300

[Crusader]

I liked it too. I mean, blood, gore, this is as close as we'll ever get to ever getting real gladiator fights.

There was a story? Oh, right, something about the guy's wife and politics. Shift-deleted that part from memory.

[kandrathe]

I knew that going in. I tried. In order to enjoy 300, I would have had to shut down to the point of being declared brain dead. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

For me, it jangles the same nerve that it does for you, and yet like Tal, I enjoyed only the visceral "Terminator" action (I agree the talking parts were inane). The other part of me, who hates to see history Hollywoodized, hated every single minute of it. I'm the kind of person who after seeing a film based on a historical event will go and reread the history as to not have my memory of the actual events be warped.

Some other's I've had to purge from my memory.

1. Pearl Harbor
2. Gladiator
3. Titanic
4. Cold Mountain
5. Braveheart
6. The Scarlet Letter
7. The Patriot
8. Windtalkers
9. Pocahontas
10. Gandi

I'm sure there are many others.

[Jester]

10. Gandi

Gandhi? It might have been a touch saccharine, but it certainly stands out on the above list of crap.

-Jester

[Lissa]

2. Gladiator

A friend of mine in Tucson is a big history buff, especially of the Roman Empire. He watched Gladiator and he said the only real historical inaccuracies that were portraited were the armors. He noted that they mixed armors from around the first century A.D. with armors from the third century A.D. Outside of the situation involving the protagonist and antagonist, the history was pretty close.

8. Windtalkers

I take it you've never met any of the Navajo? They are one of the few tribes that still have a large number of speakers of their native tongue and the code talkers, which Windtalkers is based off of, are primarly the cause of why the young Navajo still learn their language. While there we some inaccuracies, the general film is historic (the codetalkers, if it looked like capture was imminent were to be killed to keep the code safe, the Japanese never broke the Navajo code).

10. Gandi

I think Jester hit this one pretty well.

[Lissa]

Hi,

I'd supposed that the title referred to the 300 Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae. But after seeing the movie, I now know it stands for its score on the one-to-ten suck-o-meter.

Clearly conceived by a no talent jerk who was too ignorant to make it accurate and too stupid to make it original, this crappy, modernized, Americanized, bastardized story received the treatment it deserved in the lousy (over) acting, the loud and inane score, the flashy yet boring effects. Except for the humor value of a Greek Gollum as the traitor, and the one historic line (We will fight in the shade), this movie meets the definition of pornography (it has no socially redeeming value) without even the prurient appeal.

This was possibly the worse movie I've seen since Titanic.

--Pete

To me, it was just a popcorn movie, just guilty pleasures. I knew going it that is was loosely (very loosely) based on Thermopylae. I knew it was completely in accurate when I saw the Spartans not wearing the heavy armor that they were known to use as Hoplites.

[kandrathe]

A friend of mine in Tucson is a big history buff, especially of the Roman Empire. He watched Gladiator and he said the only real historical inaccuracies that were portraited were the armors. He noted that they mixed armors from around the first century A.D. with armors from the third century A.D. Outside of the situation involving the protagonist and antagonist, the history was pretty close.

Taken from a historical review for speed...<blockquote>As the worst of films, “Gladiator” provides a perfect example. Right from the opening scene, the inaccuracies are legion. First, there was no last great battle with the Germanic tribes on the eve of Marcus Aurelius’ death. There was a great daylong battle late in the campaigning season of A.D. 179, but Marcus died on March 17 of 180, just as he was about to launch another great military campaign. One could say that the scriptwriters needed to foreshorten the chronology here to save time in a long movie, but they certainly played fast and loose with some other aspects of the battle. I have found no attested parallel to the war dog of the Roman commander Maximus, the movie’s hero, and if there were one, it would not have been a German shepherd, a breed that did not exist in Antiquity. The use of fire-hurling catapults and mechanical dart launchers against the oncoming barbarians was certainly dramatic but probably unhistorical. By and large such weapons were too cumbersome for use on the open battlefield and were confined to more static siege warfare.

The whole movie has radically compressed the chronology of the Emperor Commodus’ reign. He became sole emperor upon his father’s death in March of 180 and was assassinated almost thirteen years later on December 31, 192.Although the time encompassed by “Gladiator” is not precisely indicated, it would appear that no more than two years could have elapsed before Commodus was killed. Within that time-frame, however, the script does utilize some historical facts: Commodus was fascinated with shows of beast hunting, chariot racing, and gladiatorial combat; he did train himself in those skills; and eventually, to the ultimate scandal of all classes, he fought in the public arena as the kind of light-armed gladiator known as a secutor (pursuer). In an inscription, he even boasted of his 620 victories in gladiatorial combat.

