I know everyone's gotten caught up in dv's wacky perspective on Children of Men (...and I don't mean to detract from it -- reading that line, amidst the rest of her sensible article, was the best laugh I've had all week), but I would like to provide accolades to her for being one of the few at WOKJ with an accurate perspective on Casino Royale, not caught up in the hype:

Nice review Dolce!

As for the children of men discussion.....

maybe we should not think too much of it. War movie....position of women in society etc.......actually i didnt care so much about those things............for me it was more a movie about what happens in a society when you take their hope of the society starts to think of a bad/dark future ahead

in fact it doesnt matter if women cant get children or men loose their reproduction ability or there are rumours about upcoming war or economical depression.......the society collapses or at least becomes ulgy for surviving and people develop strange extremist ideas (saviour ideas) they wouldnt do normally when everything is going the normal way.

Well extremist people behind Children of men......well you cant also watch a movie from L.A (Hollywood) withot supporting scienetology (directly or indirectly)....well I didnt care so much for that.....maybe a fault I admit.



I am happy when sometimes a movie like Children of men is done.........I mean nobody fucking cares about serious documentaries anyway so at least we get some stuff that way........


But I see you points Dolce.


Maybe movies about such stuff shouldnt be done with artist/literally influence cause mostly it always looks ridiculos when you compare it to real life issues.....but thats another discussion.

I did so like her reviews.

I disagreed with her assessment of Casino Royale, but I agreed with her on V for Vendetta.

I liked CR. But it wasn't great. She's sort of right you know.

About CR? No, I don't think she's correct about that one at all. Haggis aside, I thought it was one of the best Bond scripts in the history of the series, and the film actually (IMO) improves on what they adapted from the novel. I find it to be incredibly true to the spirit of the actual Bond novels, although it is a step away from the spirit of some of the films.

CR dragged in several scenes. The scenes in the actual casino had no intensity.

Bar the tacked on last 20 minutes it was pretty perfect pacewise. Hard to see what you mean by the casino scenes lacking intensity, explain?

In my opinion... the critisisms of the film's length are valid in some respects, after the torture scenes there were things that could have been consolidated into single scenes... for example, I didn't think we needed to have the extended recovery scene at the hospital and THEN the beach scene, it seemed a little redundant, and the ending needed to be edited a little better.

But among the things I thought the film did really really well were the Casino scenes.

But Casino Royale just took time to tell its story, like some of the other Bond films I like. And being an admitted Bond fan, I was engaged throughout. I enjoyed myself. I'm sorry if that's not "accurate" enough for some people on this site.

The casino scenes felt like a real joke considering the plot of the whole film was about this poker game. I've seen more drama in the Celebrity Poker show. The bit where he got drugged was incredibly stupid.

Not only do I think dolcevita is off her rocker in some of the things she has been saying in this thread, but even that is beside the point. Why the fuck is she arguing about the points of Children of Men before she has even seen the bloody film?? To me that is absolutely ridiculous, bar none. Nobody can argue she is being sensible in that respect. That pisses me off. Where the hell does the topic of abortion come from? Maybe if dolce saw the film first and stopped arguing on the basis of nothing, she would get a clearer picture. What else can I say? I cannot debate about a film's issues with a person who has not even seen the film.

And I'm sorry if that was harsh, because I love dolce. But this is just ridiculous and offencive to those of us who have seen the film.

Peace,
Mike.

She's read the book. She's been through enough.

So have and I can say bar the basic plot the novel bares very little resemblence to to the film. the book is actually a bit of a slowmoving quaint detective story.

I've said this elsewhere, but I think it's worth saying again - some neoconservative thinkers in the US have actually criticised the film, and complain that it isn't faithful to the conservative message of James's original novel. I haven't read the book, but from comments like that, I guess that they aren't necessarily cut from the same ideological cloth.

I'm fine with people saying they don't think it has anything to do with what I thought it did. Mr. Jam, Gulli, Kypade several people made good points.

But you guys really mean to tell me you've never been to a book store, browsed the books, read the outlines and a couple quotes on the back of one, skimmed the first few pages, and decided it didn't sound like it was for you? Or that you didn't like where you thought it was going?

You've never picked up the back of an Anne Coulter or Michelle Malkin book, read the synopsis and said "Eh, sounds conservative?" Or a Michael Moore book (if you dislike him) and said "Ah gad, not again?" Or just picked up a cheesy fiction book and thought it sounded lame? Because if you say "no" to the above question, you must read every single book, and watch all hundreds of movies that hit theatres every year.

