NOPE!

It's good and you mad.

*people's eyebrow@alpha dog*

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

I saw it last night. The movie is good. Thoroughly enjoyed it, and I will go back and see it again with my son. I saw it with the wifey last night. I recommend it. The critics lost a lot of credibility for their negative reviews. Even the young crowd in the theater clapped and really got into the movie, the word of mouth will be good.

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

>The critics lost a
>lot of credibility for their negative reviews.

They lost credibility with people who read the review, told their friends about the review, went to see it anyway, and liked the movie. You really have to question their intent and their ability to be unbiased. Without having big expectations, wihtout having gone to an HBCU, without having a fraternity membership, I still really liked the movie. Ne-Yo did a good job for his acting debut. It was shot really well, and I think it was casted well, overall the movie was pretty good.

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

that "they" didn't like the movie.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/stomptheyard

Nah, that's crazy talk.

I guess "we," or "you," or whomever is not "mad," PROVED THEM WRONG! Yeah! Go Sony!
________________________________________________________________________
1. When the Levees Broke 2. The Departed 3. Dreamgirls 4. Little Miss Sunshine 5. The Prestige
6. Miami Vice 7. Marie Antoinette 8. Inside Man 9. Brick 10. United 93

Adults do that sometimes.

Yes Adults do disagree, of course, but to shit on a movie that a lot of people thoroughly enjoyed, one has to question the critic's intent and bias. I watched LaBamba the other day, although, I not a big fan of Richie Valens, or anything associated with the movie, I still liked the movie. Sometimes a good movie is universally good even if you don't like the characters, or the subject, a good story is a good story. Me, having no connection, no expectation, no personal interest, I have to say, it was a good movie. There were personal triumphs, love story, a bit of action, artistic expression, and some laughs. How can you shit on a movie that brings that to the experience?

What, you don't like overcoming odds? You dislike love transcending vain selfishness? You dislike purpose driven behavior? You dislike the heritage of cnetury old organizations teaching the youth? I mean if any movie brings this, what the hell's the reason for shitting on it? I'm not saying it should be your all time fav, but why SHIT on it?

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

other people have the right to hold a different opinion though, right?

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

I personally have no problem with people having a different opinion, but as a critic, you should write a review for a movie with more than whether or not YOU liked it.

Personally, I don't understand or really have an interest in NASCAR, but if i'm a critic, and I review a movie about NASCAR, I can't shit on it because I don't like or understand NASCAR.

Did the movie have the elements of a good story? Were the characters strong, interesting, or engaging? Was there good vs evil? Were there any heartfelt moments? Did someone surpass the odds dealt them? Did someone fall in love? Did someone learn a universal life lesson?

There are so many things that can make a movie good enough to not be shitted on- as a movie. It might not be your cup of tea per se, but review it as a movie critic, not just as "a white guy" or a "black woman", or an "asian gradfather", or a "young boy", or whatever you happen to be.

Hell, my old man thinks Prince is gay as hell, but he still says that Purple Rain was a good movie. It's him being able to take his personal feelings about the star out of his review of the MOVIE.

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

>I personally have no problem with people having a different
>opinion, but as a critic, you should write a review for a
>movie with more than whether or not YOU liked it.

No, they shouldn't. They wouldn't be critics they'd be speculators.

>Personally, I don't understand or really have an interest in
>NASCAR, but if i'm a critic, and I review a movie about
>NASCAR, I can't shit on it because I don't like or understand
>NASCAR.

Critics still loved Ricky Bobby. I'm sure most of them hate NASCAR.

>Did the movie have the elements of a good story? Were the
>characters strong, interesting, or engaging? Was there good vs
>evil? Were there any heartfelt moments? Did someone surpass
>the odds dealt them? Did someone fall in love? Did someone
>learn a universal life lesson?

Every shit awful movie has those. Those values might be useful in order to discern whether something is a movie or not.
Is a loaf of bread a good movie?
Did the movie have the elements of a good story? No
were the characters strong, interesting, or engaging? No

A loaf of bread a good movie? NO

Is Riding the Bus With My Sister a Good Movie?
Did the movie have the elements of a good story? SURE DID
were the characters strong, interesting, or engaging? OH YOU BETCHA

Is it a good movie? MUST BE


>There are so many things that can make a movie good enough to
>not be shitted on- as a movie. It might not be your cup of
>tea per se, but review it as a movie critic, not just as "a
>white guy" or a "black woman", or an "asian gradfather", or a
>"young boy", or whatever you happen to be.

Exactly why I won't be seeing Black Notes on a Scandal. But it probably is good to black people. 4 Stars!

>Hell, my old man thinks Prince is gay as hell, but he still
>says that Purple Rain was a good movie. It's him being able to
>take his personal feelings about the star out of his review of
>the MOVIE.

PRINCE IS GAY AS HELL but he was still great.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

>I personally have no problem with people having a different
>opinion, but as a critic, you should write a review for a
>movie with more than whether or not YOU liked it.

You have absolutely not idea what you're talking about. That's EXACTLY what a critic is supposed to do.

>>I personally have no problem with people having a different
>>opinion, but as a critic, you should write a review for a
>>movie with more than whether or not YOU liked it.
>
>You have absolutely not idea what you're talking about. That's
>EXACTLY what a critic is supposed to do.

actually, it's more of what a "reviewer" does, but that's just semantics in PTP...

"yes, sometimes my rhymes are sexist, but you lovely bitches and hos should know i'm tryin to correct it"- hiphopopotamus

>Yes Adults do disagree, of course, but to shit on a movie
>that a lot of people thoroughly enjoyed, one has to question
>the critic's intent and bias.

Shitty movies do well with audiences all the time. Are you going to question the intent and bias of critics every time some awful romantic comedy makes a ton of money despite the bad reviews? Are you going to question the intent and bias of critics every time some artless, brain dead action movie makes a ton of money?

Besides, critics see the movie BEFORE audiences do. You say it like the critics wrote bad reviews to spite the fans of Stomp the Yard.

>I watched LaBamba the other day,
>although, I not a big fan of Richie Valens, or anything
>associated with the movie, I still liked the movie. Sometimes
>a good movie is universally good even if you don't like the
>characters, or the subject, a good story is a good story. Me,
>having no connection, no expectation, no personal interest, I
>have to say, it was a good movie. There were personal
>triumphs, love story, a bit of action, artistic expression,
>and some laughs.

Maybe, just maybe you liked Lambada because you thought it was well-written, directed and acted? Those are the factors that make a movie good.

>How can you shit on a movie that brings that
>to the experience?

Listen to me very carefully: Just because a movie has a positive message does not make it good. If you don't take anything else out of this exchange, at least take that.

>What, you don't like overcoming odds? You dislike love
>transcending vain selfishness? You dislike purpose driven
>behavior? You dislike the heritage of cnetury old
>organizations teaching the youth? I mean if any movie brings
>this, what the hell's the reason for shitting on it? I'm not
>saying it should be your all time fav, but why SHIT on it?

First of all, I didn't "shit" on the movie. I didn't see it. It looks like a hot mess so I'm gonna pass on it. Secondly, JUST BECAUSE A MOVIE HAS A POSITIVE MESSAGE DOES NOT MAKE IT GOOD. Critics aren't "shitting" on it either. They're being CRITICAL of it. That's what they get paid to do. And it's something that more black movie goers should try.

Some, not all critics shitted on the movie. For those that did, their reviews were very unhelpful as to why they shitted on the movie. There are some movies that absolutely should be shitted on. A critic would lose just as much credibility for not doing so. But this movie is not one of them. And I've seen some movies that should be shitted on.

They didn't have to think it was the greatest movie ever, but to totally shit on it shows a little bias, kind of like BigNick's attitude.