In real life, Commodus’ eldest living sister, Lucilla, did plot with a number of senators to kill him within the first two years of his reign. As the movie indicates, she had been married to Marcus’ former co-emperor, Lucius Verus. After that, however, specific historical details and the movie part company. Only fourteen when she married Verus in 164, Lucilla had borne him three children before she was widowed in 169. Obviously, the character identified as their eight-year-old son named Lucius Verus in the movie is unhistorical. In fact, their only son and one of their two daughters had died as infants. Their other daughter (of unknown name) survived to be engaged to Claudius Pompeianus Quintianus, either a nephew or son by a previous marriage of Lucilla’s second husband, Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus. Both this daughter and Quintianus participated in the plot of 182 but appear nowhere in the movie.

Interestingly, Lucilla did have a young son by Pompeianus at the time in which the movie takes place. About six years old in 182, he was Aurelius Commodus Pompeianus, who lived to become a consul in 209. He had survived because his father had never opposed Commodus.

Lucilla had nothing in common with her son’s father. Both she and her mother, the Empress Faustina, bitterly resented the marriage that Marcus had hastily arranged between her and Claudius Pompeianus. It had taken place only nine or ten months after Verus’ death, before the proper mourning period had ended. Lucilla was unhappy with the extreme difference in their ages: She was only nineteen and a half, and he may have been over fifty. Both she and her mother found him socially beneath their dignity. He was the son of a provincial Equestrian from Antioch in Syria. This marriage was the source of the cold relations between Lucilla and Marcus that the movie never adequately explains.

Having been an Augusta as the wife of Verus, Lucilla undoubtedly wanted to be one again. Marcus, however, had chosen Pompeianus as her second husband precisely because he was a loyal and valuable military officer who could protect the Imperial family but whose social station foreclosed any ambitions of his own for the throne. Even though his son or nephew Quintianus, his wife, and his stepdaughter were at the center of the plot in 182, he was completely uninvolved. That was fortunate for him. Unlike in the movie, the unsuccessful conspirators were executed, even Lucilla after she was briefly exiled on the Isle of Capri.

Except for a love of the games, there is not much that is historical about “Gladiator’s” version of Commodus. In the movie he appears to be in his mid-to-late twenties, is of average build, has dark hair, and fights with his right hand. In reality, he was only eighteen and a half when Marcus died, had a very strong physique, sported golden blond hair, and fought with his left hand. Moreover, he was not single, as the movie represents him. In 178, at the age of sixteen, he had been married to Bruttia Crispina, and it was not until after the conspiracy of 182 that he divorced her for adultery and executed her.

The picture of Commodus as a man starved for paternal affection, lusting after his sister, and finally murdering his father to avoid the ultimate rejection of being passed over for as his father’s successor has some support in the often tendentious and sensationalistic sources. The Life of Commodus in the notorious pastiche of fact and fiction known as the Historia Augusta takes pornographic delight in depicting the drunkenness and sexual excesses that every ancient rhetorical hack stereotypically ascribed to a tyrannical ruler. Ironically, Lucilla is the only sister with whom he is not accused of incestuous relations, but the filmmakers are to be commended for not focusing on the biographer’s unreliable charges to make “Gladiator” into another cheap sexploitation epic of Roman Imperial orgies.

One might argue that the serious nature evident since boyhood and the self-control of a Stoic philosopher, which was clearly demonstrated at the death of Commodus’ twin brother, would not have made Marcus Aurelius a very warm or demonstrative parent. Nevertheless, the picture that emerges from his correspondence with his beloved teacher Cornelius Fronto and from his own Meditations is one of a kind, sympathetic, and affectionate man. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that he had at least fourteen children with his wife of thirty years simply out of a grim sense of Stoic duty.

The idea presented in the movie that Marcus had decided to pass over Commodus and restore the old free Republic is ludicrous. Nobody, not even the real senators who plotted against Commodus, wanted to restore what people today think of as the Republic. The office of emperor was a recognized necessity. The main source of friction between the emperors and a number of senators was the question of how that office should be filled. Leading senators wanted to be able to choose a mature man of experience and proven merit from their ranks. The soldiers, however, always favored hereditary succession by birth or adoption, and without dynastic loyalty, it was too easy for an ambitious general to use his soldiers to contest the choice of a new emperor other than himself.

