Jason Bourne, 2016 by JEWELSTAITEFAN

I don't think this is spoilersish, so....

in the final scene between Alicia and Damon, pay attention to their words, what they say. Remember that for a few minutes.

RapKnight, have you seen Hilliary's America?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2016 2:53 AM

Thanks for the heads up. I have it on my must-see list for the summer movies.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2016 5:52 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

RapKnight, have you seen Hilliary's America?

I've not. Probably won't either. I figure it'll make me too damn angry.

And you know, no one likes it when I'm angry...

I will buy a ticket or two, just to support the cause. I hear it's getting great reviews.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2016 8:38 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

RapKnight, have you seen Hilliary's [sic] America?

I hear it's getting great reviews.

Only from people like you and JSF who were already inclined to agree with its talking points. It has a 4% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and only 2% on MetaCritic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2016 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
RapKnight, have you seen Hilliary's [sic] America?

I hear it's getting great reviews.

Only from people like you and JSF who were already inclined to agree with its talking points. It has a 4% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and only 2% on MetaCritic.

I checked both those sites to see how retarded it's viewers and "critics" are. Both of them rate any Michael Moore gibberish masquerading as documentary highly, far above real documentaries. Clearly not the sort of audience which can distinguish reality from fiction, or even attempts to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2016 1:43 AM

Ooooo, that is troubling............I think I'll wait until it hits Netflix.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

RapKnight, have you seen Hilliary's [sic] America?

I hear it's getting great reviews.

Only from people like you and JSF who were already inclined to agree with its talking points. It has a 4% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and only 2% on MetaCritic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2016 4:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
RapKnight, have you seen Hilliary's [sic] America?

I hear it's getting great reviews.

Only from people like you and JSF who were already inclined to agree with its talking points. It has a 4% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and only 2% on MetaCritic.

Ooooo, that is troubling............I think I'll wait until it hits Netflix.

SGG

Not to worry SGG. Bourne does not have any reality, facts or truth in it, so you should survive it without your head exploding, safely cocooned in your fantasy surrealism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 2:42 AM

Gee thanks!

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
RapKnight, have you seen Hilliary's [sic] America?

I hear it's getting great reviews.

Only from people like you and JSF who were already inclined to agree with its talking points. It has a 4% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and only 2% on MetaCritic.

Ooooo, that is troubling............I think I'll wait until it hits Netflix.

SGG

Not to worry SGG. Bourne does not have any reality, facts or truth in it, so you should survive it without your head exploding, safely cocooned in your fantasy surrealism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 9:08 PM

Hi guys. Long time. Been checking in lately and lmaoff at how whacked sig and its twin is. Too good. Over the edge LOL.

Anyhow, I was interested in your take on this movie. I saw bad reviews elsewhere, positive here, so I trusted you fireflyfans and went to see it today.

I can't review in full without spoiling. Simple summary: I thought the movie was poor unless you approach it in a certain state of mind.

Select to view spoiler:

This review starts very negative. There is some positive to come. Hang in there.

The first half - balony! You're an uber-spy doing uber-spy business in the middle of a city wide riot full of protesters covering their faces while they throw bombs, and you MUST know about facial recognition because you're an uber-spy, and it doesn't occur to you to wear a hat and put a scarf over your mouth? If these morons Jason and Nicki had done this small thing all would have been well. But that don't fit movie plot. *smh*

Oh yeah. Jason figured out to wear a hat in Vegas. So he knew. But not in Greece? Moron.

Ok, so you're an uber-spy with a USB drive full of of mega secrets and it doesn't occur to you to turn off the internet access of the laptop you're using before you decode and read the USB? Put the damn thing in a metal box so no signals can go in or out? Pfft. Some uber-spy.

There was plenty more like this. My eyes were rolling out of my head for the first half of the movie. Garbage.

And let's just talk about the camera shake. WTF? It is not at all clear that any fight happened with anyone other than the idiot trying to hold the camera. Compare this to Daredevil, a series on a TV budget where fighting very clearly actually happened because we could see the fight. Beautiful amazingly choreographed fighting, in terms of both the fighters and the camera motion. Bourne? Nope.

There is some positive writing-wise in this movie as far as the big picture of the plot. Riots in Greece, software privacy and piracy, several nods to the game change (good or bad?) that was Snowden. The writers were up on the current issues and I like that. I also really like how they built the tension into the final showdown, and they used a tech conference as the scene for it. Thumbs up there. I really wasn't sure what would happen in Vegas and I was looking forward to seeing how it all came together.