You don't like the notion that some people feel that you should automatically support a "positive" movie. You disagree with those that support "black" movies simply because they're "black" movies. Well, personally I agree with you on that, but this movie isn't good because it's "positive" or because it's a "black" movie. Those aren't the attributes of a good movie. You're so gung ho to prove that you don't like a movie THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN. Don't be so defensive. I could care less if you ever see the movie or not. I could care less if you hate the director for making the movie.

The movie is a pretty good movie that was a lot better than some of the shitty reviews given to it. If some of you didn't have so much self hatred for your own people, you wouldn't be so cloudy and biased in your perception of the movie. You don't want the responsibility you feel is being placed on you to like the movie, that you become biased against it. You have no responsibility whatsoever to see the movie, relax. You aren't a bad black person if you don't see it, relax. But, if you want to see a pretty good movie, then let go of the hate, and go see the movie with your lady or your man and just enjoy it. Don't be so mad.

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

>Some, not all critics shitted on the movie. For those that
>did, their reviews were very unhelpful as to why they shitted
>on the movie. There are some movies that absolutely should be
>shitted on. A critic would lose just as much credibility for
>not doing so. But this movie is not one of them. And I've seen
>some movies that should be shitted on.

If I could figure out what the hell you're trying to say here, I would respond to it.


>They didn't have to think it was the greatest movie ever, but
>to totally shit on it shows a little bias, kind of like
>BigNick's attitude.

I'll say it again. Just because they didn't like the movie doesn't mean that they're biased.

>You don't like the notion that some people feel that you
>should automatically support a "positive" movie. You disagree
>with those that support "black" movies simply because they're
>"black" movies. Well, personally I agree with you on that, but
>this movie isn't good because it's "positive" or because it's
>a "black" movie. Those aren't the attributes of a good movie.

That's interesting since you haven't named one thing about the movie that you like except all those bullshit "positive" attributes.


>You're so gung ho to prove that you don't like a movie THAT
>YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not "gung ho" about anything. The movie doesn't look interesting to me, so I have no interest in seeing it. You're the one who's gung ho to attack critics because THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN YOU.

>The movie is a pretty good movie that was a lot better than
>some of the shitty reviews given to it.

A lot of people disagree with you. As is their right.

>If some of you didn't
>have so much self hatred for your own people, you wouldn't be
>so cloudy and biased in your perception of the movie.

OK, now you're being stupid. Because I don't want to go see a warmed over premise that looks horribly executed, I'm self-hating? No. You just have shitty taste.

>You
>don't want the responsibility you feel is being placed on you
>to like the movie, that you become biased against it.

The only thing I'm biases against is bad film making.

>You have
>no responsibility whatsoever to see the movie, relax.

I know. And I am relaxed.

>You
>aren't a bad black person if you don't see it, relax.

So, I'm not self-hating? Whew. Thanks.

>Don't be so mad.

You're attacking critics for disagreeing with you, and I'm the one who's mad?

But then again, you're the guy who doesn't even know what being a critic means.

Some of the critics didn't like the movie. That's cool. But the reviews the critics wrote never indicated WHY. It was just lambasted from jump street as a movie not worth seeing because they didn't understand it. To shit on a movie without saying why, causes you to lose credibility. Plus, a lot of movies this season told a story that has been told many times before..Dreamgirls, Freedom Writers, yet those films weren't shitted on.

The average movie doesn't get shitted on. It might not be heralded as a cinematic masterpiece, but it won't necessarily get shitted on- just write that the movie is just "okay", give it one and a half stars, and move on. So, to choose THIS movie to just shit on, their intent and bias has to be questioned.

You don't want to see the movie, fine. It doesn't matter. Like i said, I'm not in a greek frat, I didn't go to an HBCU, I was a bit skeptical like you at first, but a pretty good movie is a pretty good movie. I didn't say it was the greatest cinematic work of all time, but the movie was pretty enjoyable.

You say you don't like bad filmmaking, but YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE MOVIE. How do you know its bad? That statement alone shows your bias. You don't have to express another sentiment, you're clearly biased.

The movie has surpassed expectations already, and it will enjoy good word of mouth. Forget about the money it made, it was a success when the movie was over, and I could hear young teenagers and some adults clapping at the end in the theater. THAT'S success. But at least SEE the movie before you hate on it. Or, as you so vehemently indicate, don't see it. You seem to feel better when you're reminded by someone other than yourself that you have a choice and a right to not see it.

DON'T see it. DON'T like it. No matter what it presents to the viewer, try your hardest to NOT want to see it. You think it makes you cool, superior, and ecclectic. You're a special, different kind of dude. You don't waste time watching "bad" film making that you've never seen before?? It seems that your self esteem and self identity depends on it. You're above those "small time" "black" and/or "positive" films, right?

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

>Some of the critics didn't like the movie. That's cool. But
>the reviews the critics wrote never indicated WHY.

Wrong.
"Predictable" "shopworn plot"
Michael Ordoña,LA Times

"Frenetic...off putting camera work" "feels derivative and rehashed"
Claudia Puig, USA TODAY

"loud and incoherent" "filmed...with an overload of slow-motion effects and high-speed shutters"
Scott Foundas, LA Weekly

Those are just three examples of concrete problems that critics had with the movie. I could list several more. So, just so we're clear on this one. You're wrong.

>It was just
>lambasted from jump street as a movie not worth seeing because
>they didn't understand it.

Wrong. First of all, it wasn't lambasted. It isn't being shitted on. The movie has an overall metacritic.com score of 45 which they call "average or mixed reviews." Manny Lewis from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer really liked it. As did Michael Phillips from the Chicago Tribune, and Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe and Connie Ogle of the Miami Herald.

>To shit on a movie without saying
>why, causes you to lose credibility.

As I've already proven. They didn't do that.

>Plus, a lot of movies
>this season told a story that has been told many times
>before..Dreamgirls, Freedom Writers, yet those films weren't
>shitted on.

Maybe, just maybe those were better movies.

>The average movie doesn't get shitted on. It might not be
>heralded as a cinematic masterpiece, but it won't necessarily
>get shitted on- just write that the movie is just "okay", give
>it one and a half stars, and move on. So, to choose THIS movie
>to just shit on, their intent and bias has to be questioned.

Go check out metacritic.com or rottentomatoes.com. Plenty of movies get "shitted on." You just have a bee in your bonnet over this one because it's got black people in it.

>You say you don't like bad filmmaking, but YOU HAVEN'T EVEN
>SEEN THE MOVIE. How do you know its bad? That statement alone
>shows your bias. You don't have to express another sentiment,
>you're clearly biased.

Here's how I know this movie isn't for me.

1. The plot is cobbled together from two other recent movies, both of which looked awful too.

2. Even from the trailer you can tell that the writing is bad.

"You better make this college boy thing work out." -Awful

"They're stomping the yard. Where are you from?" -Awful

The school is called Truth University.-Awful

The whole thing looks cliched and lame. I posted the trailer on this board when I first saw it and people had a good laugh.

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=216653&mesg_id=216653&listing_type=search

>But at least SEE the movie before you hate on
>it. Or, as you so vehemently indicate, don't see it. You seem
>to feel better when you're reminded by someone other than
>yourself that you have a choice and a right to not see it.

No. I feel better when I don't spend my hard-earned money on something that is clearly not for me.

>DON'T see it. DON'T like it. No matter what it presents to
>the viewer, try your hardest to NOT want to see it.You think
>it makes you cool, superior, and ecclectic. You're a special,
>different kind of dude. You don't waste time watching "bad"
>film making that you've never seen before??

Hey, man. We have different tastes. So be it. But don't get your panties in a bunch when someone takes you to tasks for your asinine statements about bias.

>It seems that your
>self esteem and self identity depends on it. You're above
>those "small time" "black" and/or "positive" films, right?