The ancient reports of Marcus Aurelius fearing that Commodus was an unsuitable candidate for emperor and that Commodus brought about his death are fictions designed to discredit Commodus and justify his overthrow. Contrary to the picture presented in “Gladiator,” Commodus was in fact joint ruler with his father from the beginning of 177, when Commodus became the youngest of Roman consuls up to that time. From August of 178, they jointly commanded the war on the Danube until Marcus’ death.

Marcus was not quite 59 when he died, perhaps of plague. “Gladiator” does capture his kindly and philosophical nature, but his decrepit frailty, thin beard, and wispy fly-away hair in the movie bear little resemblance to his statues, busts, and portraits on coins, even one depicting him at age 56. They show him as a fairly vigorous man with a full beard and a thick head of curly hair. Of course, official portraiture tends to improve on nature, and Aurelius himself complained of poor health. He also endured war and two winters along the Danube, and if he did contract plague in the second winter, he might even have looked preternaturally aged just before he died and as he appears in “Gladiator.”

Unfortunately, there are no portraits with which to compare the Hero of “Gladiator”, the Spanish general Maximus. He never existed at all. He is a pastiche, a composite portrait of the kind of able men from the provinces who were tangible proof of Marcus Aurelius’ insistence on promoting men because of merit wherever he found them. Like Marcus himself, Trajan, and Hadrian, the character Maximus came from a provincial family in Spain. His longing for home and family in the movie echo sentiments that Herodian attributes to Claudius Pompeianus, whose career as a military officer from the provinces resembled his in many ways. The man who most likely held the supreme field command in the great battle of 179 on which the opening scene is probably based was Taruttienus Paternus, senior prefect of the Praetorian Guard, who was later executed for supposed involvement in the plot of 182.

One wishes that the late Oliver Reed’s last character, the lanista or gladiatorial impresario Proximo were an historical character, but, of course, if he were, his name would be the Latin “Proximus” and not the Italian “Proximo”. Symbolically, perhaps, Latin gets butchered even more when Proximo brings his troop of gladiators to Rome where they enter a building labeled LUDUS MAGNUS GLADIATORES, instead of LUDUS MAGNUS GLADIATORUM. Finally, Proximo wrongly claims that Marcus Aurelius had banned gladiatorial contests and thereby forced him to leave Rome to scratch out a living in hick towns like North African Zucchabar, which, mirabile dictu, really was a Roman colony in Mauretania. In fact, Aurelius had enacted legislation to guarantee the continuance of gladiatorial games in hard economic times.

The depiction of gladiatorial armor, weapons, and combat in “Gladiator” is riddled with errors. By the second century A.D., gladiators had been divided into strict categories according to their arms, armor, and style of fighting. In most cases, gladiators of different types were paired in certain standard combinations. For example, since Commodus always fought as a secutor, Maximus should have faced him as a retiarius, a man who fought with a circular net, a trident, and a short sword (gladius) and whose only protection was on his sword arm. Moreover, true gladiatorial combats were not the kind of mass melees often shown in the movie but individual duels fought under strict rules enforced by referees.

Despite its many specific inaccuracies, “Gladiator” is the best of films because it does vividly and convincingly portray some important general truths about the late second-century-A.D. Roman World. Many people find the movie offensively violent, bloody, and gory. Unfortunately, life in the ancient world in general was much more violent and gruesomely bloody than life in modern industrial democracies. Marcus Aurelius spent most of his reign in fighting wars. Despite the misplaced fire-hurling catapults, the brutal hand-to-hand butchery of the opening battle gives a good idea of the ugly face of legionary combat and the gruesome ways in which one could be killed or wounded. Indeed, such scenes are graphically depicted on the famous column that commemorates Aurelius’ Northern Wars.

Not just on the battlefield but everywhere people constantly confronted sudden violent or painful death. People were acutely aware that we are, as the character Proximo, misquoting Horace (Odes, 4.7.6), more than once said, “shadows and dust.” Murder was frequent in crowded, poorly policed cities, and the countryside was constantly being raided by brigands and invaders. After the abortive plot of 182, the senatorial class again faced the kind of murderous purge such as had occurred earlier under Caligula, Nero, and Domitian. The brutal murders of Maximus’ wife and son in “Gladiator” mirror that reality. Marcus avoided such extremes in dealing with his domestic opponents, but those who were loyal to him did not scruple to cut off the head of the hapless Avidius Cassius and send it to him. Plague had ravaged the Roman Empire since the return of Lucius Verus’ army from Parthia in 166, and the lack of modern medicines rendered all diseases more deadly than now. Death rates were very high. Marcus himself had buried his wife and eight of their fourteen known children.

