|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 342 responses total. |
marcvh
|
|
response 233 of 342:
| 
Feb 14 17:21 UTC 2006 |
OK, I guess then it's Blockbuster's fault. You should go chew them out.
|
tod
|
|
response 234 of 342:
|
Feb 14 17:34 UTC 2006 |
Its Safeway of all places and the video is 40 year old virgin.
We'd totally forget we even rented it since it'd just up and disappeared
mysteriously. When we found it, my wife called to tell them and they said
"We want $70 for late fees otherwise we're going to send it to collections"
yet we'd never heard from them prior to this. I doubt they even knew it was
still checked out.
|
richard
|
|
response 235 of 342:
|
Feb 14 18:39 UTC 2006 |
well of course netflix just assumes that if your dog chomps on a dvd, that
you won't just send it back, that you'll send them the money to replace it
right?
/
|
tod
|
|
response 236 of 342:
|
Feb 14 18:45 UTC 2006 |
If you own a dog, they slow down your shipments.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 237 of 342:
|
Feb 14 19:11 UTC 2006 |
You let your 3-year-old watch 40 Year Old Virgin?
It would have been nice if Safeway had notified you, but that's pretty
much how the B&M rental business works -- you break even on the rental
fees and make your profit on late fees. That's part of what drives so
many people to subscription-oriented plans that don't have late fees.
If you have a Netflix disc and you damage it yourself as a result of
negligence, if you're an ethical person, you'll submit a trouble report
saying that you damaged the disc yourself and want to pay for it. If
your ethics allow it, the other option is to just mail it back and have
them assume that it was damaged in shipping. As long as this doesn't
happen too often they'll let it slide.
|
bru
|
|
response 238 of 342:
|
Feb 14 20:37 UTC 2006 |
my 4 year old grandson knows exactly how to use the dvd player, from turning
it on, to opening the slide, to putting in the dvd, to starting the dvd.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 239 of 342:
|
Feb 14 20:45 UTC 2006 |
well praise the lord!
|
richard
|
|
response 240 of 342:
|
Feb 18 01:40 UTC 2006 |
SIDEWAYS-- Watched this on dvd, really well done "road" movie, where
two middle age buddies go up to Napa Valley to drive around wine
country for a week, taste lots of pinot noires and sauvignons and
ruminate about life. I'd like to do a trip like that myself sometime,
spend a week in the countryside going from wine tasting to wine
tasting. Paul Giamatti, only slightly less neurotic than he was in
American Splendor, stars along with Thomas Haden Church and both are
terrific. Giamatti should've won the oscar for this last year, which
is probably why he'll likely win this year for what was a lesser role
in "Cinderella Man" He plays a wine obsessed writer having a mid life
crisis, unable to get published or get over his divorce. Haden Church
plays his womanizing actor buddy who is emotionally a polar opposite
of him. "Sideways" is exceptionally well written and I really enjoyed
it and would recommend it highly.
But of course if you rent "Sideways", you must buy a bottle California
Pinot Noire to enjoy with it. :)
|
happyboy
|
|
response 241 of 342:
|
Feb 18 01:45 UTC 2006 |
"I will NOT drink FUCKIN MERLOT."
|
cyklone
|
|
response 242 of 342:
|
Feb 18 04:13 UTC 2006 |
A friend of a friend dated the writer of Sideways. Apparently he's not much
different in real life from the Giamatti character.
|
tod
|
|
response 243 of 342:
|
Feb 18 05:29 UTC 2006 |
I'm not a fan of Esterlina but Pickett thinks its the best.
My personal fav is a 1997 Robert Mondavi Cabernet Sauvignon. YEE HAW!
|
other
|
|
response 244 of 342:
|
Feb 18 18:18 UTC 2006 |
SIDEWAYS was boring and pointless. An unusually complete waste of time.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 245 of 342:
|
Feb 18 18:51 UTC 2006 |
I wouldn't say there was anything particularly unusual about its
time-wasting properties but I would concur with "boring."
|
mary
|
|
response 246 of 342:
|
Feb 18 22:22 UTC 2006 |
You didn't love that scene where he melts down and pours the
wine spit down this face?
Of course, I should warn you, I'm one of those adults who would
love to be able to melt down like a two year old and get over it.
|
tod
|
|
response 247 of 342:
|
Feb 18 22:58 UTC 2006 |
I do that kind of thing about once a week.
|
richard
|
|
response 248 of 342:
|
Feb 19 05:11 UTC 2006 |
I didn't find Sideways boring at all, it was a character study, about
the interactions between people. why is it some people think that
something big has to happen storywise, some great earthshaking moment,
for a movie to be not boring. What did you want out of it Other, a
murder, a death, somebody going to jail, great catastrophies or other
things? Sideways was a very tender movie about real people in real
situations.