OK and it fulfilled that promise in a way. The movie finally made sense to me at this point: the car chase in Las Vegas. This movie (unlike the novels) was not about spys and plots and politics and the cleverness of manipulating and outsmarting your foe. It was about the pure visceral visual pleasure of those cars flying about. Watch it again and blur your eyes: blue, red, yellow, white lights. That's a deliberate color scheme developed throughout the movie, with the quickly passing blurred-but-sharp-in-the-frame visuals introduced early and developed steadily. Those colors of Las Vegas lights are reflected sharply on blurred surfaces of cars as they fly past the camera with edited cuts every second or less.

There is no telling which car is going which way and why but daaaamn those colors and blurs look cool.

Pass the bowl dude!

That car chase scene is not about understanding the reality of it, where this car turned left and that one counter-moved. It's about enjoying the visual at each second with no such deep understanding. It's about a pretty picture that changes every second. The whole movie was about setting up that visual. It was all sensibility and no sense.

You will love this movie if you are not a thinker. You will really love it if you are high. Really really high.

Sad. The novels were much better than that.

*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 4, 2016 9:12 PM

WARNING: I made no effort with spoiler tags in this post. Read at your own risk.

Except these sig and kik specific spoilers: LOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLLLOLOLLLL at you morons. Read or not I don't care. I have nothing to offer you but finger points and LOLOLOLOLOLLLLLLLOLOLLLLLL. Russian troll loooooosers.

Quote:
Originally posted by G:

Yep, their scales keep getting longer.

LOL. And to think I once respected Sig as a maybe long winded and high falutin poster but knowledgeable and therefore interesting. What's come of the posted discussions lately has made me dismiss her and her clone entirely. Insane in the membrane, both of them.

Quote:
---- spolier alert - you know the drill ----

- face recognition = hat/beard/glasses/wig/hoodie/cheesehead - something! Bourne? Nah. Gotta see Damon's mug.

OMG so lame. I read these books loooooong before they were movies and the coolness of Bourne is how he reads any situation and plays a role to blend into it and make it work for him. He can't be recognized because he finds the perfect role to play. He fools people and plays them. Matt Damon is a fine actor and he could of done the Jason Bourne of the novels in a very convincing way. But no, the writers went with cheesy action. It's sad.

Quote:
Bourne one-punches several (!) large, trained fighters, but has a hard time beating a french actor (heh).

A yep.

All I thought where it comes to that "asset" actor was: bitch get back to your dysfunctional ballet company and your sexual harassment of the ballerinas. The big baddy "asset" in the Bourne movie was the ballet company director in The Black Swan. He was better in the ballet company role, imho. But maybe that's because it was a far better movie.

It really was.

Quote:
The only thing that stuck with me afterwards was the light grey cable knit sweater the young agent wore with a white t-shirt underneath. That was a nice look. (heh).

Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about. To each his/her own eh? LOL! I will look for this is the future tho, when the movie is available online.

Quote:
Time to end the franchise imho, though the ending tells us not so fast. Bring back the German love interest!

I admit, I liked the Bourne Legacy. I would like to see what happens of the characters in that movie. I openly accept my role as a minority by expressing this opinion. So shoot me LOL.

*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2016 1:52 PM

I decided to actually answer your post (for the life of me, I don't know why
I'm doing this).

I'm assuming that your post is in reference to our ongoing friendly feud on RWED. Why do you bring politics into the cinema discussion board?

I don't like it when a movie franchise tries to pull a fast one and pushes a movie solely for monetary gain.

Basically, I feel that they chose to bring Matt Damon back as Jason Borne to exploit his popularity. Okay, this is what Hollywood does for a living. But every once in a while they produce a good cinema experience that doesn't
suck. It seems that more and more these days that we are getting shit and "they're" trying to pass it off as filet mignon.

I love a good spy thriller:

2001's Spy Game comes to mind.
2011's MI: Ghost Protocol (except for the ending).
2015's Bridge of Spies
1965's The Ipcress File
1994's True Lies
1990's The Hunt for Red October (one of my favorites)
2015's Spy (surprisingly good)
2010's Salt
2015's MI: Rogue Nation
2002's The Bourne Identity

Just to name a few that I actually watched. I know that these movies are a
fantasy escape, like most, but what makes you think my head will explode
when presented with "real" facts/truth? You are referring to my
observations and comments when I post in RWED, to which you disagree. I get that. But bringing that here to Cinema, it just doesn't fit or make sense.
Of course, you could do what you want, it is a free country.

