Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day
- Thread starter Ethereal
- Start date
Nuttkase please explain how iMDB is retarded? It seems to be (imo) one of those things where people hate on something without any logical reasoning, ie. "Oh fuck facebook! (like facebook fucked their sister). Yes, there are retards who, with their vote (if it is even counted) can slightly sway the rating of a single movie. But if you look at all the great movies in history, almost all of them have very high ratings. Not a coincidence.
I would trust iMDB over any single person, critic, magazine, etc. With that said, I don't base going to see a movie on anything but my own interest. But I will use it as a tool to some varying degree.
I would trust iMDB over any single person, critic, magazine, etc. With that said, I don't base going to see a movie on anything but my own interest. But I will use it as a tool to some varying degree.
^^have u read the boards on IMDB ever? TONS of people said that Funny People was bad cuz it has "too many Jews" in it. or they always ask questions like "Is Matt Damon gay?" They have no clue about movies, they just rate it based on entertainment...there were movies that should be rated higher and tons of movies that are overrated. Look at the top 250 list and tell me thats its not rediculous. Dark Knight was tight but does not deserve to be #9....#9 MOVIE OF ALL TIME...UP! is rated #63!!! FINDING NEMO IS #150!!! thats fucking insane.
and dont forget the fact that people on that site add in "goofs" like this beauty in the Departed.
"Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers): When Queenan hands Constignan a glass of water, Queenan refers to it as "ice water". There is clearly no ice in the water."
Whoever wrote that needs to have a lobotomy, pronto.
edit: LMAO i re-read that "goof" and the faggot who wrote it couldnt even spell COSTIGAN right. goddamn that site just makes people think they're smart.
and dont forget the fact that people on that site add in "goofs" like this beauty in the Departed.
"Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers): When Queenan hands Constignan a glass of water, Queenan refers to it as "ice water". There is clearly no ice in the water."
Whoever wrote that needs to have a lobotomy, pronto.
edit: LMAO i re-read that "goof" and the faggot who wrote it couldnt even spell COSTIGAN right. goddamn that site just makes people think they're smart.
and the ratings system for IMDB is rediculous because who the fuck rates a movie HONESTLY. like whos gonna sit there and give a movie they LOVED anything less than a 10? and then people that hated it are gonna give it a 0 or 1. It doesnt reflect anything about the movie, just what self-important internet assholes think.
First I just want to say, I use iMDB for several reasons, none of which you mentioned. I frequently check for up and coming movies; which actors/directors/etc. that I favor have movies in the making; occasionally a plotline for a movie I am unfamiliar with; casting/credits for certain movies; occasionally which if any awards a movie has won; and I do pay attention to how they were rated. So I find it quite useful. With that said..
1. Those "message boards" are a very insignificant part of the website imo. I personally spend about 5% of my time putting those boards to use - this is not so much because I believe they are "retarded", rather because I literally do not have much use for them. I don't visit the site to discuss movies, at all.
2. The ratings and how the movies are ranked seem to be a little ambiguous and thus, should not be taken literally. In short, the ratings are an interpretation of what the average person--who is enough into movies in general--values each movie. Keep in mind votes are only counted by "regular" voters, if that means anything to you. As with the case of "Up!" and "Finding Nemo", they simply averaged out because, in all likelihood, there were far fewer people who didn't like the movie as opposed to something like "Funny People", which was abundant in people who disliked it. Another way of looking at these titles is that they appeal to a large mass of people who are in to Pixar movies. So for every 100 people who went to see these movies, I'm willing to bet a great deal of them have a history of seeing Pixar movies, thereby reducing the chances any of them vote the movie with a low score.
Ask yourself this: what constitutes the greatest movie of all time? You will likely answer by describing a movie that fits your interests. To me, placing a movie which you believe is #9 in place of The Dark Knight is much more illogical than the one which received an average vote by thousands of people. If you asked me the same question I would answer according to the following: take 10 [average] people and 10 movies, each movie is rated by the 10 people; the movie which receives the highest rating is naturally the best one. Now apply that to a much larger scale.
I understand there is a big discrepancy with people voting with a bias, but to me the top 100 on iMDB is much more accurate than any one person could come up with. Now consider this:
iMDB
1. The Shawshank Redemption
5. Pulp Fiction
Siccness
1. Pulp Fiction
2. The Shawshank Redemption
How far are we removed from these retards?
1. Those "message boards" are a very insignificant part of the website imo. I personally spend about 5% of my time putting those boards to use - this is not so much because I believe they are "retarded", rather because I literally do not have much use for them. I don't visit the site to discuss movies, at all.
2. The ratings and how the movies are ranked seem to be a little ambiguous and thus, should not be taken literally. In short, the ratings are an interpretation of what the average person--who is enough into movies in general--values each movie. Keep in mind votes are only counted by "regular" voters, if that means anything to you. As with the case of "Up!" and "Finding Nemo", they simply averaged out because, in all likelihood, there were far fewer people who didn't like the movie as opposed to something like "Funny People", which was abundant in people who disliked it. Another way of looking at these titles is that they appeal to a large mass of people who are in to Pixar movies. So for every 100 people who went to see these movies, I'm willing to bet a great deal of them have a history of seeing Pixar movies, thereby reducing the chances any of them vote the movie with a low score.
Ask yourself this: what constitutes the greatest movie of all time? You will likely answer by describing a movie that fits your interests. To me, placing a movie which you believe is #9 in place of The Dark Knight is much more illogical than the one which received an average vote by thousands of people. If you asked me the same question I would answer according to the following: take 10 [average] people and 10 movies, each movie is rated by the 10 people; the movie which receives the highest rating is naturally the best one. Now apply that to a much larger scale.