No. What I'm a "above" is watching movies that look awful to me. Black or otherwise. If it looks good--Antwone Fisher, Dreamgirls, Inside Man--I'm there.

But then again, you're the guy who doesn't even know what it means to be a critic.

You provide 3 quotes from critics who gave negative reviews of the film, then proceed to say it wasn't lambasted??? I specifically said before that SOME of the critics didn't like it, not all. SOME totally shitted on it.

When critics write things like "shopworn plot" how can they not say the same thing about Dreamgirls and Freedom Writers?? yet Dreamgirls is up for awards by the very same critics. This is bias. Might be that they don't wanna piss Spielberg off. Black characters don't make it a black movie.

I don't like a movie simply because it has black people in it. Here is the notion that you're really arguing against: When some black people try to convince you to like a movie because black people are in it, or because the movie is "positive". I could care less. I like a movie because it's good, black or white or whatever. But I won't try NOT to like it because it has black people in it to prove that I'm unbiased. By doing this, you're being completely biased against it. This is what you're doing. It's like when your dad is the coach of the team, and he treats you like shit to show everyone he's not going to treat you special. He ends up being biased against you. That's what you're doing with all your assumptions of a movie that you haven't seen.

I began by saying the movie was a pretty good movie, I never said it was good, or you should go see it because there is black people in it. This is the biased assumption you have toward the movie in general, and this is what you really dislike.

Dude, I could care less if you see it or not. And really, you don't know if we have different tastes. Because YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE TO KNOW if you like it or not. You cannot sum up a movie by the trailer alone. Because YOU think those lines are "awful" doesn't mean the movie is awful. Context is everything, and a trailer isn't designed to give you the entire context of the dialogue. It's simply a commercial for the movie, not a synopsis. It's editing- that's all.

I agree that the movie is cliched. But it is quite enjoyable. Dreamgirls is cliched, but it was also enjoyable. I wouldn't shit on either movie. And I also don't think either one deserves any awards either, but I liked them both.

Dude, I'm not struggling because I'm not trying to overcome anything. As I said before, I could care less if you see it, or like it. The people who do see it are going to question your bias and credibility as they will the critics. You used words like awful to describe the movie, when YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT. Maybe the movie isn't for YOU, but that don't make it awful. A critic should know that everything that he/she don't like isn't awful, and shouldn't be shitted on. But, as you say, I don't even know what a critic is. But of course, YOU KNOW, because you're ecclectic and you can critique a movie without even seeing it.

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

>You provide 3 quotes from critics who gave negative reviews
>of the film, then proceed to say it wasn't lambasted??? I
>specifically said before that SOME of the critics didn't like
>it, not all. SOME totally shitted on it.

No. What I did was provide 3 quotes from critic that listed SPECIFIC THINGS that they didn't like about the movie. Something that you said none of the critics did. And, I'll say it again. Even if a critic totally hated the movie, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it. Doesn't mean that they had an ax to grind with this movie.


>When critics write things like "shopworn plot" how can they
>not say the same thing about Dreamgirls and Freedom Writers??

A lot of people did say the same thing about Freedom Writers. Examples:

"it becomes indistinguishable from what my colorful friend-of-a-friend Bishop calls “them movies where the cute little white lady goes in and makes everybody love learnin' just because she cares so much.”
Marrit Ingman, Austin Chronicle

"If you buy into the message of movies like “Dangerous Minds,” “Stand and Deliver,” or – more to the point of this review - “Freedom Writers,"...then virtually everyone involved in teaching troubled children hates their job. What other explanation can there be for the periodic release of films depicting the lone crusading educator fighting against the combined forces of faculty and school board to do the right thing by their disenfranchised students?"
Pete Vonder Haar, Film Threat

"But Freedom Writers is prone to throwing in unnecessary plot developments, so it never quite succeeds as anything more than Dangerous Minds Redux."
Connie Ogle, Miami Herald (Remember her? She also "shitted" on Stomp The Yard)

>yet Dreamgirls is up for awards by the very same critics.

And don't even compare Dreamgirls to stomp the yard. There is a difference between adapting a Broadway classic to the screen and cobbling together story lines from two chintzy movies and making one.

>I don't like a movie simply because it has black people in it.
>Here is the notion that you're really arguing against: When
>some black people try to convince you to like a movie because
>black people are in it, or because the movie is "positive". I
>could care less. I like a movie because it's good, black or
>white or whatever. But I won't try NOT to like it because it
>has black people in it to prove that I'm unbiased. By doing
>this, you're being completely biased against it.

Since you don't seem to understand, I'll say it yet again. No one is going out of their way to not like Stomp the Yard. IT JUST LOOKS SHITTY. Period.

>This is what
>you're doing. It's like when your dad is the coach of the
>team, and he treats you like shit to show everyone he's not
>going to treat you special. He ends up being biased against
>you. That's what you're doing with all your assumptions of a
>movie that you haven't seen.

No, it's like when someone makes a really shitty movie and you get mad because you liked it and they didn't. That's all that's happening here.


>I began by saying the movie was a pretty good movie, I never
>said it was good, or you should go see it because there is
>black people in it. This is the biased assumption you have
>toward the movie in general, and this is what you really
>dislike.

No. What I dislike is a cliched story and bad writing.

>Dude, I could care less if you see it or not. And really, you
>don't know if we have different tastes. Because YOU HAVEN'T
>SEEN THE MOVIE TO KNOW if you like it or not. You cannot sum
>up a movie by the trailer alone. Because YOU think those lines
>are "awful" doesn't mean the movie is awful.

But what it does mean is that I can be fairly sure that the movie will be awful based on my experiences. Add that to the fact that a lot of critics thought the movie was pretty bad and I can feel safe in my assumption that I'm not missing anything.


>Context is
>everything, and a trailer isn't designed to give you the
>entire context of the dialogue. It's simply a commercial for
>the movie, not a synopsis. It's editing- that's all.

What context is that rip-off of a story in? What context is that heavy handed "Truth University" in? Awful.


>I agree that the movie is cliched. But it is quite enjoyable.
>Dreamgirls is cliched, but it was also enjoyable.

Again, every time you compare Stomp The Yard to Dreamgirls, you're hurting your already weak argument. Stop it.

>Dude, I'm not struggling because I'm not trying to overcome
>anything. As I said before, I could care less if you see it,
>or like it. The people who do see it are going to question
>your bias and credibility as they will the critics.

No one with a brain should question anyone's bias or credibility because they don't like a movie or don't want to see a movie.

>You used
>words like awful to describe the movie, when YOU HAVEN'T EVEN
>SEEN IT. Maybe the movie isn't for YOU, but that don't make it
>awful. A critic should know that everything that he/she don't
>like isn't awful, and shouldn't be shitted on.

I'll say it YET AGAIN. Critics get paid to tell WHAT THEY THINK OF A MOVIE. If they think it's really bad, they're supposed to say so.

>But, as you
>say, I don't even know what a critic is. But of course, YOU
>KNOW, because you're ecclectic and you can critique a movie
>without even seeing it.

No. I know what a critic is because I have common sense. But then again, you're the guy who thinks critics aren't supposed to judge a movie based on what they think of it.

You seem to think Dreamgirls was some cinematic breakthrough- that's sad. You have some superiority complex when it comes to black movies. You seemed to have placed Dreamgirls in a realm undeservedly, maybe because its accepted by the mainstream. Why does Dreamgirls get a pass? Were the quotes from the trailer better? Eddie Murphy playing a character closely resembling his comedic classic SNL James Brown impression wasn't cliched? (folks laughed when he performed in the movie - possible casting flaw) Or maybe because the mainstream accepts black movies that present black historical characters only? If the mainstream says its okay, then its okay to you, huh? You don't like that present "ghetto" shit, huh? If the mainstream had said Stomp was nice, you'd be the head cheerleader.