Just wanted to speak my piece.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2016 5:56 PM

Is SGG whining about a thread which BELONGS in Cinema forum getting diverted to a RW exchange? Really? After putting an EXPLICITLY RWED TOPIC in General Discussion forum? Really?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60670

If you are speaking to me, I thought you had delved into RW with your comment, but upon reflection you may have not intended to. I did consider the ramifications but did not think I was the initiator.

I tried to make clear that although you were responding to the Hilliary's America topic, I did still recommend Bourne.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2016 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I decided to actually answer your post (for the life of me, I don't know why
I'm doing this).

...

Just to name a few that I actually watched. I know that these movies are a
fantasy escape, like most, but what makes you think my head will explode
when presented with "real" facts/truth? You are referring to my
observations and comments when I post in RWED, to which you disagree. I get that. But bringing that here to Cinema, it just doesn't fit or make sense.
Of course, you could do what you want, it is a free country.

I'm confused. Are you replying to me?

*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2016 4:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Anyhow, I was interested in your take on this movie. I saw bad reviews elsewhere, positive here, so I trusted you fireflyfans and went to see it today.

I can't review in full without spoiling. Simple summary: I thought the movie was poor unless you approach it in a certain state of mind.

I am sorry you did not find it enjoyable. It was not my intention to mislead you or anybody else.

Quote:

Select to view spoiler:

This review starts very negative. There is some positive to come. Hang in there.

The first half - balony! You're an uber-spy doing uber-spy business in the middle of a city wide riot full of protesters covering their faces while they throw bombs, and you MUST know about facial recognition because you're an uber-spy, and it doesn't occur to you to wear a hat and put a scarf over your mouth? If these morons Jason and Nicki had done this small thing all would have been well. But that don't fit movie plot. *smh*

Oh yeah. Jason figured out to wear a hat in Vegas. So he knew. But not in Greece? Moron.

Ok, so you're an uber-spy with a USB drive full of of mega secrets and it doesn't occur to you to turn off the internet access of the laptop you're using before you decode and read the USB? Put the damn thing in a metal box so no signals can go in or out? Pfft. Some uber-spy.

There was plenty more like this. My eyes were rolling out of my head for the first half of the movie. Garbage.

And let's just talk about the camera shake. WTF? It is not at all clear that any fight happened with anyone other than the idiot trying to hold the camera. Compare this to Daredevil, a series on a TV budget where fighting very clearly actually happened because we could see the fight. Beautiful amazingly choreographed fighting, in terms of both the fighters and the camera motion. Bourne? Nope.

There is some positive writing-wise in this movie as far as the big picture of the plot. Riots in Greece, software privacy and piracy, several nods to the game change (good or bad?) that was Snowden. The writers were up on the current issues and I like that. I also really like how they built the tension into the final showdown, and they used a tech conference as the scene for it. Thumbs up there. I really wasn't sure what would happen in Vegas and I was looking forward to seeing how it all came together.

OK and it fulfilled that promise in a way. The movie finally made sense to me at this point: the car chase in Las Vegas. This movie (unlike the novels) was not about spys and plots and politics and the cleverness of manipulating and outsmarting your foe. It was about the pure visceral visual pleasure of those cars flying about. Watch it again and blur your eyes: blue, red, yellow, white lights. That's a deliberate color scheme developed throughout the movie, with the quickly passing blurred-but-sharp-in-the-frame visuals introduced early and developed steadily. Those colors of Las Vegas lights are reflected sharply on blurred surfaces of cars as they fly past the camera with edited cuts every second or less.

There is no telling which car is going which way and why but daaaamn those colors and blurs look cool.

Pass the bowl dude!

That car chase scene is not about understanding the reality of it, where this car turned left and that one counter-moved. It's about enjoying the visual at each second with no such deep understanding. It's about a pretty picture that changes every second. The whole movie was about setting up that visual. It was all sensibility and no sense.

You will love this movie if you are not a thinker. You will really love it if you are high. Really really high.

Sad. The novels were much better than that.

*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*

I fail so see some of your points or complaints.