I read the synopsis, I know the author of the source material, I didn't feel comfortable with what I was reading as far as critical response. So I decided I didn't want to support it financially. End of story.

Anyways, I promised I wouldn't really post in this thread anymore, since its just going to make people freak out and bitch me out some more, or just start making fun of entire civil liberties and gender issues. And the rest of the article seems to have been overlooked for one line anyways. Suffice it to say, everyone knows I've done this before. I didn't watch End of Spear for this reason. I refused to watch Narnia after hearing how its marketting was conducted through churches last year. I still am disappointed in myself for giving Quinceanera twelve dollars. I'm not giving Gibson money, period. This should not really come as a surprise to anyone. Regardless of its a movie you love or not, or have even heard of (and people did like Narnia, Apocalypto, which they said did not represent what I got the impression they represented as well).

But its ridiculous to say one can't get an impression about a story before one reads/sees it. Everyone does it, all the time. Its called a filtering process. Who here read the synopsis for Big Momma's House 3 and really said "That sounds like a movie for me?" Or read the synopsis for "America's Heart and Soul" and said "I totally want to support that documentary?" Or read the reviews for some small indie movie and thought "Sounds esoteric, self-congratulatory, elitist, and high brow. No thanks?" And I'm not singling anyone out. I believe everyone does this.

Go stone someone else for awhile now.

dolce, i love you. Keep posting. Narnia was a shit fest.

If you had simply said the film was not for you that is fine. The point is you attacked the nature of it in your review and assumed that certain things were there that just weren't.

Everyone reads the back covers of books and decides that, it has nothing to do with your statements which you had no basis to back up. These are two entirely different things.

Precisely. Dolce hasn't just made an impression, she's been arguing over pages and pages on the thematic issues of a film she has not seen. I'm glad andaroo and others called her out.

There was no reason for dolce to add that jab to her review of the film year. If this was just another "filtering process" for her, she would have no reason to. This is supposed to be a year end review. She hasn't even seen Children of Men. Her comments in this thread just made it all the worse.

Dolce feels like we've been mean to her, but I think she's been mean to us.

Peace,
Mike.

Well, that's why I didn't actually review it, now did I? I used it as an example of my filtering process and what I look at and use as weight in my decisions to see or not see a movie. If I'd used End of Spear instead, I doubt you would be making such a fuss.

Anyways, its down now. You're welcome to put up your own instead. I don't really think anyone has been all the mean to me here, save one person. Don't like the material? Provide your own. bABA and Loyal and Karl are desperately looking for new main site contributors anyways it seems.

It's just a rip off of 28 Days Later, you aren't missing much.

This is a different thing. I love your actual year end review part. I agree with many of your comments on Casino Royale, and disagree with many other comments, but it's well written and a good read on films you have seen and now reviewed.

Peace,
Mike.

Hmmm that End of the Spear idea might have worked. Ain't no religious nuts arounds here................................*looks around in a worried manner*

Why take it down thou? Nobody suggested that.

False advertising sir! This one didn't have a lingering shot of Cillian Murphy's disturbingly alluring crotch

You'll notice I shut up after my initial questioning of her not seeing it, it's because whether or not she's right or wrong, it's not fun to have 10 people ganging up on you even if they are doing it with good intentions. So do I agree with her? No, but I can see why she'd feel cornered or have her back up, who wouldn't.

So its ok to use an example as long as its one everyone here would agree on, or not bother watching in the first place? Interesting...

And you'd be surprised about the nutsos. They come out of the woodwork when you least expect them. Actually, I'm pretty sure everyone thinks I'm ont of them (a nutso that is, though hopefully not a religious one).



This site does not get wide readership. Articles for the main page are pretty much intended for good reads for forum members. It wasn't worth the hastle having this five page fight for something that is pretty much only intended for all of you guys' pleasure (or maybe just a little pain). Its not like its some massive impact on the virtual world, or for that matter even WoKJ, that needs to be kept up for ideological purposes. About ten people read main site articles, and about ten people are totally upset by this one line. I have no need to further frustrate those ten people, since they're the only ones that read the main site anyways. If they're lost, WoKJ main site has nothing.

I still stand by explaining how I filter movies, so I'm not about to edit that one line out and keep the rest of the article up. I prefer instead to just take down the whole thing, so you guys can go read Jeff and Loyal's top ten lists and maybe have a better time with them. Its just movies, not really worth being called mean and a bitch about. And anyways, I take this stuff too personally, so its probably time for me to ease off for awhile.