Dreamgirls was cliched, had flaws, and was not an exceptional piece of work. It was enjoyable, but nothing new. Stomp the Yard was enjoyable, but nothing new either. Why do you automatically assume Dreamgirls was better than Stomp the Yard when you haven't even seen Stomp The Yard? Because it's a broadway classic adapted to the screen doesn't make it great. I liked it, but I was not blown away by it, so don't give it some superiority over someone else's work. This shows your bias and prejudice. The story of Dreamgirls has been told over and over again many times over, but you give it a pass. Love yourself brother, just because black people created it don't automatically make it bad. Self hatred will hold you back all day.

Stomp the Yard was the number one movie this week, and had a very strong showing for a movie that didn't have a fraction of the hype Dreamgirls had. Obviously, a lot of people were interested in the movie because it beat out several other movies for the top spot. So your bias and assumption that the movie is bad is only yours, and that's a shame, cuz once again YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE MOVIE. I bet you think The Good Sheperd was better than the Stomp the Yard don't you? And you probably haven't seen either one.

Are you ashamed to be associated with what's "too black" to the mainstream? Shittin' on your own, WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT. That's Bias. To say you're not interested, is fine and okay. But when you say it's awful, lame, cliched, bad film making, bad writing, AND YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, is just prejudice & bias. That's just hatin.

Here's a FEW of my fav movies of all time:

Dangerous Liasions
Constant Gardner
Sex Lies & Videotape
Love Jones
Mo Better Blues
Damage
Good Will Hunting
Grease
The Departed
Pulp Fiction
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Crimson Tide

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

>You seem to think Dreamgirls was some cinematic breakthrough-
>that's sad.

You seem to like putting words in my mouth. That's desperate.

You have some superiority complex when it comes to
>black movies.

No, I don't. Another knee-jerk assumption based on the fact that I have no interest in seeing Stomp the Yard.

>You seemed to have placed Dreamgirls in a realm
>undeservedly, maybe because its accepted by the mainstream.
>Why does Dreamgirls get a pass?

Dreamgirls doesn't get a pass. It simply stood up to the criteria that I impose when deciding whether or not I want to see a movie.

>Were the quotes from the
>trailer better?

Yes. And the story was more interesting. And the talent involved with the project more compelling.

>Eddie Murphy playing a character closely
>resembling his comedic classic SNL James Brown impression
>wasn't cliched?

Eddie Murphy was playing a character that already existed.

>(folks laughed when he performed in the movie
>- possible casting flaw)

Folks laughed because the a lot of his performance was played for comedic effect. Also, it's Eddie fucking Murphy.

>Or maybe because the mainstream
>accepts black movies that present black historical characters
>only? If the mainstream says its okay, then its okay to you,
>huh? You don't like that present "ghetto" shit, huh? If the
>mainstream had said Stomp was nice, you'd be the head
>cheerleader.

No. The mainstream said Crash was best picture, and I was right on this very board ripping it to shreds. Nice try though.

>Dreamgirls was cliched, had flaws, and was not an exceptional
>piece of work.

Dreamgirls wasn't cliched. And was an exceptional musical. But that's your opinion. I'm not going to call you self-hating or say you're biased because of your opinion. That would be stupid.

>It was enjoyable, but nothing new. Stomp the
>Yard was enjoyable, but nothing new either. Why do you
>automatically assume Dreamgirls was better than Stomp the Yard
>when you haven't even seen Stomp The Yard?

I'll say this one more time. Because of all the problems that are obvious in Stomp the Yard.

>Love
>yourself brother, just because black people created it don't
>automatically make it bad. Self hatred will hold you back all
>day.

What the fuck are you talking about? Because I don't want to see Stomp the Yard, I'm self-hating. Because I have no interest in seeing one particular movie that black people created, I avoid all "black" cinema. That's the dumbest shit I've heard in a while. And you've said a lot of dumb stuff in this exchange.

>Stomp the Yard was the number one movie this week, and had a
>very strong showing for a movie that didn't have a fraction of
>the hype Dreamgirls had. Obviously, a lot of people were
>interested in the movie because it beat out several other
>movies for the top spot.

No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
--H.L. Mencken, philosopher

>So your bias and assumption that the
>movie is bad is only yours, and that's a shame, cuz once again
>YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE MOVIE.

I don't need to see the movie. Cliched story lines and bad writing aren't for me.

>Are you ashamed to be associated with what's "too black" to
>the mainstream? Shittin' on your own, WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN
>SEEN IT.

I'm not shitting on anything. I'm being critical. And Stomp the Yard isn't "my own."

>That's Bias. To say you're not interested, is fine
>and okay. But when you say it's awful, lame, cliched, bad film
>making, bad writing, AND YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, is just
>prejudice & bias. That's just hatin.

It's neither bias nor hating, no matter how many times you say it. It's called making an informed decision based on the information that's available. It was obvious from jump that they wanted to make You Got Served meets Drumline. Not interested. It's obvious from the trailer what the execution is like. Not interested.

Bottom line: you're angry that some critics and other black people either didn't like the movie or decided not to see it because it looked bad. Period.

The real Bottom line: Black people did see the movie, and they did like the movie. The movie was number 1 and it beat out other overhyped movies that targeted the same demographic. YOU'RE angry because of this. You "wanted" it to be some ghetto hot mess, but it wasn't. It's easier for you to write this movie off as another "you got served/ drumline" joint and shit on it, but black people showed up. Number 1 dawg. Your hate was meaningless and only makes you look lonely. Oh, and if you ripped Crash to shreds, then you a straight hater for real. I guess cats on here already know you're a hater then. That shit was dope as fuck, and I meant to add it to my list.

Number 1 position & $22 million opening weekend is the real bottom line. If you're black, then you need to learn to love yourself. You're beautiful no matter what they said.

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

>The real Bottom line: Black people did see the movie, and
>they did like the movie.

Some did. Some--like me--thought it looked bad and stayed away.

>The movie was number 1 and it beat
>out other overhyped movies that targeted the same demographic.
>YOU'RE angry because of this.

I couldn't be less angry about this movie. Keep trying though.

>You "wanted" it to be some
>ghetto hot mess, but it wasn't.

YOU keep using the word ghetto. Not me. And a lot of other people who actually saw the movie thought it was a hot mess. But, of course, they must have some sort of bias.

>It's easier for you to write
>this movie off as another "you got served/ drumline" joint and
>shit on it, but black people showed up.

It's easy to do, because that's what it is.

>Number 1 dawg. Your
>hate was meaningless and only makes you look lonely.

Again, it's not hate. It's criticism.

>Oh, and
>if you ripped Crash to shreds, then you a straight hater for
>real. I guess cats on here already know you're a hater then.
>That shit was dope as fuck, and I meant to add it to my list.

Crash is awful. A lot of other people felt so too. See for yourself:
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=154232&mesg_id=154232&listing_type=search

>Number 1 position & $22 million opening weekend is the real
>bottom line. If you're black, then you need to learn to love
>yourself. You're beautiful no matter what they said.

Again, the notion that I'm self-hating because I didn't pay money to see Stomp the Yard is idiotic. But then again, you've been idiotic all over this post. Why change now.

There is absolutely nothing more idiotic than shitting on a movie that you've never seen.

You deem a film bad because you don't like the trailer. Because it resembles another movie you "heard" about. That's just dumb dawg.

Say you're not interested. Say it's not YOUR cup of tea. Say, you don't get a good vibe from it. But to say its bad fil making and you haven't seen it, makes you look like an idiot.

Then you look like more of an idiot when the movie is number 1 at the box. You'll look like more of an idiot when the word of mouth on the movie is overall pretty good. And more like a damn fool when you get over your pride and prejudice when you're at home watching when it comes out on DVD, cuz you know you will.

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

>There is absolutely nothing more idiotic than shitting on a
>movie that you've never seen.

