>Orbit_Established got a bonafide Tyler Perry hater to
>sit down, stop what he was doing, watch this film AND
>ADMIT THAT IT WAS GOOD. For this guy to admit the film was
>"good" in the open, he definitely thought the film was
>"great,"
>but most certainly couldn't admit it.

Wrong it was "good" the same way that Crash was "good".

Ie a movie that did a few things right but that shouldn't be lauded as masterpiece cuz it isn't...and it isn't great.



>I used a shock post title to get you to watch a
>Tyler Perry film that was well-made, that you were
>"engaged(your words)" in, and that you admitted to
>everyone was "good."
>
>Two points for the Orbster

Ok...that doesn't excuse the other pieces of shit he's made.


>Translation: "I slept. Tyler Perry made a damn
>good movie."

I haven't slept, because his other movies weren't good.


>Translation: "I liked this film a lot and as family movies
>with a slight serious tone goes, its one of the better
>ones I've seen."

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.


>Hey, you act like I pulled those from thing air.
>
>Those are academy award winners, doggie.

I think it's pretty clear by now that I don't put a lot of stock in to the academy. Unlike you.


>Translation: "The acting was good, the characters were
>good, the script was well written, which is why I cared
>about the characters and what they did."

LMAO!

No, the script wasn't well written. It was adequately written. Josh Grisham is an adequate writer, doesn't mean he's a good writer. That's why I made the comparison.

And actually I didn't care about the characters. Bates and Woodard just did a good job with Tyler Perry's script. That's says more about their acting abilities than Perry's writing. These aren't characters that are going to stick with me, and what's more compared to Woodard and Bates' other roles these were forgettable.





>LOL. Not only were the characters not any more 1 dimensional
>than any other GOOD movie of its kind, the main ones were
>particularly nuanced, and you know that.

Woodard's character was a saint with little to no deviation, there were several unnecessary scenes that established just how divine she was. Only reason it was acceptable is that Woodard is a good actor.

Lathan was a vile harpy from the outset, not a lot of nuance there.

There are other examples, but first I think you should follow this link and study the information you find.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuance


>Well, I'm smarter than you, and I didn't predict that.
>Me, and again, I'm smarter than you are.

Damn you are insecure.


>LOL - where did they *explicitly* mention race outside
>of the VERY beginning?

Who said they mentioned it? Oh ok, now I get why you think that this movie is nuanced. You think that if someone doesn't say something that means that they aren't being explicit.

Here's an idea rewatch the film and think about common scenarios, archetypes, and tropes.



>Translation: "I'm not going to admit it, but you had
>a series of excellent points about this movie, which
>is why I haven't rebutted a single one of them. Good
>shit, O_E."

No, you didn't. The movie wasn't nuanced. The movie didn't do a better job than other films in commenting on race relations or interactions. It wasn't a well written script. It wasn't a masterpiece.

But you know what, I get the feeling that you just like being an asshole and getting a rise out of people. So this will be my last post. But just for posterity's sake let me state my position one last time.

1) It wasn't a masterpiece. I question whether or not you actually understand what that word means. There's difference between a good film and masterpiece, but I guess for a fan of Tyler Perry the bar is fucking low. When I say that movie is good, I'm not saying that it was a must see film, I'm not saying it belongs in the canon of great films. A good film is in the mid B to high C range. Crash was a B-/C+ film. Syriana and Million Dollar Baby were B films. A masterpiece is an A+ film. This shit isn't an A+ film.

2) It wasn't nuanced.

3) It was predictable and Perry rehashed things we've all seen in films before

4) A lot of the characters were one dimensional. However a few of the actors transcended this.

5) The plot was engaging but predictable.

6) The ending was a tacked on piece of bullshit.

7) It wasn't a bad movie. That doesn't mean it was the movie of the year. It was a good but ultimately forgettable film.


You're right it wasn't the Godfather, but I never said it was "damn good" because damn good would be a ringing endorsement. I don't endorse this film. Only reason I saw it was the for the benefit of this debate. It didn't revolutionize film. It took two hours of my life that I could have spent watching TV or watching the movie...I'm not mad I watched it and I'm not thrilled that I did..

But I've waded in your inflammatory bullshit long enough. I hope that one day you learn to differentiate between a non-shitty film and a masterpiece.




"Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one"-Anonymous


The sharpest sword is a word spoken in wrath;the deadliest poison is covetousness;the fiercest fire is hatred; the darkest night is ignorance.-The Buddha