Select to view spoiler:

Riot scene. Nikki was not aware she had been identified from Iceland, nor tracked from there. Should she have disguised? Perhaps, but she was not a Treadstone field operative, and cover-up gear would make her a target of the riot police. Bourne had been in Greece for months without attracting attention from the crooks at Langley. His border fight scene, nekkid from the waist up? You want him to wear a haji or buka or mumu? He was not recognized, even with drones and satellites everywhere. His side job of winning every fight he enters, he was not detected from this, even after many fights for weeks or months. He has no reason to think he is being looked for in Greece. Nikki finds him in another fight, but he does not find out from her until the square that she is in deep with the cyber geek (pseudo-Snowden) so he does not know she is targeted for tracking. By the times he finds out, at the square, he wants the teams and resources to focus on him, not her, because he expects he will more easily evade them than her. But he also does not know how many different levels are seeking him actively at this site. He did not know this was uber-spy business when she noted him to meet her at the square, and she was not with the agency anyhow.
You need a better argument to convince me this is a hole in the plot.

Laptop owned by cyber geek? The cyber geek was supposed to know the contents of the drive and the security required, and this was his laptop, his location (Bourne did not choose the location), and he maybe thought his security was up to the task of hackers. Bourne needed to trust him or at least his resources to find out what was in the files. It wasn't any physical connection, right? It was a wireless access via a non-connection hacked in reverse, right?
I fail to see how Bourne could have done more while ensuring he did not damage or corrupt the equipment needed to decrypt the data. You need to explain better how this is, logically. Otherwise I am not currently convinced this is a hole in the plot.

While viewing the 2 above scenes, I also wondered about these sequences but realized they had been already covered, for those paying attention.

"Fight" scene? What are you talking about? I recall more than one "fight" scene during this film.

I can agree with the lack of continuity of the chase scenes, but which film in recent years has had much continuity there? Takens, I suppose. The MI's seem to handle this well. My bar of expectations for chase scene continuity standards has been lowered too far for me to notice much anymore. Some more cars filled with Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, Kim Basinger, Meryl Streep going off a cliff might make me perk up some more.

I am not convinced there are huge plot holes, particularly the ones you claim.

I am still sorry you did not enjoy the film. I did assume there would be action scenes, and the habitual spectacular chase scene(s), but that was how the books played out as well - his is a violent profession. I did not expect Gorky Park, Eye of the Needle, 8 Million Ways to Die, Burn After Reading, The Firm, or Entrapment.

One caveat I offer is that I may have been overly enchanted by Alicia. I have never been a proponent of Damon as Bourne.

Others: SPOILER ALERT

One-punching or otherwise beating juice-monkeys is not difficult, much like it was portrayed in this film.

Don't you watch TV? All mysteries, detective work, puzzles are solved by sitting at a desk, buzzing the keyboard so the computer gives up all of the answers to every question the heroes just asked, then playing with your phone to tell somebody else to travel to another computer which will miraculously cough up more solutions after poking and prodding a screen, so the perp can be caught, convicted, and jailed - all within the hour. The talents and abilities of the solvers is only dependent upon how cool the furniture looks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2016 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I decided to actually answer your post (for the life of me, I don't know why
I'm doing this).

...

Just to name a few that I actually watched. I know that these movies are a
fantasy escape, like most, but what makes you think my head will explode
when presented with "real" facts/truth? You are referring to my
observations and comments when I post in RWED, to which you disagree. I get that. But bringing that here to Cinema, it just doesn't fit or make sense.
Of course, you could do what you want, it is a free country.

I'm confused. Are you replying to me?

*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*

Seriously SGG. Explain this post of yours. I really want to see how you explain it.

Some things at fff never change LOL. Rock on chicka.

*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2016 2:58 AM

Did I!? Now, I'm not sure. I've been doing that lately, posting to one when I meant to post/respond to another.

I apologize if I responded to you, when it was meant for JSF.
I hope that clears things up.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2016 3:04 AM

This is for Mal4Prez (I hope I got it right this time).

I actually like your post, plus the fact that you take great pains not to reveal spoilers by using the spoiler setting.

It's been a while, don't be such a stranger.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2016 3:37 AM

I rarely bring politics into Cinema unless, of course, the topic of the film is political. For example: American Sniper, Flags of Our Fathers or even Gran Torino.

Mostly I give my view and try not to spoil it for those that haven't seen the movie. Once they do, then we discuss, mainly about script, dialogue, acting, cinematography, pacing, message and overall execution. Was the movie any good. That kind of thing.