With the rictus of the Grim Reaper visible at every turn, people of all classes were preoccupied with the prospect of imminent death. That preoccupation permeates Marcus Aurelius’ own Meditations, and it is summed up in the words that Maximus ascribes to Marcus in the movie: “Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back.”</blockquote>

[Ashock]

Hi,

I'd supposed that the title referred to the 300 Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae. But after seeing the movie, I now know it stands for its score on the one-to-ten suck-o-meter.

Clearly conceived by a no talent jerk who was too ignorant to make it accurate and too stupid to make it original, this crappy, modernized, Americanized, bastardized story received the treatment it deserved in the lousy (over) acting, the loud and inane score, the flashy yet boring effects. Except for the humor value of a Greek Gollum as the traitor, and the one historic line (We will fight in the shade), this movie meets the definition of pornography (it has no socially redeeming value) without even the prurient appeal.

This was possibly the worse movie I've seen since Titanic.

--Pete

The movie is based entirely on a comic book, not on actual historic events. This is why so much of it is cartoonish and totally unrealistic. Persians did not look normal, because they were portrayed as classic comic book villains... not real. It does not try to pass itself off as a piece of history or even close. If you've ever seen Sin City, it is of that type.

Having said that, and also considering that most people I've talked to loved it, I have to admit that I did not. But for different reasons. Nothing fancy..... I just thought the battles sucked. Pure and simple.

[Ashock]

For me, it jangles the same nerve that it does for you, and yet like Tal, I enjoyed only the visceral "Terminator" action (I agree the talking parts were inane). The other part of me, who hates to see history Hollywoodized, hated every single minute of it. I'm the kind of person who after seeing a film based on a historical event will go and reread the history as to not have my memory of the actual events be warped.

Some other's I've had to purge from my memory.

1. Pearl Harbor - So-so.
2. Gladiator - Awesome
3. Titanic - did not see.
4. Cold Mountain - So-so
5. Braveheart - Very good
6. The Scarlet Letter - Did not see
7. The Patriot - Ok
8. Windtalkers - Who cares.
9. Pocahontas - What?
10. Gandi - *Yawn*

I'm sure there are many others.

Modifications.

[DeeBye]

Hi,
I knew that going in. I tried. In order to enjoy 300, I would have had to shut down to the point of being declared brain dead. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I liked the part where they yelled a lot and savagely battled in slow-motion :wub:

What can I say? I'm a sucker for movies like this. I loved King Arthur too!

[--Pete]

Hi,

First off, let me welcome you to the Lounge. I hope you have a long and pleasant stay.

I am sorry but I am totally opposite to you. I could consider Titanic and 300 as one of the best movie I have ever watched.

Very well. However, since you state an opinion without supporting it, there is not much else to say other than that we disagree.

I don't know what kind of movie you prefer but these are the ones, which the whole world have admire.

The opinion of 'the whole world' is not a great indicator. 'The whole world' preferred VHS to BetaMax, WinTel to Mac or Linux, RAW to Universe.

Actually, 300 is hardly universally admired. It did win a number of lesser awards, and it was a financial success, but it received mixed reviews, and it was (as far as I know) not even nominated for any Academy Awards. I've already discussed why I didn't care for it, and have nothing to add there.

You are a little more correct in claiming that Titanic was admired. It did make a lot of money and it did receive a number of significant awards. There is no question that, technically, it was a brilliant film. But a number of critics have panned it for its lack of a significant story, for its one dimensional static characters, and for its blatant attempted manipulation of the audience's emotions.

In addition to those flaws, the movie was ruined for me by the character of the female lead, Rose DeWitt Bukater (played by Kate Winslet). She starts out as a vapid twit who is willing to prostitute herself for the comfort of herself and her mother. She lacks the firmness of character to abide by her decision and the intelligence to plot another course of action. And after a lifetime of experience, she's still a vapid twit who, somehow, sees destroying (in effect) the Heart of the Ocean as a valid gesture -- of what is not clear.