Yes there is. Thinking that someone else is biased or self-hating for not agreeing with you. Everything I said about the movie can be summed up like this: It doesn't look good to me, so I decided not to see it.

>You deem a film bad because you don't like the trailer.
>Because it resembles another movie you "heard" about.

>Or because it's a direct rip off of two other movies. Get it right, dude.

>That's
>just dumb dawg.

No. What's dumb is calling critics out because they printed their opinions. When everyone with a brain knows that's exactly what they are supposed to do.

>Say you're not interested. Say it's not YOUR cup of tea. Say,
>you don't get a good vibe from it. But to say its bad fil
>making and you haven't seen it, makes you look like an idiot.

That movie looks awful. If you think I'm the only one saying that, your head is too deep in the sand for me to help you.


>Then you look like more of an idiot when the movie is number 1
>at the box.

Right. Because we all know that if a movie is #1 it HAS to be good.

>And more like a
>damn fool when you get over your pride and prejudice when
>you're at home watching when it comes out on DVD, cuz you know
>you will.

I'm never watching that movie. You mad?

"Dreamgirls" was far and away better than "Stomp the Yard". And as far as "Dreamgirls'" plot being cliché, it's probably more due to the fact that (a) the events it's based upon are far more commonly known than they were in 1981, and (b) the story was written 25 years ago, and many other films have appropriated a lot of the same material.

And, yes, I've seen both.

"Dreamgirls" wasn't flawless by any means, but "Stomp the Yard" isn't even on its level. "Stomp the Yard" was good, but not THAT dang good. The key issues are where the flaws in each film lie.

What's wrong with "Dreamgirls"? One too many songs were dropped from the stage play (the first half of "Cadillac Car"), so as a result you have a jarring effect when people start singing to each other with "Steppin' to the bad Side" (well, they're ALWAYS singing to each other, even when they're performing, but the common film-goer isn't going to realize that). Oh, and Beyoncé's dialogue came off flat at times and country as hell at others.

What's wrong with "Stomp the Yard"? 80% of the dialogue in the film is garbage. Pure two-o-clock soap opera trash. Sylvian White (the director of "Stomp the Yard") did excellent work as far as working around the script (so long as the characters aren't talking, the film is great. Therefore, visual language and dance sequences carry much of the film). Oh, and Chris Brown's "acting" is hideous (I was somewhat relieved when his character "disappeared" seven minutes or so into the picture).

And even at its best moment, "Stomp the Yard" never rises above just being good. "Dreamgirls" has sequences ("Fake Your Way to the Top", "Dreamgirls", "Jimmy's Rap", and, of course, "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going") that are nothing short of incredible.

This is really a silly argument: who, in their right mind, would think "Stomp the Yard" was as good or better? One might LIKE "Stomp the Yar" better, but...

I'm glad I enjoyed the movie. Big Nick, you don't have to agree with me, I never said you should agree with me on the movie. Never.

I liked the movie. I thought it was enjoyable. Not 4 stars worth, but it was pretty good. I'll probably see it again with my son.

You didn't like it. You thought the movie was awful, lame, and bad film-making. This is okay with everybody in the whole world.

So I'm agreeing to disagree.

I just wish people would actually open their minds and at least see something before they actually make a determination as to whether its good, bad, or okay.

This is why I can't get my dawgs to watch Dangerous Liasions. They say its wack, just because of the setting of the movie.

Love to all.

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

sort of way.

I just acknowledge the facts that 9a) "Dreamgirls" is a much better film and (b) "Stomp the Yard" had a hack of a screenwriter (same dude co-wrote "Code Name: The Cleaner" and made "Turn It Up" with Pras and Ja Rule, which I understand to be awful).

Seen it 3 times.

Hated it.

To this day, think its terrible. I mean, the story, the characters,
the acting, everything.


It one day dawned on me why I hated it, and why
white people(and artsy fartsies and shit) loved it:

That white male mid-life crisis bullshit, is completely
irrelevant to me, as his struggles meant nothing, I
didn't relate to it AT ALL.

Nada.

Same with 'Sideways'. Put me to sleep TWICE. Not
a single character I could relate to(other than the
one guy who likes pussy a lot), not a single conflict
that I found lasting.


The point is this:

At some point, the yt and jewish film world is going to have to
come to grips that ITS WAY ain't the ONLY WAY and that there
are other experiences and perspectives worthy of cinematic
praise.

This especially goes for comedy. I saw that 'Rushmore' bullshit
twice because all of my white and artsy black friends talked about
how "hilarious" and "insightful" it was.

Nope.

I'll take 'Barbershop', thank you.

The problem is, niggaz like me don't write magazine reviews.

We don't run the film industy.

And that's fine, because I think I do more important
shit for a living, I'm saying that if I did write film
reviews I would be self-reflective enough to be
able to distill out my own perspective and comment
on a film for what it was.

That's what I'm saying.


And its the film world's inability to do that which
accounts for 'Stomp the Yards' very, very,
biased coverage.

>I just acknowledge the facts that 9a) "Dreamgirls" is a much
>better film and (b) "Stomp the Yard" had a hack of a
>screenwriter (same dude co-wrote "Code Name: The Cleaner" and
>made "Turn It Up" with Pras and Ja Rule, which I understand to
>be awful).

Right, and I found 'American Beauty' to be awful. I found 'Sideways'
to be awful.

In fact, I'd rather watch 'Turn it up' than either of those films, easily.



----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

if I dislike a movie that much I ain't watching that shit again.

and Rushmore's great.

___________________

Mar-A-Lago delenda est

that sideways shit was horrible
as was Lost in Translation
fuck these movies the critics pump up

Now, I like American Beauty and Sideways. But I've seen people with shitty rich suburban parents. I know those people. I know the uppercrust wine drinkers, my dad has had people like that over for dinner. I can see that stuff. I know them. That shit is funny to me. But I can completely understand why there's a large group in America who probably can't get into that stuff.

The thing is with black movies is they really only tend to get positive reviews if the black people are suffering, either at the hands of racists or their own people in "the hood." I think films about black people suffering tap into the white critics' inner atonement alarm, and they feel sympathy for the plight of the black man as a liberal journalist. But black people just hanging out at the barbershop, going to step shows? Nah, player.

BUT there's also a way for those types of movies to be good-- they need Denzel Washington or some big name actor of that ilk. Someone safe, who's done mainstream (white) cinema and is accepted by the cinematic figureheads as an established actor. Maybe if Terence Howard was coaching a step team, and a young white man (played by Justin Timberlake) wanted to join, and the film is about racial integration AND stepping. I GUARANTEE that film is getting some press.

I dunno...maybe these are issues for another post too.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

They ain't need no big stars to make it good. They needed a stronger screenwriter.

Do reviewers really give better reviews if a member of the A.N.N. (Approved Negro Network) stars in the picture? That's screwed up.

and yes, white movies with huge stars have been slammed by the press.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Ricky Fitts than the Kevin Spacey character.

But, yeah, I see your point. I don't think mine is bullshit, though. When I talk about how good/bad a film is, I'm talking about how well-done it was on a technical and/or artistic level. That's separate from my subjective opinion of it. I can watch a film, be impressed by its technical or artistic achievements (i.e.: lots of indie films, much anime, "Coal Black an' de Sebben Dwarfs"), yet not like the film on a subjective level.

Examples: I like the "Nutty Professor" films, but the second one isn't the best artistic achievement in cinema. Technical, yes.

I like the animated film "Anastasia", but that film is poorly animated.

I like "Stomp the Yard", but it is not at all well-scripted.

I like "The Last Dragon", but...

Seriously.

Because all of this "technical and/or artistic" level bullshit has
nothing to do with how good/bad a film is, and you know that.