To me, it is much more important to capture lightning in a bottle or be a witness to it. Million Dollar Baby comes to mind. A perfect masterpiece of a film, that hits on all cylinders and uses all the elements in moviemaking magic. It gives you so much more than intended, and takes you in a new direction with a flick of the wrist. So subtle, that if you blink you'll miss it, but when you discover it, it makes you smile and say "will you
look at that."

That's what I like to discuss. Those little moments of subtle pure joy of
discovery, when all is revealed and yet you can't quite put your finger
on it..............the sign of a great storyteller. Always leave 'em wanting
more is the saying. That's magic.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is SGG whining about a thread which BELONGS in Cinema forum getting diverted to a RW exchange? Really? After putting an EXPLICITLY RWED TOPIC in GEneral Discussion forum? Really?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60670

If you are speaking to me, I thought you had delved into RW with your comment, but upon reflection you may have not intended to. I did consider the ramifications but did not think I was the initiator.

I tried to make clear that although you were responding to the Hilliary's America topic, I did still recommend Bourne.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2016 7:24 PM

Regarding plot holes.

There is potentially one, I have not decided yet, partly to ponder on it more, and partly to avoid spoiling my enjoyment.

Select to view spoiler:

The originating premise for this installment of the franchise. Nikki, who we have watched for 14 years now, a former CIA field support agent, decides to hack into CIA database in violation of her security training, practices, principles. No doubt understanding that many will brand her a traitor, I felt this development was treated somewhat flippantly. Some have mentioned that this topic of exposing secrets ala Snowden or wikileaks is current events, but I have not yet convinced myself that this was within her character.
Perhaps Stiles wanted out of her contract, perhaps this was intended to be a passing of the torch for female colleagues of Bourne (Joan Allen is not in this installment) from Nikki to Lee. If so, Nikki was able to survive many films without drawing credible suspicions of Bourne, and Lee has not managed to survive even one film without proving her disloyalty.
Because this is the foundational premise for the whole beginning of the film, we may need to ignore it. But as a stand-alone plot device, it does not sit right with me - at least for this character.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2016 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is SGG whining about a thread which BELONGS in Cinema forum getting diverted to a RW exchange? Really? After putting an EXPLICITLY RWED TOPIC in General Discussion forum? Really?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60670

If you are speaking to me, I thought you had delved into RW with your comment, but upon reflection you may have not intended to. I did consider the ramifications but did not think I was the initiator.

I tried to make clear that although you were responding to the Hilliary's America topic, I did still recommend Bourne.

I rarely bring politics into Cinema unless, of course, the topic of the film is political. For example: American Sniper, Flags of Our Fathers or even Gran Torino.

SGG

While claiming to avoid politics in Cinema, you do exactly the opposite. By claiming that non-political films are viewed by you as political, you bare your bias and imbalance. A biographical quasi-documentary like American Sniper (Chris Kyle really was a sniper - really), a historical reflection like Flags of Our Fathers (World War II really did happen, The Marines really did assault and take over Iwo Jima, and really planted a flag on Mount Suribachi - really), or a developing geezer-to-youth friendship like Gran Torino - yet you portray them as being political. Yet left-wing extremist hype like Michael Moore garbage you probably consider factual documentaries instead of the extremely politically motivated diatribes that they are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Did I!? Now, I'm not sure. I've been doing that lately, posting to one when I meant to post/respond to another.

I apologize if I responded to you, when it was meant for JSF.
I hope that clears things up.

SGG

You replying to JSF makes more sense. You replying to me in such a way was really odd. Made me wonder... whatever.

I admit I broke the rules by bringing up RWED stuff here, but I did so because I will never go back to those boards. There is no point. I checked in over the past few days and I've been thoroughly amused at how sig has replaced rappy as the OMWPiR (Obviously Most Whacked Poster in RWED). This is especially rich considering that the battle between Sig and Rap kept RWED alive for years. I have my own theories about this history, which are backed up by past and present events.

But what's the point? Sig/Kik is clearly a OMWPiR Russian troll. You all have proved it. Any further discussion is moot. (See what I did there?)

Anyhow, I do apologize for hijacking this thread a bit, but the Bourne movie was so obviously bad that I feel no need for further discussion of it. Also, JSF's objections to my review are meaningless. This is the tool that thought that the Tom Cruise character in Edge of Tomorrow was a misunderstood awesome hero from the get-go. I have no need to debate such a whacked brain.

Posters on this site are good for a laugh now and then, I do admit.