I understand there is a big discrepancy with people voting with a bias, but to me the top 100 on iMDB is much more accurate than any one person could come up with. Now consider this:
iMDB
1. The Shawshank Redemption
5. Pulp Fiction
Siccness
1. Pulp Fiction
2. The Shawshank Redemption
How far are we removed from these retards?
The boards are more or less a joke but do serve some purpose. I can only recall a couple of times I have ever used them. Once after I watched Synecdoche, New York, because if you have seen that movie you would know it leaves a great deal to be discussed. Much to my surprise there was plenty of insight to be gained on that board. And another time was when I looked through the boards of "Eternal Sunshine" and "American Beauty" (as those are my one and two) for posts dealing with "For those that have Eternal.. in their top 5, complete your top 5 list", with which I have found other movies of great value. Other than that I can agree that, for the most part, they are filled with ignorance.
Here is the AVClub review (I thought it was generously kind for a D- rating):
• D- av club rating D reader rating based on 23 ratings
• Director: Troy Duffy
• Cast: Norman Reedus, Sean Patrick Flanery, Billy Connolly
• Rated: R
• Running time: 87 minutes
Cult audiences have been responsible for the resurrection of movies ranging from Vertigo to The Big Lebowski, but even they get it wrong sometimes. If movies are a religion, the fervent following of Troy Duffy’s po-faced vigilante thriller The Boondock Saints is akin to Scientology, an opaque sect whose beliefs are utterly unintelligible to outsiders. Exactly what endears Duffy’s sub-Scorsesean tale of two Irish Catholic brothers (Norman Reedus and Sean Patrick Flanery) whose escape from death at the hands of Russian thugs convinces them they’ve been ordained as God’s personal assassins is a mystery not even Willem Dafoe’s mincing FBI agent can solve. Explicable or not, the Boondock cult is real enough to have convinced someone that Duffy, whose egomania and personal unpleasantness is chronicled in the documentary Overnight, was worth a second shot.
All Saints Day picks up years after the original, with the brothers and their equally homicidal da (Connolly) hiding out in the green hills of Ireland, represented by an isolated cottage that would have struck the makers of The Quiet Man as a tad on the nose. When a priest is murdered back in Boston using their customary M.O.—two guns, pennies on the eyes—they hop a freighter back to the States, picking up Clifton Collins Jr.’s bug-eyed Mexican sidekick on the way.
Duffy dutifully references the original, staging an endless succession of firefights—or rather their consequences, since his idea of a gun battle is watching a gaggle of undifferentiated henchmen flail their arms and spurt stage blood in slow motion. There are a few change-ups, but nothing to rile the fans: Dafoe’s lisping caricature is replaced by Julie Benz’s twangy G-man, who use earplugs rather than a Discman to aid her quasi-psychic trances.
While Duffy hasn’t made a movie in 10 years, some sign of personal growth should be expected, but he seems to have spent the intervening decade poring over his DVD collection rather than generating fresh ideas. Perhaps it’s his obvious lifts from Scorsese, Brian De Palma, Francis Ford Coppola, Stanley Kubrick, and the like that attract his fans, who get to feel savvy without being challenged. But his fondness for racial stereotypes—Italian mob boss Judd Nelson clubs an underling with a large cured sausage—and his inept command of actors, not to mention his utterly juvenile morality and his comically clumsy use of religious iconography, should keep all but the diehards away.
• D- av club rating D reader rating based on 23 ratings
• Director: Troy Duffy
• Cast: Norman Reedus, Sean Patrick Flanery, Billy Connolly
• Rated: R
• Running time: 87 minutes
Cult audiences have been responsible for the resurrection of movies ranging from Vertigo to The Big Lebowski, but even they get it wrong sometimes. If movies are a religion, the fervent following of Troy Duffy’s po-faced vigilante thriller The Boondock Saints is akin to Scientology, an opaque sect whose beliefs are utterly unintelligible to outsiders. Exactly what endears Duffy’s sub-Scorsesean tale of two Irish Catholic brothers (Norman Reedus and Sean Patrick Flanery) whose escape from death at the hands of Russian thugs convinces them they’ve been ordained as God’s personal assassins is a mystery not even Willem Dafoe’s mincing FBI agent can solve. Explicable or not, the Boondock cult is real enough to have convinced someone that Duffy, whose egomania and personal unpleasantness is chronicled in the documentary Overnight, was worth a second shot.
All Saints Day picks up years after the original, with the brothers and their equally homicidal da (Connolly) hiding out in the green hills of Ireland, represented by an isolated cottage that would have struck the makers of The Quiet Man as a tad on the nose. When a priest is murdered back in Boston using their customary M.O.—two guns, pennies on the eyes—they hop a freighter back to the States, picking up Clifton Collins Jr.’s bug-eyed Mexican sidekick on the way.
Duffy dutifully references the original, staging an endless succession of firefights—or rather their consequences, since his idea of a gun battle is watching a gaggle of undifferentiated henchmen flail their arms and spurt stage blood in slow motion. There are a few change-ups, but nothing to rile the fans: Dafoe’s lisping caricature is replaced by Julie Benz’s twangy G-man, who use earplugs rather than a Discman to aid her quasi-psychic trances.
While Duffy hasn’t made a movie in 10 years, some sign of personal growth should be expected, but he seems to have spent the intervening decade poring over his DVD collection rather than generating fresh ideas. Perhaps it’s his obvious lifts from Scorsese, Brian De Palma, Francis Ford Coppola, Stanley Kubrick, and the like that attract his fans, who get to feel savvy without being challenged. But his fondness for racial stereotypes—Italian mob boss Judd Nelson clubs an underling with a large cured sausage—and his inept command of actors, not to mention his utterly juvenile morality and his comically clumsy use of religious iconography, should keep all but the diehards away.