actor" if he wanted to be in this movie.

I rest my case.

Not defensive just clearing things up (hence the smileys)

Dudette, Clooney was the director! What are you talking about? And even if it were true that a director had told him that, or true that he needed to be a better actor, that still wouldn't make him remotely as bad as Reeves!

bencook2 wrote:
It is long and not as action packed as I would have liked.  But so worth watching.  George Clooney as usual does an excelent job.  There are many well made and important points in this movie.

Having taken two semesters of Arabic, I particularly like that a great deal of Arabic was spoken.  More Farsi than Arabic but still I got excited when I recognized a word.

They did get one thing wrong.  The movie said "Emir" means king.  It does not.  It means prince.  Malik means king.  Emir can also mean commander.

Do you realize that the film is making many of the claims that you always argue against and call bullshit?

Aaron_H wrote:

Dudette, Clooney was the director! What are you talking about? And even if it were true that a director had told him that, or true that he needed to be a better actor, that still wouldn't make him remotely as bad as Reeves!

I meant producer... I saw an interview with Clooney and those words came right out of his mouth.

The Reeves comment was sarcasm... Clooney is horrible but Reeves is much worse. They are on the same bottom level. That was the all around point..

Aaron_H wrote:

Do you realize that the film is making many of the claims that you always argue against and call bullshit?

The only claim the movie makes that I disagree with is that oil companies are inherently bad.  I happen to think there is to much coruption in the oil industry as well. (comes from a lack of compatition/to much power)  But the "BIG OIL" stereo type does more harm than good.

But, this is a movie.  What was more important was the accuracy of connectedness of the players involved.  Also it portrayed Arabs/Persians in the most realistic light I have seen.  (a drinking, druging playboy that has to stop to pray, a terrorist that plays all sides against the middle, a leader caught between his people and his pocket book)

George Clooney and I stand directly opposed when it comes to politics.  But, I , like many others see him as an unbelevably talented emerging artist.

bencook2 wrote:

The only claim the movie makes that I disagree with is that oil companies are inherently bad.  I happen to think there is to much coruption in the oil industry as well. (comes from a lack of compatition/to much power)  But the "BIG OIL" stereo type does more harm than good.

Then there's a lot you missed

bencook2 wrote:
But, this is a movie.  What was more important was the accuracy of connectedness of the players involved.  Also it portrayed Arabs/Persians in the most realistic light I have seen.  (a drinking, druging playboy that has to stop to pray, a terrorist that plays all sides against the middle, a leader caught between his people and his pocket book)

It mostly portrayed tired stereotypes. (not that they are never true) I've seen at least 25 movies with more realistic portrayals of Arabs/Iranians (Persians)/Muslims and their lives.

bencook2 wrote:
George Clooney and I stand directly opposed when it comes to politics.  But, I , like many others see him as an unbelevably talented emerging artist.

Well good for you then.

PS: Your terrible spelling gives me hope that maybe you won’t graduate and won’t ever get a chance to influence policy!!!!

Aaron_H wrote:

bencook2 wrote:
The only claim the movie makes that I disagree with is that oil companies are inherently bad.  I happen to think there is to much coruption in the oil industry as well. (comes from a lack of compatition/to much power)  But the "BIG OIL" stereo type does more harm than good.

Then there's a lot you missed

bencook2 wrote:
But, this is a movie.  What was more important was the accuracy of connectedness of the players involved.  Also it portrayed Arabs/Persians in the most realistic light I have seen.  (a drinking, druging playboy that has to stop to pray, a terrorist that plays all sides against the middle, a leader caught between his people and his pocket book)

It mostly portrayed tired stereotypes. (not that they are never true) I've seen at least 25 movies with more realistic portrayals of Arabs/Iranians (Persians)/Muslims and their lives.


Well good for you then.

PS: Your terrible spelling gives me hope that maybe you won’t graduate and won’t ever get a chance to influence policy!!!!

Your personal attacks give me hope that you hang on my every word ready pounce like the puppet you are!  Merry Christmas.

bencook2 wrote:

Your personal attacks give me hope that you hang on my every word ready pounce like the puppet you are!  Merry Christmas.

They aren't personal attacks, there were critiques on your analysis, a genuine compliment for you, and an honest expression of tentative relief. Unfortunately it's you that's a puppet and a compliant tool for people that don't give a single fuck about you and whose every move is to your detriment. They're laughing at you all the way to the bank. Like I said a while back, wake up! Happy Chanukah

Aaron_H wrote:

They aren't personal attacks, there were critiques on your analysis, a genuine compliment for you, and an honest expression of tentative relief. Unfortunately it's you that's a puppet and a compliant tool for people that don't give a single fuck about you and whose every move is to your detriment. They're laughing at you all the way to the bank. Like I said a while back, wake up! Happy Chanukah

Actually, "they" send me emails.  Emails that say, "I'm glad you are saying what I am thinking.  There are a lot of liberals on this board and I am glad you post in oposition of their posts..." 

PS...they are personal attacks.

evil demagogue,  you're a menace

Where are your issues...?(other than your obvious issues with me)  It is easy to attack me.  It is hard to debate me.  Thanks for taken' the easy way.  Typical Lib!  Thanks for futhering the stereo type!