The movie is a tribute to mindless romanticism overcoming intellect. The most obnoxious example of this is the unneeded death of the male lead (Jack Dawson played by Leonardo DiCaprio). The only character with even a hint of three dimensionality, Jack is a smart, creative, active individual. Against all odds, he manages to find a way to save one person from freezing and drowning. That person should have been him, but instead it is Rose. Rose, as a woman and a first class passenger, would have had no difficulty entering a lifeboat. Had she done so, she would have ensured her survival and greatly increased the odds for her <strike>love toy</strike> beloved. In one of the most revolting examples of stupid sentimentality ever filmed, she refuses to save herself and spare Jack the responsibility of protecting her, thus insuring his death. The only things she accomplishes in the course of this film is to destroy two worthwhile objects, Jack and the Heart.

If you want to see a movie with character development, plot, interesting emotions, try Gone With the Wind, or Casablanca, or Fried Green Tomatoes. But three hours of great cinematography unsupported by plot, character development, or anything more than a hint of intelligence is not entertainment, it is torture. Had I not been taken to it by friends, I would have walked out within the first half hour -- and I would have mildly disliked it instead of violently loathing it.

--Pete

[Jim]

Hi Movie Critic,

I LOVED the 300 as I did with "The 300 Spartans", the Large Popcorn was also good :wub:

You want Historical accuracy...> Watch a Documentry :P


This is for ALL you Movie critics:

Dream Job: Movie Critic:

So if free movies, all-you-can-eat popcorn, and an unlimited supply of Goobers sound appealing to the critic in you, grab your notebook, invest in a lighted pen for those dark theaters...and dream on!

http://www.salary.com/careers/layouthtmls/...er20_Par52.html

Criticism goes beyond opinion:

Anyone can write about the highs and lows of a Hollywood offering, but to perfect the art of criticism takes a deeper understanding of the industry. A movie review shows an opinion, but critics can't just say, "I hated it." Understanding what it takes to make a film allows critics to craft opinions into informative reviews.

So you want to try your hand at movie reviewing? Start by watching as many films as you can to form a basis of comparison. Frequent your local video store and troll cable channels for a wide selection, but don't limit your intake to moving pictures. "Read as much as you can about movies, including serious books about the business, genres, and the industry," said Kimmel.

Loren King, entertainment writer for the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune, recommends taking movie reviewing one step further into artistic criticism. She feels it's important "to understand the purpose of critical analysis and how to combine it with something fresh that you have to say."

Studying the industry allows critics to tell a Foley artist from a cinematographer, and combined with an understanding of the science and art of criticism enables good reviewers to articulate why they liked or hated a

[shoju]

300 was an ok flick, I probably enjoyed it more because I'm a HUGE fan of Miller's printed work. I have no problem with the historical inaccuracies of movies like this or Gladiator, for 2 reasons.

1.) Like someone else said, if I wanted to watch something accurate, I would watch a documentary.
2.) The movies were great for what they were.

300 - is a wonderfully stylized action movie. The scenes, the costumes, the score, and the brutality were very intriguing to me.

Gladiator. I love the story. I love the treachery, the suspense, the conflict.


I will say though, that one of the joys of cinema is that you can most assuredly find things that you will like, and sadly because we can't all have the same taste, find things that you loathe. If I could, I would suggest

American History X - unbelievably compelling, and disturbing movie. Watching this, I wanted to give Academy Awards to both Edward Norton and Edward Furlong for their performances.

Mirrormask - A style flick. Neil Gaman and Dave McKean are my favorites in mondern comics. I find Gaman to be a compelling storyteller, and McKean blows my mind with his art. It is a very Alice in Wonderland feeling story, and while it isn't a 'new' or 'different' version of the basic story, the visuals are astounding.

Cube - an independant thriller, the first of the trilogy was a great movie. It is a great watch, and left me wondering what I would do if I woke up and found myself in a very similar situation.


Guilty Pleasures:

Event Horizon - God I love this movie. I found a european Director's cut and watched it, and was grossed out. Sci-fi horror at it's grisly over the top best.

Shaun of the Dead - Because Simon Pegg is hilarious. He is the only reason I went to see the new Star Trek movie. Zombies, humor, and a pub.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I LOVED the 300

Yes, but why?

You want Historical accuracy...> Watch a Documentry :P

I enjoyed Braveheart, Spartacus, The Lion in Winter and many other historically inaccurate movies. Re-read what I said. I didn't like 300 because it was bad history, I disliked it because it was crappy (IMO) entertainment.

While there is not much to discuss about our respective final opinions, we both could learn a lot by discussing the factors that led to those opinions.

