>The thing that is pissing me off here is that I think you do >know where I'm coming from and you are just pretending or >twisting some unknown quote to mean the opposite. Come on man >the only fucking thing I'm saying is that yes he was trying to >make certain parts of the film "sub par" or "b-rated". And I >mean I think the film speaks for itself. You can't just have >purposefully bad edits and not expect some purposefully bad >dialog and or acting. And a failure to address this when >trying to criticize makes you *look* ignorant. And notice all >my name calling has contingencies. If you think this you are - >mainly because I know you guys don't think that he was trying >to make an A-Rated contemporary film.
Who said he was trying to make a contemporary film? And who says b-movies can't be entertaining? Those are the two facts you simply refuse to get your head around which is why you are continually missing the point.
Yes, some things were meant to evoke a mood of the 70's but that doesn't mean the film has to be bad. Dialogue can be cheesy yet clever. Characters don't have to be three dimensional but you can still care about them. You are sitting here calling people ignorant but you have no point.
People know that he wanted to make a film that paid homage to exploitation films. He did it poorly. It was boring.
Oh, and spare me with the contingencies shit. At least be willing to stand by your calling people out. It's bad enough when you make things up but if you can't stand by your posts then log off.