You're just trying to oversophisticate your opinion, probably
to sound intelligent and "middle of the road," which is silly, because
you'd be better off just taking a stance and sticking with it.

Basaglia, for example, doesn't suffer from intellectual insecurity,
which is why he feels comfy saying:

"It good and you mad."


But to why you're opinion is wrong, let me give you a
few examples:


Oliver Stone is, probably, one of my 3 filmmakers
ever. Everything he does is shot and cut well.

One problem:

'Alexander' was the worst movie I've ever seen in my
life. I'd rather watch 'Stomp the Yard' while drinking
a gallon of prune juice than watch a single scene
of that movie ever again.


"Artistically and "technically" 'Alexander' had more
expertise and thought put into it.


The problem was that the fucking movie sucked
miserable dog shit.



Another example?


You might not find 5 filmmakers, ever, doper than
Stanley Kubrick. The man completely changed film.


Another problem:


'Eyes Wide Shit' is the second worst movie I've
ever seen in my life, and it, CINEMACALLY
SPEAKING, looked AMAZING. Beautiful. Hell,
I'd rather watch it on MUTE than with the volume
ON.


Of course, all of that shit doesn't mean the film
was "good" because the film fucking sucked and
was terrible and not enjoyable.


So then, how can we define "goodness" by
"artistic" and "technical" achievement when in fact,
one's enjoyment of a movie often has little to do
with either?


At the end of the day, you either decide you like a fucking
movie, or you don't.

When it comes to 'Stomp the Yard' I can nitpick infinitely
if I wanted to.

Hell, if you want to talk about cheesy scripts, let's talk
about every 'Star Wars' movie(including 4-6). All of the
dialogue in those movies is stupid, awkward and corny
most of the time(Yoda's scenes tend to good, as do
Ben Kenobi's. Everyone else's dialogue is very
poorly written).

The reason it doesn't matter is that, in the END, the
movies are good OVERALL(great to me, actually).


That being the case:

If you aren't going to be FAIR in how you nitpick, don't
fucking nitpick.

Lots of movies have bad scripts, and awkward interactions.

Some of those movies are quite excellent.

Others are average. Some suck.

To talk about it in one film MORE THAN ONE DOES in
another is plainly unfair and....*ahem*....BIASED....which
is what we are talking about in the first place.


Capiche?



>But, yeah, I see your point. I don't think mine is bullshit,
>though. When I talk about how good/bad a film is, I'm talking
>about how well-done it was on a technical and/or artistic
>level. That's separate from my subjective opinion of it. I can
>watch a film, be impressed by its technical or artistic
>achievements (i.e.: lots of indie films, much anime, "Coal
>Black an' de Sebben Dwarfs"), yet not like the film on a
>subjective level.
>
>Examples: I like the "Nutty Professor" films, but the second
>one isn't the best artistic achievement in cinema. Technical,
>yes.
>
>I like the animated film "Anastasia", but that film is poorly
>animated.
>
>I like "Stomp the Yard", but it is not at all well-scripted.
>
>I like "The Last Dragon", but...


----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

I'm not trying to sound "middle of the road".

I'm telling what I think, how I evaluate things, and how I feel.

Most of the PTP regulars are either film students or film makers, so we see films and TV shows differently than most people do. Do you go into The Lesson and berate them for saying NSYNC was shit even though they sold millions of records?

>So then, how can we define "goodness" by
>"artistic" and "technical" achievement when in fact,
>one's enjoyment of a movie often has little to do
>with either?

Most people don't. But Nukkapedia does. And HERE, this forum is for in-depth discussion of film, and there's more to the art of cinema as a whole than entertainment (that is, "enjoyment"). Granted, there isn't more to every piece of work produced for the cinema, but that's why we don't have posts dedicated to people going "ZOMG! 'Sparkle' is my favorite movie ever!" over here. All this really comes back to is the long, never ending debate between art and entertainment, and which is more important to whom and why. A lot of us like to take in and discuss films as art; you seem primarily concerned with films as entertainment. Therein lies the disconnect.

So you didn't like "Alexander" and "Eyes Wide Shut"? Okay. Some people don't like them, some do. I haven't seen either, so I won't pass judgment. But just because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't well-made, properly executed films (again, I don't know either way, so...).

As far as using "Star Wars" as a counter-argument for cheesy dialogue, I've only seen one of them (Episode 2), and I wouldn't've seen that if I hadn't been dragged to it, so I can't touch on those.

But perhaps what you think of when you say "good movie" is not what I think of when I say "good movie". When I say "good movie/film" and "bad movie/film", my "enjoyment" factor isn't included in that assessment, because I'm basing that off of the direction, acting ,and technicals. Perhaps, to clarify, I should switch it up and start saying "Well-made film" and "poorly-made film"? A personal ratings system might help too. Two ratings per movie: one for how ell-done it was ,and another for whether I liked it or not.

And I respectfully request that you never again attempt tell me how I think and how I formulate my opinions.

>I'm not trying to sound "middle of the road".
>
>I'm telling what I think, how I evaluate things, and how I
>feel.
>
>Most of the PTP regulars are either film students or film
>makers, so we see films and TV shows differently than most
>people do. Do you go into The Lesson and berate them for
>saying NSYNC was shit even though they sold millions of
>records?
>
no they aren't....there was a post about this and there were probably 20 people here who actually worked/studied film....and nobody is saying Stomp the Yard is dope cause it sold well....i'm not tryin to pick a fight, but that info you gave was ...bad.....


>>So then, how can we define "goodness" by
>>"artistic" and "technical" achievement when in fact,
>>one's enjoyment of a movie often has little to do
>>with either?
>
>Most people don't. But Nukkapedia does. And HERE, this forum
>is for in-depth discussion of film, and there's more to the
>art of cinema as a whole than entertainment (that is,
>"enjoyment"). Granted, there isn't more to every piece of work
>produced for the cinema, but that's why we don't have posts
>dedicated to people going "ZOMG! 'Sparkle' is my favorite
>movie ever!" over here. All this really comes back to is the
>long, never ending debate between art and entertainment, and
>which is more important to whom and why. A lot of us like to
>take in and discuss films as art; you seem primarily concerned
>with films as entertainment. Therein lies the disconnect.
>
but homie, he JUST said that he liked certain films artistically, but didn't think the fact that they were good "technically" makes them good overall...and let's be honest, people make "_____, is the best movie ever!!" posts here, just not alot....and the very nature of any media is to stimulate an audience, there is both art in the very way people are entertained, i notice here people like to try to seperate the too, but they go hand in hand....you just don't like the artistic qualities you saw....

>So you didn't like "Alexander" and "Eyes Wide Shut"? Okay.
>Some people don't like them, some do. I haven't seen either,
>so I won't pass judgment. But just because you don't like them
>doesn't mean they aren't well-made, properly executed films
>(again, I don't know either way, so...).
>
you didn't read what he said....he said he thought they were technically good, but that ALONE didn't make them good overall...and like you said, you "don't know either way, so..."

>But perhaps what you think of when you say "good movie" is not
>what I think of when I say "good movie". When I say "good
>movie/film" and "bad movie/film", my "enjoyment" factor isn't
>included in that assessment, because I'm basing that off of
>the direction, acting ,and technicals. Perhaps, to clarify, I
>should switch it up and start saying "Well-made film" and
>"poorly-made film"? A personal ratings system might help too.
>Two ratings per movie: one for how ell-done it was ,and
>another for whether I liked it or not.
>
how can you say a movie is well made if you DIDN'T like it??

"yes, sometimes my rhymes are sexist, but you lovely bitches and hos should know i'm tryin to correct it"- hiphopopotamus

For example: I am no fan of science fiction films set in space. (*dodges tomatoes thrown at me*) Those just aren't my type of films (I prefer films about human interaction and unusual, slightly twisted, relationship stories). But i can say that they are well made (meaning the acting was good, the storytelling was good, the direction, set design, effects, etc.) and yet still say "but I wouldn't really care to see this ever again." Now, I would never say that "Star Wars", "Star Trek", and anything else with "Star" in it are poorly-made films (because they're not - they're well done and cinema classics besides), but they don't appeal to me.