--Pete

[Frag]

/snip
I enjoyed Braveheart

I think that's the crux of the matter, I abhorred Braveheart but found 300 very funny and somewhat entertaining. We have an award given yearly at school called the Braveheart award for the most historically inaccurate movie and 300 did indeed win it as well. However, I guess it's a matter of expectations or what suspension of reality you can accept. To me, Braveheart purported itself as realistic, while 300 seemed to me to be a legend from the 'righteous' viewpoint.

YMMV,
~FragB)

[--Pete]

Hi,

1.) Like someone else said, if I wanted to watch something accurate, I would watch a documentary.

And, once again, I repeat that that is irrelevant -- it's not a bad history, it's a bad movie.

2.) The movies were great for what they were.

Matter of opinion, and we disagree on 300 -- Gladiator was better, but again a bit shallow.

If I could, I would suggest

American History X

Looks good, added to NetFlix queue.

Mirrormask

Could go either way. On NetFlix queue but I wish it were an instant download -- may be a while before I bump it to position 1.

Cube

Ditto.

Event Horizon

Another version of Alien? Added to queue, will eventually watch.

Shaun of the Dead

Doesn't look like my cup of tea -- I'll pass unless I find it streaming somewhere.

Thanks for the suggestions -- I'll check them out.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

1.) Like someone else said, if I wanted to watch something accurate, I would watch a documentary.

My only issue with psuedo-documentary movies are that today's youth do not know or care about the difference between the real and Hollywood versions. Other times, people don't even know that what they are watching is a remake or adaptation of an earlier made movie, story, or play.

Have you read "Odyssey" by Homer? Or, did you happen to watch, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" Most of what makes the 2nd most interesting is the literary allusion to the former. But, not knowing classical Greek, or southern literature would not preclude anyone from enjoying the film.

If if makes you feel any better, I also mostly find faults with books that are turned into films, and abhor books that are written after the movie is made. So, the movie, "300" gets two strikes in my book. First, it was loosely based on one of the most important battles in the history of western civilization, and second it was made into a movie from a graphic novel that was a much better medium for telling the story. Both the graphic novel, and the movie however were naught but mental pablum meant to titillate and entertain.

P.S. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with titillation and entertainment. There is something very id affirming in a "dick" flick, as my wife is want to call them.

[Vandiablo]

the Large Popcorn was also good :wub:

oh alright I'll tone it down

Ha!<strike> I love you King Jim!

Not in any sick perverted way (at least not yet) but more like, hmm, like an uncle.*

I love you Uncle KingJim</strike>!
I like your sense of humor, colleague King Jim!

Now, I need to say something about the subject ... hmm ...

Regarding Titanic: For me, there were two positives about the film. First, Kate Winslet's character playing the art model. I think it's mandatory that any film over 2.5 hours have a topless woman in it, and I think it's a good rule. (That rule applied to The English Patient, and made that one more bearable :P too.) The second good thing in Titanic, was the stern rising up out of the water before the ship breaks in two -- it's really more impressive on a large screen. Compare the horror of the ship sinking to, say, the ballroom-inversion scene of The Poseidon Adventure and you can more easily appreciate the quality of Titanic.

That rich guy character in Titanic, wasn't he the same guy that was in Far And Away?? Different time period, same guy, both portrayed by Snidely Whiplash. THERE! Comparing two blockbusters with a 1970-era cartoon reference! I'm done here!

-Van

<strike>*A good uncle that keeps his hands to himself, not the other kind.</strike>

[Vandiablo]

There is something very id affirming in a "dick" flick, as my wife is want to call them.

Yeah, my wife watches detective movies. :P

Usually it's TV shows though. One of her favorites was a TV show called "Martial Law", where the dick was portrayed by Sammo Hung, a famous martial artist.

-V

[DeeBye]

Another version of Alien? Added to queue, will eventually watch.

Event Horizon was a lot like Alien, only with less Alien and more Gateway to Hell. There are several annoying characters, but all in all it was a really good movie for someone that enjoys horror. I liked it enough to buy the DVD.

American History X is really good. The story is compelling. The characters are very good. The acting is top-notch. It also features the most disturbing movie scene I have ever watched. It's the kind of scene that almost makes you feel physical pain just by watching it. I won't spoil it for you, but other people that have seen this movie know full well what I am referring to.

[kandrathe]

She sounds quite sane. Mine watches "Dancing with Anything", but then again she is an Ice Dancer.