I liked the scene where they are out in the vineyards, and his friend
tells him his ex- just got re-married, and he cracks up, grabs a bottle
of wine, rips the cork out with his mouth, and runs maniacally out into
the fields screaming and chugging the bottle while the friend chases
him. hilarious.
|
richard
|
|
response 249 of 342:
|
Feb 19 05:16 UTC 2006 |
re #248 if Other didn't like Sideways, he would probably hate reading
Proust. Over a thousand pages and nothing much happens. Some things
aren't about the beginning and the ending, they are about the middle,
about process as opposed to a dramatic starting and stopping point.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 250 of 342:
|
Feb 19 05:17 UTC 2006 |
I found it an effective movie; it presents complex characters struggling
with realistic situations and, most of the time, with themselves. This
is a harder thing to do well; a bad action movie can still be enjoyable
as meaningless fluff, while bad drama just leaves you with the feeling
that two hours (or, unforgivably, more) of you life has been sucked away
by the big bad pretension monster.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 251 of 342:
|
Feb 19 07:07 UTC 2006 |
re #248: I can't speak for Eric but the reason *I* found it boring
was that I found the characters to be uninteresting, unsympathetic,
and unoriginal. I'm sure this isn't what actually happened, but
from the time the movie started until the point where I turned it
off without watching the end I found it hard to get this scenario
out of my head:
"Hey! Let's do a movie where a tormented writer character and
a narcissistic actor type go out on the road together, and in a
clever twist their trip turns into a voyage of self-discovery!"
"OK, but we need an angle.."
"Hmmm.. You're right. Pour me another glass of cab while I try
to come up with something.."
I thought the dialog was uninspired. I despised most (all?) of the main
characters (which is the only sure way to kill my interest in a movie:
populate it with characters that I can neither identify nor sympathize
with..) And the wine angle, really the only novel element, was pretty
much a paper-thin facade slapped onto an ordinary road movie -- in my
opinion you could have written out the wine angle and substituted it
with a dozen other things without noticably affecting the movie's
vestigial plot or predictable character development..
|
mary
|
|
response 252 of 342:
|
Feb 19 12:13 UTC 2006 |
I understand. Not all movies click with me either, even though they
are wildly popular in general.
I'm not nearly as crazy about Brokeback Mountain as most seem to be. Yeah,
it was tragic - really tragic that homosexuality was (is) treated with
such prejudice and hostility. But this particular relationship seemed to
spin around sex, not love. Both were unfaithful to each other and each
other's needs (outside of sex) didn't seem all that important or at least
get much attention. Homosexuality doesn't give someone license to use
others, like they used their wives. That was tragic too.
The movie would have been stronger had they held the homosexual
relationship to the same standards to which we hold heterosexual
relationships, despite society's prejudices. You know, moral
homosexuals. That would have been a statement.
I saw the characters as tragic, for sure, but not as posterboys for
loving and respectful behavior in homosexual relationships.
|
bru
|
|
response 253 of 342:
|
Feb 19 12:48 UTC 2006 |
I am surprised at the number of cartoons that are coming out this year.
Ant Bully
Barnyard
Cars
Doogal
Ice Age 2: The MEltdown
Over the Hedge
Hoodwinked
curious george
|
richard
|
|
response 254 of 342:
|
Feb 19 23:49 UTC 2006 |
re #252 but they weren't INTENDED to be "poster boys for loving and
respectful behaviour in a homosexual relationship", or any relationship
for that matter. That was the whole point, that tragically some people
can be in love and yet be in no way capable of returning that love or
in some cases, like with the Heath Ledger character, not even be
capable of being in the relationship for the most part.
Heath Ledger's character feels love, both for his wife and for the Jake
Gyllenhal character, but in neither case is he capable of confronting
it, or accepting that he has any ability to accept and give love as
strongly as he feels the love. "Brokeback Mountain" is a classic
Shakespearean tragedy.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 255 of 342:
|
Feb 19 23:56 UTC 2006 |
"... classic Shakespearean tragedy"
Have you ever *read* Romeo and Juliet?
|
scott
|
|
response 256 of 342:
|
Feb 19 23:58 UTC 2006 |
Well, *I* thought Sideways was pretty funny - though to be honest I watched
it in between flights at a friend's wine-tasting.
|
richard
|
|
response 257 of 342:
|
Feb 20 00:00 UTC 2006 |
re #255, yeah why? you think Romeo and Juliet is more tragic than
Brokeback Mountain? Society would not accept the relationship of Romeo
and Juliet, just as society in the rural west wouldn't accept the
relationship of the Ledger and Gyllenhall characters. There is no
place in society for one couple because they are too young, there is no
place for the other couple because they are gay. Doomed lovers from
the outset, similar stories.
|