Shameless Indulgences

A movie I've watched twice in a day...? Pleasantville.

fine fine fine...ill admit it...moulin rouge ((prepares for beating w/ sticks..))

Backdoor Sluts 9

that's not shameless!!!!! shameless would be watching titanic..((sorry to any of you who like that movie))

I accidently saw about a minute of "FRIENDS" once.

Titanic's not a terrible movie. It's stupid, everyone liked it to begin with, then decided that either James Cameron sold out/ or it was crap because everyone else liked it.

It's like Spielberg. Everyone says he sold out just so they look like they're a movie buff.

Anyway, without the exact music which is in Empire Records and Moulin Rouge, the movies would suck royally. Well, at least Ethan Embry was in Empire.

Backdoor Sluts 9!? No [i]way[/i]. Where'd you hear about it? "Umm...People Magazine?"

i didnt like it because of leonardo di caprio..i didn't think he was all that good. but trueness about emprie and moulin rouge ((also if it wasnt for the flashy lights and overdone costumes))

why are you people so ashamed to have your own taste?

That's another thing some people always drone on about. Okay, his character wasn't enlightening, but how could he have acted it better? Wrote his lines himself or cut out the character 'Jack' completely, I suppose.

Personally, I think Leonardo Dicaprio IS a good actor. Cough. What's Eating Gilbert Grape!! .Cough.Basketball Diaries.Cough. (and so on.)

The flashy lights were annoying. Epileptic fits on the house....

not ashamed, but knowing that the movies aren't all that great. nothing wrong w/ liking a shit movie, and i enjoy shit movies quite a bit.

i do think he's a good actory, but i didnt like him in that role. but that's just me, and most people dont agree. and that's okay too.

The most shameful movie i've seen him in is Gangs of New York, not Critters 3 ,funnily enough.

Funnily. Hehe.

[QUOTE][i]Thread Title[/i]:
[b]Shameless Indulgences[/b][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AquariusDreamer [/i]
not ashamed, but knowing that the movies aren't all that great[/QUOTE]

i find this quite ironic

That's about the only movie I've actually seen him in... So my opinion of him is not too high. I hear The Beach is good, suppose I ought to see it.

i thought the beach was fucking excellent

...LDC is a genuinely good actor, we just don't get to see it because he's cast as pretty boys due to his looks. which blows

see your thoughts on irony are entirely my fault due to my lack of appropriate wording, or meaning of the thread. what i ment for shameless indulgences...the indulgence is shameless, however not the act that you are indulging in the so called shameless indulgence....um..you like shit that is stupid..and dont mind sharing that with others just because you know it's shit doesnt mean you are gonna stop enjoying. i mean many people still watch tv dont they?

perhaps i should have reworded this thead to indulging in the shameless.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by RuByLiCiouS [/i]
[B]why are you people so ashamed to have your own taste? [/B][/QUOTE]There's a word limit to posts.

The Beach was fucking awful, people. The book, on the other hand, was excellent.

Even Danny Boyle admitted that the movie wasn't what Garland and he hoped it to be.

Doesn't Garland hate every movie that was made from a book of his? Or am I thining of someone else?

Amadeus
Immortal Beloved
American Beauty
The Matrix Reloaded (and 4 times in three days)
Shakespeare in Love
the entire Halloween Series.

Well, no. Garland didn't state his thoughts on The Beach from what I know. And considering he recollaberated with Boyle on 28 Days Later (his first screenplay, and a great film), he couldn't of hated it.

I mean, on its own, The Beach wasn't terrible. But I guess I was expecting so much from it, and considering how much I loved the book and how much they removed from it for the adaptation, I hated it the second I realized how different it was.

I mean, there was no Jed. What the [i]fuck[/i]? He was a hugely important character in the book.

And the removal of almost all the violence. And the ending?

methinks i might have to read this so called libro...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by leonardshelby [/i]
[B]Well, no. Garland didn't state his thoughts on The Beach from what I know. And considering he recollaberated with Boyle on 28 Days Later (his first screenplay, and a great film), he couldn't of hated it.

I mean, on its own, The Beach wasn't terrible. But I guess I was expecting so much from it, and considering how much I loved the book and how much they removed from it for the adaptation, I hated it the second I realized how different it was.

I mean, there was no Jed. What the [i]fuck[/i]? He was a hugely important character in the book.

And the removal of almost all the violence. And the ending? [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree completely. The movie wasn't that bad, although it holds nothing to the book. Actually, it's completely different from the book. Also, the movie is far too short to fully carry out the themes it's trying to present (especially the video game part, that pops in out of nowhere). Hollywood always has to add sex everywhere.

Amadeus is a great movie.

I thought Jed was in the movie?
I liked The Beach, probably only because of the Thailand pictures, they were nostalgic. It's really sad, I went scuba diving to 'The Beach' and now it's full of Japanese tourists with their speedboats. I didn't think the begining bit of the movie was bad, just the ending really. The book WAS a lot better though.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by leonardshelby [/i]
[B]Well, no. Garland didn't state his thoughts on The Beach from what I know. And considering he recollaberated with Boyle on 28 Days Later (his first screenplay, and a great film), he couldn't of hated it.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Oh, I must be talking about someone else. Who I'm talking about died a few years ago.