54. "RE: Retort -" In response to In response to 52 Fri Sep-19-03 02:59 PM
>>opposed to citin' less-than-convincing Hollywood pablum... >he doesn't have to fill Jimmy Stewart's shoes. he's done >enough good work to stand on his own. and when it's all said >and done, you can bet your ass that he's gonna be remembered >in the same breat as all the legendear leading men. like it >or not.
Convenient that you elected to ignore other actors cited, especially international ones or aren't you familiar w/ 'em?
>no, i just have my head on straight enough to realize that >there are alays been shitty movies, and there will always be >shitty movies. if you would start living in the now, you'd >see that there are plenty of good movies being made in >Hollywood's assmebly line.
No, there's a complete division b/w when Hollywood was churning out entertainment AND art and now, when it's just entertainment...
>and i still go back to what i said. you want to criticize >her acting ability..fine. i'm not going to defend that. but >i don't see how you can say that she's not at least trying >to do good work.
She's not - it's evident to anyone w/ who knows film apart from Hollywood...
>all of this from someone who started their post. "So I have >BET on in the background..." >hilarious.
Ad hominem argument gets you nowhere - especially since it's also a non-sequitur... Get it? Good - now go study up on cinema from 1860 or so...
"other than some of cann ox, el-p's beats sound like somebody molesting a household pet" - soundsop