Yeah, I'll probably continue to to be scarce, because there is no point in posting here. No minds that remain at this site will ever change, nor will they have discussions that are worth while. The only upside to checking in is to enjoy the irony of our local "intellectual" siggy jumping on the Drumph wagon.

OK, I may check in again from time to time just to enjoy the fallout of that lol. Signym is all for Trump. There is no emoji good enough for this.

I have so thoroughly hijacked. Sorry. Ban me. :p

*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2016 4:46 AM

Hey M4P,

There is no need to apologize for anything. You spoke your mind and that's what this site is about, a la Firefly, Browncoat, Serenity style. I have my own theory about some posters here, including myself, but I digress.

Good to hear from you, nonetheless.

My crime, if you will, is continuing to post (often when I have a little down time at work), but, from time to time, I have taken a break because,
believe it or not, I do the normal day to day things everyone else does.
But you know I do appreciate your take on film and I try not to bring the
heavy load of politics, especially with the aforementioned folks.

To be honest, I did get caught up in the craziness of it all and actually
lost my senses, what little I had left, along the way on a couple of
occasions. So I know what you mean about keeping your distance. Thanks for bringing a little sanity to the board.

Your friend,

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Did I!? Now, I'm not sure. I've been doing that lately, posting to one when I meant to post/respond to another.

I apologize if I responded to you, when it was meant for JSF.
I hope that clears things up.

SGG

You replying to JSF makes more sense. You replying to me in such a way was really odd. Made me wonder... whatever.

I admit I broke the rules by bringing up RWED stuff here, but I did so because I will never go back to those boards. There is no point. I checked in over the past few days and I've been thoroughly amused at how sig has replaced rappy as the OMWPiR (Obviously Most Whacked Poster in RWED). This is especially rich considering that the battle between Sig and Rap kept RWED alive for years. I have my own theories about this history, which are backed up by past and present events.

But what's the point? Sig/Kik is clearly a OMWPiR Russian troll. You all have proved it. Any further discussion is moot. (See what I did there?)

Anyhow, I do apologize for hijacking this thread a bit, but the Bourne movie was so obviously bad that I feel no need for further discussion of it. Also, JSF's objections to my review are meaningless. This is the tool that thought that the Tom Cruise character in Edge of Tomorrow was a misunderstood awesome hero from the get-go. I have no need to debate such a whacked brain.

Posters on this site are good for a laugh now and then, I do admit.

Yeah, I'll probably continue to to be scarce, because there is no point in posting here. No minds that remain at this site will ever change, nor will they have discussions that are worth while. The only upside to checking in is to enjoy the irony of our local "intellectual" siggy jumping on the Drumph wagon.

OK, I may check in again from time to time just to enjoy the fallout of that lol. Signym is all for Trump. There is no emoji good enough for this.

I have so thoroughly hijacked. Sorry. Ban me. :p

*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2016 4:55 AM

Hey JSF,

Yes, Michael Moore's films are extremely politically motivated and very left. I reject the notion that I am imbalanced, and yes we all have biases. And yes, the films I mentioned are political to varying degrees, and based on real stories.

I am not afraid to admit that. You have your beliefs as do I. I think that's about it, nothing more to discuss. We agree to disagree, as usual.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is SGG whining about a thread which BELONGS in Cinema forum getting diverted to a RW exchange? Really? After putting an EXPLICITLY RWED TOPIC in General Discussion forum? Really?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60670

If you are speaking to me, I thought you had delved into RW with your comment, but upon reflection you may have not intended to. I did consider the ramifications but did not think I was the initiator.

I tried to make clear that although you were responding to the Hilliary's America topic, I did still recommend Bourne.

I rarely bring politics into Cinema unless, of course, the topic of the film is political. For example: American Sniper, Flags of Our Fathers or even Gran Torino.

SGG

While claiming to avoid politics in Cinema, you do exactly the opposite. By claiming that non-political films are viewed by you as political, you bare your bias and imbalance. A biographical quasi-documentary like American Sniper (Chris Kyle really was a sniper - really), a historical reflection like Flags of Our Fathers (World War II really did happen, The Marines really did assault and take over Iwo Jima, and really planted a flag on Mount Suribachi - really), or a developing geezer-to-youth friendship like Gran Torino - yet you portray them as being political. Yet left-wing extremist hype like Michael Moore garbage you probably consider factual documentaries instead of the extremely politically motivated diatribes that they are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2016 6:50 PM