And I was under the impression that most PTP regulars were film students. If I was wrong, I apologize.

And I know he said "he liked certain films artistically", and that "he said he thought they were technically good, but that ALONE didn't make them good overall". I was pointing out that he was making my point for me and not realizing it: a film can be well-made and someone can not like it, because everyone's persona tastes are different and are informed by different things. In other words, you can't please everybody.

And you can indeed separate a film's artistic ambitions from its entertainment factors. Some films have something of both, others lack significant amounts of one in favor of the other. Your average pornographic film has little to no artistic value (because they're designed that way), while people make films every day that are intended primarily to be exhibited as art pieces. "Fantasia" is an example of a film with high artistic ambitions that more or less failed as an entertainment piece - at least until psychedelic drugs came into vogue almost three decades after its original release.

Anyways, this is getting way off track. I got into this conversation because princeguy was accusing bignick of placing "Dreamgirls" over "Stomp the Yard" because white people made "Dreamgirls", which is not true. This is where my point of separating art from entertainment comes into play: "Dreamgirls" is a more significant work in the art of cinema than "Stomp the Yard", not because white people made it, but just because it is better written, directed, and, Beyoncé aside, acted. Production values aren't being compared, because "Dreamgirls" is five times as expensive as "Stomp the Yard". But black people have made better, more significant films about black folks than "Dreamgirls": Spike Lee ("Do the Right Thing"), John Singleton ("Boyz N the Hood", save for that stop-cold ending). White people have made better, more significant black MUSICAL films than "Dreamgirls" (Otto Preminger's "Carmen Jones").

However, "Dreamgirls" it has less wide audience appeal than "Stomp the Yard" does, and therefore a lot of people would not LIKE it as much. In other words, a lot of people would not be as entertained by it. And that was my whole point.

..it's still sad that when people reference great black cinema, they talk about stuff from over a decade ago...i know what you meant tho...

...it's fuuny, cause i have no interest to see "dreamgirls" "stomp the yard" or "freedom writers"... they all look like bad movies to me...

"yes, sometimes my rhymes are sexist, but you lovely bitches and hos should know i'm tryin to correct it"- hiphopopotamus

I mean, we've had great films come after that, but not in so saturated an amount.

Out of curiousity, whey does "Dreamgirls" look like a bad film to you? I know, as far as its trailers & TV-spots go, it's being hideously advertised as "Ray" with girls and as a Beyoncé vehicle, but it's neither.

"Stomp the Yard" also suffered from hideous trailers & TV-spots.

>I mean, we've had great films come after that, but not in so
>saturated an amount.
>
true...stuff like "Norbit" proves that it's all about makin money as opposed to making great movies for most black cinema

>Out of curiousity, whey does "Dreamgirls" look like a bad film
>to you?
i don't like musicals....the only ones i could even barely tolerate are "little shop of horrors" and "school daze"...plus i don't care about movies depicting the rise and fall of ficitonal people , unless we're talking about "the five heartbeats" ( and even that's supposed to be based on real events)...in shortm nothing about the movie looks interesting except Eddie and i couldn't sit thru all that to see glimpses of what seemed to be the old Eddie...


I know, as far as its trailers & TV-spots go, it's
>being hideously advertised as "Ray" with girls and as a
>Beyoncé vehicle, but it's neither.
>
i don't know about the Ray part, but i know it does get pushed as a Beyonce project and that doesn't help much....


>"Stomp the Yard" also suffered from hideous trailers &
>TV-spots.

yeah, i figure STY has good points, prolly lots of them, but the trailers don't help....i just know if i don't give a fuck about most step shows, i won't wanna see that movie

"yes, sometimes my rhymes are sexist, but you lovely bitches and hos should know i'm tryin to correct it"- hiphopopotamus

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

People should not be yelping "somebody do something!" into empty space in motion pictures being made in the new millennium.

I'm sure he's a cool cat, pets are well fed, children (if he has any) doing well in school and shit, but duke isn't good at dialogue. But there's still time to learn.

>When critics write things like "shopworn plot" how can they
>not say the same thing about Dreamgirls and Freedom Writers??
>yet Dreamgirls is up for awards by the very same critics.

Dreamgirls isn't a shopworn plot. It's a musical about a very specific era and time. Show me more than one movie that covers this same story. It's a unique story told in an original way.

Freedom Writers is getting praise because of two-time Oscar winner Hilary Swank, one of the better female actors of her generation. Almost every review mentions the shopworn plot of Freedom Writers.

You simply aren't doing your homework, and you're getting ethered everywhere.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

that condescending view of black films had its time on this board and now it has passed.

i'm here and i'mma fuck this board up, too, until y'all stop with the bullshit.

buncha uncool lame fucks.

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

>Freedom Writers is getting praise because of two-time Oscar
>winner Hilary Swank, one of the better female actors of her
>generation. Almost every review mentions the shopworn plot of
>Freedom Writers.

That has nothing to do with whether or not 'Freedom Writers' is
actually any good. The negative coverage of 'Freedom Writers' hasn't
been within eons of the coverage of 'Stomp the Yard', which is unfair
being that its plot is MORE "shopworn" than 'Stom the Yard'.

I've never seen a film about black fraternities and the dance
culture.

I've seen plenty of movies about white people unlocking
potential of minorities.


>You simply aren't doing your homework, and you're getting
>ethered everywhere.

He could over-articulate himself like everyone else but he's
keeping his argument simple because in the end, it all
really does boil down to:


"You mad"


People *are" mad.


Very.


And they *are* being very irrational.


That's because film culture has been systematically hijacked by
holier-than-thou dickheads, a whole lot of them racist
or biased in some way, and it shows in how films like
'Stomp the Yard' are discussed.


Now,


I feel like 'Dreamgirls' was better than 'Stomp the Yard'.


I also feel like 'Dreamgirls' was 5 hours long, costed almost
an order-of-mangnitude more money, and had an a-list
cast.


I also feel like I won't be casually watching 'Dreamgirls',
like, ever.


I also feel like there are dozens of white movies that
have made boatloads of money featuring plots no
less rinky-dink than 'Stomp the Yard' and few have
met the wrath that 'Stomp the Yard' is.

It makes village bohoes and white film execs
very, very, very, steamingly flustered when a film
that costs relative chump change, about a culture
they know nothing about, people they know nothing
about, catches fire. White and "i'm so smart" black
types like to be the author of any and everything
popular, and if its popular and they don't like it...than
its the fault of the piece of work(in this case, 'Stomp the Yard'
and not the fault of them for being pretentious dickheads.


This is what I think, and I'll re-post it in better form in
another post in this thread. This one just sorta got
out of hand.

But yeah:

The Bignick and Afkaps of the world are from the Stanley
Crouch school of "I have so much etiquette + I'm black," and
so these types are harder on black films than white bigots are.

This is in part because of artistic insecurity, and in part because they
like to impress white people. Not to hate on either of them, cuz
I don'tthink either are uncle toms, but they are a breed of negro that
pops up in the popular culture circles all the time.

They reflexively bash any and everything black that is, at all,
fitting any stereotype of blacks. They tend to have a hard time admitting
'Hustle and Flow' was brilliant(which it was), and if they did, they only
did it after they found out the director was white and that the film
was getting praise from the very people they want to impress(the artistic
white film community...that community dug 'Hustle and Flow').


That is what Basaglia is up against here, and there is nothing
intelligent to say to people like that(unless you do it like I'm
doing it, of course).





----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

and there was a clear climate change surrounding that movie when some of these dudes found out that director was white.

i just frowned and kept it moving.

but, i'm sick of this fuckin board. i plan to spend a lot more time here hyping and defending black movies and shittin on hipster bullshit.

note: i do like some hipster bullshit. but, some shit, like "the GOTdamn fountain" is horrible.

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

>and there was a clear climate change surrounding that movie
>when some of these dudes found out that director was white.

Oh, yes.

That movie only received critical acclaim at all
because it had a white director.

Take the exact same content...I mean EXACT SAME
content, put a "Vernell Jackson" as the director, and it
hardly makes it to the silver screen, let along garners
love and respect from the film festival community.

And the sad shit is, BLACK PEOPLE are as responsible
for that as white people. Black people love proving
their sophistication to white people, and its laughable
for me.

Like you, I like hipster shit too. Lots of it.

I also have no problem saying that 'Barbershop 2'
was funnier than 'Life Aquatic' which it was. Only
people who are immune to being coerced by
white film culture can admit that.

>but, i'm sick of this fuckin board. i plan to spend a lot more
>time here hyping and defending black movies and shittin on
>hipster bullshit.

I was here exposing the lack of Y chromosomes on this
board for a while. It usually gets old, and then I come
back, like now.



----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop

The success of small-budget "black cinema" does make frustrate white people, because it doesn't have A-grade actors or a deep social commentary, they're merely entertaining. I agree with that.

But princefan didn't say that. He said the other films aren't getting called out for being cliched. Dreamgirls isn't, because it isn't cliched. Freedom Writers is, but they're saying because they like the lead actress's performance that it rises above the material. I could post several quotes stating this idea.

Stomp the Yard's success does get hated on more than others, I'm not contesting that. I'm merely contesting the point that those two other films are cliched but no one wants to mention it. And he's wrong.

All of the below I agree with. But like I said, he's not trying to make his argument concise. He took a poorly worded, rambling statement, and has since gotten all of his replies picked apart.

I think this post could lead to an interesting spinoff about the roles of movie critics in the cinema industry. But I'll save that for another day.

>He could over-articulate himself like everyone else but he's
>keeping his argument simple because in the end, it all
>really does boil down to:
>
>
>"You mad"
>
>
>People *are" mad.
>
>
>Very.
>
>
>And they *are* being very irrational.
>
>
>That's because film culture has been systematically hijacked
>by
>holier-than-thou dickheads, a whole lot of them racist
>or biased in some way, and it shows in how films like
>'Stomp the Yard' are discussed.
>
>
>Now,
>
>
>I feel like 'Dreamgirls' was better than 'Stomp the Yard'.
>
>
>I also feel like 'Dreamgirls' was 5 hours long, costed almost
>an order-of-mangnitude more money, and had an a-list
>cast.
>
>
>I also feel like I won't be casually watching 'Dreamgirls',
>like, ever.
>
>
>I also feel like there are dozens of white movies that
>have made boatloads of money featuring plots no
>less rinky-dink than 'Stomp the Yard' and few have
>met the wrath that 'Stomp the Yard' is.
>
>It makes village bohoes and white film execs
>very, very, very, steamingly flustered when a film
>that costs relative chump change, about a culture
>they know nothing about, people they know nothing
>about, catches fire. White and "i'm so smart" black
>types like to be the author of any and everything
>popular, and if its popular and they don't like it...than
>its the fault of the piece of work(in this case, 'Stomp the
>Yard'
>and not the fault of them for being pretentious dickheads.
>
>
>This is what I think, and I'll re-post it in better form in
>another post in this thread. This one just sorta got
>out of hand.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>But princefan didn't say that. He said the other films aren't
>getting called out for being cliched. Dreamgirls isn't,
>because it isn't cliched. Freedom Writers is, but they're
>saying because they like the lead actress's performance that
>it rises above the material. I could post several quotes
>stating this idea.
>

Punk ass Frank. My first post was simply saying Stomp The Yard was not as bad as the critics' review of it. The critics shit all over this movie as if it was "Glitter 2".

I said the critics would lose some credibility for shitting on a movie that was nowhere near as bad as their review. Using reasons such as "shopworn plot", when at the same time other "shopworn plot" movies like Dreamgirls and Freedom Writers were given much praise.
The Dreamgirls plot is no original, the R&B group making it after struggles movie has been told over and over again. Nothing new.

This lead actress performance rise above the material crap is pure bullshit. If a black actress had starred in Swanks place, it'd be another bullshit "black movie", but since it's a white woman saving minorities from themselves, it's heartfelt.

All the self hating, "wanna be deep and eclectic" cats on here shitting on a movie they HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN. Assuming it's another low budget stereotypical black movie that they wouldn't "lower" themselves to see. This bullshit superiority validation by white people and white critics they need in order to watch.

Dawg, Stomp the Yard isn't a black white thing at all, I thought it was a pretty good movie, but I can give 2 fucks if you like it or not. These wanna be high and mighty cats like you wanna shit on it because it hasn't been accepted and validated by some media critic. And yes, I think at the heart of the prejudgemental criticism is a lack of understanding of African American culture and pure racism.

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

>All the self hating, "wanna be deep and eclectic" cats on here
>shitting on a movie they HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN. Assuming it's
>another low budget stereotypical black movie that they
>wouldn't "lower" themselves to see. This bullshit superiority
>validation by white people and white critics they need in
>order to watch.

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

>Using
>reasons such as "shopworn plot", when at the same time other
>"shopworn plot" movies like Dreamgirls and Freedom Writers
>were given much praise.
>The Dreamgirls plot is no original, the R&B group making it
>after struggles movie has been told over and over again.
>Nothing new.

"Dreamgirls" was first staged in 1981. As such, it predates every major American film about Black R&B singers except one: "Sparkle". And that film is about a woman - not a group - who makes it; the group doesn't make it past the seedy Harlem nightclub circuit. Billie Holliday is, of course, a jazz singer, but "Lady Sings the Blues" set the template for most of the black films about musicians that succeeded it, and it should be mentioned as well.

Anyways, "Lady Sing the Blues", "Sparkle", and "Dreamgirls" established many of the conventions now commonly found in films about Black musicians ("The Five Heartbeats" is "Dreamgirls" in male drag - compare that film to the full-length "Dreamgirls in Concert" CD). That story may have been told "over and over again", but "Dreamgirls" was one of the first times it was told, ever.

a cliched plot.

One review got it right when it said the film told a good story with a poor plot.

The actual plot outline of the film follows the template drawn by several other sports films. I haven't seen "You Got Served" or "Drumline", but those are the two that keep getting thrown out there. But the actual flow of events shown to the audience to tell the story mirror those of many, many other films and TV shows I've seen ("Remember the Titans", that basketball episode of "Family Matters", etc.) It is possible to have told the same story with a different flow of events, and have a much, much better film still about the same characters.

It's not quite a black people/white people issue, although I will admit the film is more watchable than the reviews would have one believe. But I cannot call it a well-made film, and still like myself in the morning. "Stomp the Yard" is well-directed, well-casted, well-acted (Chris Brown aside), well-choreographed, well-designed, yet poorly scripted.

But the reason "Stomp the Yard" is getting ,well, stomp on by the critics because, in their eyes, the film was made in response to the "success" of "You Got Served" (2004), a film they thoroughly reviled. SO "Stomp the Yard" is catching a lot of reciprocal hate better directed towards B2K and them.

And wait, you've never seen a movie about black fraternities?? I must therefore compel you to see this, post-haste: http://www.amazon.com/School-Daze-Special-Edition/dp/B0006OBPUO/sr=8-3/qid=1169084231/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/103-2165415-8223063?ie=UTF8&s=dvd

>You really have to question their intent and
>their ability to be unbiased.

why SHOULD they be unbiased?

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

FOILED!!!!

*shakes fist*

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE