All rise, all rise. Judge SEENOEVIL has entered the courthouse and is ready to hear the arguments from both the defense and the prosecution on the charges of crimes against cinema.

First to stand trial is Steven Speilberg.

Now the Beardy one has given us some magnificent moments in cinema (Jaws, Close Encounters..., Schindler's List, Raiders Of The Lost Ark) but has had his fair share of guff (1941, Hook, Artificial Inteligence: A.I., The Terminal).

The question is this, does his good work outweigh his bad? Does he deserve freedom based on the beach storming in Saving Private Ryan or to be imprisoned for The Lost World: Jurassic Park?

Let the arguments be heard.

Hey! I enjoyed Hook, Artificial Intelligence: A.I., and The Terminal.

Yeah, but your favourite movie of all time is Multiplicity, thus making your opinion nul and void.

Yeah, I just went there.

Ok, put that baseball bat down.

Please.

I'll scream like a girl again.

I will.

You've been warned.

Yeah! Multiplicity. You green pimp, dawn of the dead head, ninja fairy! There is nothing wrong with Multiplicity. Like you wouldn't clone yourself if the opportunity presented itself, Steve. As far as the bat I have and when I'm going to use it....

Multiplicity has Andi MacDowell in it. Talk about crimes against good taste! She is right behind Molly Ringwald on my 'Bitch Slap NOW' list.

Ok, back to the Bearded one. My view on A.I.:

This could have been a good film, all the ingrediants are there, but what really grates me with this is the last half hour... **SPOILER ALERT**

The last half hour was not needed at all, if he had chosen to leave Sixth Sense kid (can't recall his name right now) at the bottom of the lake it would have been much better. Ok, so it would have been a complete downer of an ending, but still, it would have been a damn sight better than that future/alien guff that was presented. At that point I was sorely tempted to walk out of the cinema (something I never do, no matter how bad the film is, hey, I even sat through The Avengers), so add this to the dropped ball that was War Of The Worlds, the hockum of Hook and The Terminal it is clear that he is a very hit and miss director. When he is good he is very good, when he is bad he is bloomin' awful. Thus I think he deserves a six month suspended sentence, just to see what he comes up with next, only because of the magnificence that is Jaws.

**SPOILER END**

Great director, apart from Hook, which was complete and utter shite.

My personal faves have to be in no particular order,

Schindlers List
Jaws
both Jurassic Park movies (what can I say, I have a weakness for all things monster like)
the Indiana Jones films (Indy would kick Bond's ass)
Empire Of The Sun
Amistad
Minority Report
Munich
War Of The Worlds (yeah, I liked it)
& Saving Private Ryan (though The Thin Red Line is the superior war movie in my opinion)

As for Multiplicity, it's enjoyable, kind of.

I'm all for Spielberg. There aren't many of his films I dislike. And "The Terminal" is actually one of my favourite movies.

I say he get let off with a fine and a slap on the wrist.

He's goodies outweigh he's baddies.

i mean Jaws, Ryan, The List, Indy, J Park, Dual.

these kind of movies can wash away a hell of a lot of crap.

and yes i hated AI, but Hook and The Terminal were ok movies, i'm not saying they're anywhere close to his best movies but they are watchable.

Ok, so it would seem that Mr 'I've got a beard don't you know' Speilberg is saved from meeting a new cell mate called Butch, who would have made life VERY uncomortable for him.

So, next up, Dirty Dancing.

Lets face it, guys do not get Dirty Dancing. Why can't Baby be left in the corner, she ain't pretty or anything, infact I've seen prettier sheep than her, and Patrick Swayze, come on, the heir to the sleazemeister throne (currently occupied by The Hoff). Yet, saying all of this, a film that makes no sense whatsoever is adored, and I mean ADORED by ladies EVERYWHERE. I am yet to meet a woman that doesn't hold a special place in their heart for this film.

So, to the charge being brought against Dirty Dancing, the corruption of an entire generation of girls that would later force this heap-o-trash on their blokes/partners/anyone else that would watch it.

I'm behind you 100% on this one Snee! I loved it in 1987. I don't remember it being one of those movies I wanted to see a several times in the theater, though. I didn't want to own it. And I don't remember when my enjoyment of the movie turned to utter loathing. But if I never saw it again, it would be too soon.

Hurragh! One for the blokes there.

I sentence Dirty Dancing to leave baby in the corner, sit down and shut up, because that dancing isn't dirty at all. If I wanted to see dirty dancing I'd go to Spearmint Rhino... not that I know about that sort of thing, oh no, heaven forbid.

Next on the witness stand is Teens in movies (Horror, Comedy, it matters not) from both sides of the pond.

John Hughes has a lot to answer for, Ferris Beuller's Day Off? Give me a break. I really wish a sequel to this had been made called Ferris Beuller's 20 YEARS IN PRISON!

Prisoner: Hey! Ferris! Pass the soap!

Ferris: Where is it?

Prisoner: At your feet.

Ferris: Oh!

So, come on, lets hear the arguments for the defense and prosecution (although, those working for the defense should be warned, the judge may have been bribed on this one).

Nope. I defend John Hughes movies. I was the right age for them then and I loved them. Except Pretty in Pink. I still hate that one. Loved Jon Cryer in it though. And love the joke that Boston Legal got out of it dressing James Spader up as a flamingo for Halloween.

I really don't get how any of John Hughes's 80s teen flicks are still held in such high regard. I was also the right age for these movies, I hated tem then, I hate them now.

Ok, perhaps I should expand on this a little. I hate all this "Wasn't The 80s Great" nostalgia bullshit we hear all the time. The 80s was an awful decade. I know, I was there through it all. This is just part of the reason as to why I hate these films, they reek of their time. Some films can get away with it, but HIS films can't. Simple Minds? Give me a freakin' break.

These films were also great at attempting to tap into that teenage angst, trying to get teens all over the world to shout in unison "Thats How I Feel, They Understand"... well, no they don't. They have taken a universal theme and sold it to the masses in the thinly veild disguise of a Teen movie that understands teens, and this is where, for me, they fail misserably. I cannot relate in any way to middle class white kids in the heart of the USA who MOAN ABOUT NOTHING ALL FUCKING DAY!

Oh no, Molly Ringwald can't get a date for the prom, boo-fucking-hoo! They all forgot her birthday, oh no, we must feel sorry for her! No. She is a ginger freak who managed to force her way to stardom for an all too long a period, and is now, hopefully, in a council flat in Hackney with Debbie Gibson and Tiffany, all reminising about the "Good Ol' Days".

DAMNIT! I hate the 80s SO MUCH!

No. I do not go for any of that '80s nostalgia. Our clothes were awful. Our music was awful. High school sucked royally. But it was what it was.

I think the difference between our perceptions of John Hughes films is you're a boy and I'm a girl. And you don't like movies that tug at your heartstrings anyway.

As for Molly Ringwald, with the exception of The Stand, she should have stopped acting after those movies.

THATS A LIE...



... makes me cry every single time.

Yeah, your right, to a point. The target audience was teenage girls, and no, I have never been a teenage girl. Is that why all the girls at school thought Judd Nelson was so "Dreamy" in The Breakfast Cub? Because, isn't that what girls like, you know, the bad boy, a bit o' ruff so to speak?

Gah, women, you can't live with 'em... FACT!

I think at the time I was more into Emilio Estevez. I don't really remember whom I thought was cuter. Rob Lowe, but he wasn't in that one. Sigh.

Did you just correct my spelling?

You cheeky cow.

Jeez, thats just petty, I mean, come on, thats really low. Give me a break, I have an English degree.

Rob Lowe? Really? So, I take it that you like the pretty boys then?

Ok, let me throw a spaner into the works here. I like Heathers. Its a very funny take on the whole John Hughes world. Often over looked but certainly a film I'd recomend, which is odd, because I can't stand Christian Slater or Whino Ryder.

Yes, dammit, I corrected your spelling. We had that talk in the chat room. Get over it.

Heathers was good. I like Christian Slater. I hate Whino Ryder too.

My, my, my. We are in a narky mood tonight aren't we.

Gah, I think this is going to be a case of 'Agree to Disagree'.

So, as for a ruling, Teen Movies get let off with a caution, but be warned, I'LL BE WATCHING!

So, onto our next case.

Tom Hanks.

A very hit and miss actor in my books. Brilliant in Road To Perdition, Apollo 13 and Philadephia, absolute guff in rubbish like The Da Vinci Code, Cast Away and The Bonfire Of The Vanities.

Big meant nothing to me, Bachelor Party was funny when I was 13, and although often frowned upon I quite like The Money Pit.

So, does Mr Hanks's good work out weigh his bad?

Tom Hanks -- Not Guilty

Good
Cars
The Polar Express
The Terminal
Catch Me If You Can
Road to Perdition
Band of Brothers
Cast Away
The Green Mile
Toy Story
You've Got Mail
Saving Private Ryan
That Thing You Do!
Toy Story
Apollo 13
Forrest Gump
Philadelphia
Sleepless in Seattle
A League of Their Own
The Bonfire of the Vanities
Joe Versus the Volcano
Turner & Hooch
The 'burbs
Punchline
Big
Every Time We Say Goodbye
Nothing in Common
The Money Pit
Volunteers
The Man with One Red Shoe
Bachelor Party
Splash
Family Ties
Mazes and Monsters
Bosom Buddies

Bad
The Da Vinci Code
Dragnet

I've just highlighted the movies that I liked, all the others are rubbish, or even worse, just very meh!

This is my problem with Mr Hanks, when he is good he is very VERY good, when he is bad he is godawful, but there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. Now, most actors phone in a performance rom time to time, this isn't something I get from Tom, infact I will give credit where credit is due, he tries damned hard on each and every film, it is just a case of more misses than hits when it comes to performances.

This could be the fault of the director or his inability to listen to advice, I don't know, but something is definately amiss in Camp Hanks.

Whoa!!

You DIDN'T enjoy The 'Burbs?

WTF dude?

I did when I first saw it, many moons ago, but I tried watching it a few months back, and it realy doesn't hold up anymore...

... or I have just become a bitter and twisted old man.

You decide.

That's what I've been saying!

Was I talking to you?

Was I?

No.

So know your role and shut your mouth.

Like that'll happen.

And I liked all those Tom Hanks movie and TV roles. Why didn't you like him in Mazes and Monsters? Did you even see it?

Nope. However, I'm quite suprised that I haven't because as a kid that would have been right up my street (Beastmaster rules).

Gah, the whole D&D generation have a lot to answer for.

I'm with TexasGal - Tom Hanks is actually my favourite actor.

yeah, you've bad mouthed tom hanks and spielberg. While this doesn't bother me so much, if badcopshow were here, you'd be on your way to gitmo right now.

I liked hanks a bit more when he was just doing comedy, though I have no problem with a lot of his movies since he decided to become a serious actor. Still, the terminal, catch me if you can, and a couple of others were a total waste of my time, and I knew enough to avoid the da vinci crap like the plague.



Now, if it please the court, I would like to file an appeal to reopen the case of the people vs the hulk.

The hulk was wrongfully convicted on the grounds that the special effects looked fake and that the movie took itself too seriously. Since then it has been named (alongside the far more reprehensible daredevil) whenever some godawful comic book movie violates those stupid enough to buy a ticket.

Now a new hulk movie is in the works, and it is trying to take a page out of batman's play book and will be essentially reinventing the franchise, as though ang lee's hulk was comparable to joel "satan" schumacher's batman. In doing so, they hope to eliminate all that pesky story and character development to make room for mindless action.

What say you? Can I really be the only one who had fun watching a giant green monster smash things? Is it really possible that I am the only one who appreciates interesting characters and storyline? Am I the only one who thought that the hulk actually looked pretty good (and who realized that he looked weird at night because of bioluminescence, as was mentioned in the beginning) and who thinks it's unfair to expect a 15 foot tall green man to look "real"?

Did you read this months Empire by any chance?

Ok, I really enjoyed The Hulk myself (even went to see it twice, yep thats right, twice), but I remember saying at the time that it wouldn't get the mass appeal of such other comic book adaptations as say Spiderman and X-Men (and we all know what happened to that franchise... Thankyou Bret Ratner... but thats what you get when you give such a film to the man behind Rush Hour).

It's unfair to compare it to the woeful Daredevil, I would say a nearer comaparison would be Superman Returns, a film which attempted something different but missed the mark at the box office.

Ang Lee is such a diverse director that even when it was announced I wondered how 'successful' it would be. Not that success should be the ultimate factor in whether a film is any good or not (Blade Runner, The Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club, John Carpenter's The Thing...all of these 'failed' at the box office), however, seats sold does determine a lot of things in Hollywood.

As for the effects, this is a bit of a bug bear with me. These FX are used to show the audience just what a certain character is doing at any one time, something that the FX in The Hulk more than managed to do. As makeitstop stated, The Hulk is a 15ft green monster... when was the last time you saw one of these? Its like when people were moaning about the FX in Matrix Reloaded during the Neo vs Smiths fight scene, it showed (very well) what the sory was attempting to state, shame the rest of the film wasn't up to scratch (but nowhere near as bad as some make out).

So in my court The Hulk automatically gets a pass, just for trying something different in a very formulated genre. Plus, Ang Lee made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, nuff said.

OK, it's time to put a new star on the chopping block. Todays victim: Ben stiller.

I have friends who swear he is the funniest man alive, but honestly, I think he is barely tolerable as an actor, and horrific when given any creative control. I would consign him to the gallows without a second thought were it not for his presence in There's Something About Mary. While Dodgeball was mildly amusing (though lacking in quality) Ben was never all that funny. And the same goes for the underrated mystery men.

The only performance which could possibly redeem him to any small degree was in the little known Zero Effect, an odd little movie in which stiller has a supporting role as the assistant to an extremely weird detective. It's a quirky little movie which i difficult to describe, and which ben does not ruin.

So what say you? Guilty or not guilty

I agree with you, and the music sucked too. Obviously not all of it, but it seemed there was alot of bad 80's music.

I have to admit, I find Ben Stiller funny. But then again, I find a lot of things funny. The very thought of one of my friends slipping heavily on a banana peel about five years ago can still bring me to tears.

generally detest him...but he redeemed himself to some degree in this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I3v0S8lcrg

he is infinitely more funny than will-unfunny cunt- ferrell though

Your Honour. I would like to call Disney sequels to the stand please.

I give you Bambi II. (in which Bambi meets the same fate as his mother?)
Cinderella II. (the prince has an affair with Sleeping Beauty?)
The Junle book II (Mowgli discovers his love for beastiality perhaps?)
The Little Mermaid II ( Ariel realises it really was the seaweed wraps keeping wrinkles at bay?)

On Ben Stiller, I have to admit I find him really damn funny, in particular Dodgeball, There's Something About Mary (though Matt Dillon was the funniest thing in it IMO), Zoolander and his cameo in Anchorman. It's true he's been in some intolerable crap (Keeping The Faith immediately springs to mind) but overall I enjoy his work. He also gave a pretty damn good serious performance in Empire Of The Sun, though granted a small part. I say Not Guilty.


As for Disney sequels? I really can't comment, I find it hard to sit through the originals, although The Jungle Book was da bomb!!

Yeah, I'm against all Disney movies (excluding Narnia, Pirates, and Prince of Persia) unless I'm using them to shut up some annoying brat.

Can we just get rid of ALL unnecessary sequels?

I'd keep Stiller around for his cameo work

and

I'd keep Disney around for it's Pixar work

Alright, time for a big one. Zak Penn

First of all, this scumbag can't even spell his own name.

Second, this is the guy the took the story and character development out of X2 and turned it into a mindless action movie, and in which magneto was no longer someone with a justifiable point of view but rather just a genocidal maniac.

Of course, the script for elektra was not exactly brilliant either.

Then he wrote the horrific X-men 3, which should be reason enough for the gas chamber all by itself.

And now, he is writing the dumbed down, mindless action movie version of the incredible hulk.

Honestly, is there any reason why this guy can still get a job?

I liked the first X-Men. I tried and tried, but I couldn't even understand X2. Now I don't even want to give X3 a chance.

Same thing with Elektra. I thoroughly enjoyed DareDevil despite Ben Affleck. I avoided Elektra.

I vote Guilty!

Elektra was extremely bad as was Daredevil and X-men3.

Guilty as charged.

Right, well, whatwhat!

Its good to see that in my abcense you have all been giving it what for to all those that deserve to be on the stand.

Right, less of this pussy footing around, time to bring out the next guilty party... I mean defendant.

This should divide opinions... Michael Moore.

I enjoyed Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 & Stupid White Men, but have to admit I find him a little too preachy and self righteous, Morgan Spurlock is a superior documentary maker IMO.

I can see where you are coming from, definately. However, I have a bit of a soft spot for the guy. Yeah, ok, so he gets on his soap box a bit too much, and yes from time to time he can scewer stats to suit his argument, but hey, show me a politician that doesn't, because lets face it, Michael Moore is a wannabe politician who happens to spend his time make documentaries.



I have to admit that I have only seen Supersize Me, which granted was pretty good, I have yet to see his TV show 30 Days, but I've heard a hell of a lot of good reviews about it, so I'll have to catch it on repeat some time. Damn me and my 'No TV' thingymajig.

I have to disagree with you here. I wouldn't have a problem with him (as a film maker, I'm not going to comment on anything else about him) if he was honest. I disagree with his politics, but if he would just stick to the facts and make a logical case for his beliefs, I would respect him.

Unfortunately, he doesn't stick to the facts. He actually lies quite a bit in his movies, and at the same time he cherry picks information and uses misleading imagery to present inaccurate representations of reality. In other words, his movies are basically propaganda pieces; little more than 2 hour long campaign commercials. Yeah, he may not be the only liar out there, or the worst of them either, but that doesn't excuse his attempts to con the public into accepting his apparently indefensible agenda.

Honestly though, I would think the people who should really pissed at him are the people who agree with him. I know I'd be pissed if someone was using such dishonest and fallacious methods to spread (and in the process, discredit) my views.

Er, I'm not seeing where you are you disagreeing with me here? We seem to have pretty much the same argument coming from different sides of the fence. We agree that he doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth 100% of the time, then again people will believe what they want to believe and see certain things in different ways, hell, just look at the thousands of ways people interprate the bible.

Where I give him a pass is the way in which he presents the alternate argument. Watch the news, any news, and you tend to get virtually one argument, one point of view (Fox and CNN are terrible for this, and don't et me started on the various newspapers), what Mr Moore is attempting to do is show things in a different light, show the flip side of what we are told. Granted, he has fallen into the same trap as a lot of politicians, scewing stats to suit his argument, but I can forgive this to a degree as he is only attempting to beat them at their own game.

Its unfortunate that we have got to the stage where there is no pure 'truth' anymore just 'opinions'. When you present conjecture as fact you create myth, then people take that myth and that takes on a snowball effect, gathering momentum to the point that people don't know what to believe anymore. Truth or no truth I'm just glad that there is guy out there who is willing to bring such issues and get them talked about in the mainstream media instead of going through the usual 'Icon' driven stories we pass off news in todays society. Agree with him or not, thats your perogative, but if it gets serious conversations and arguments going then surely that can only be a good thing.

Where we seem to disagree is in our appraisal of moore's level of dishonesty. I'm trying to be as precise and accurate as possible, but in essence, I'm saying he is lying scumbag whose movies are pure bullshit. Take any point in one of his movies, and upon further examination, odds are you will find it is either an outright lie, or a massive distortion. Even if he was raising issues which don't get any coverage (though almost all of them actually get tons of coverage) I don't think spreading that much bad information is even remotely beneficial to the political discourse.

A lot of the media is worthless, or at least negligent, but the fact is that between the various competing media outlets and the power of the blogosphere, information is available without relying on propaganda. There are numerous sources available who will present facts and attempt to tell the damn truth. Or at least base the opinions they express on reliable information. A sound argument may not be neutral, but as long as people have basic reasoning skills, it is still beneficial to the marketplace of ideas.

Moore on the other hand seems to think the ends justify the means, and therefore, anything he has to say or do in order to "fix" America is ok. That attitude is extremely destructive and undermines the entire political discussion.

And finally, the fact is, we aren't talking about the rest of the media, or the politicians. They are scumbags, but that is beside the point. We are talking about Moore, and the dishonesty of others doesn't excuse his tactics. Just because other people lie doesn't mean he should. I mean, if all the politicians and journalists jumped off a cliff, should Michael Moore do it too? Actually...

Ok, but again, we seem to reaching a similar conclusion from different sides of the fence.

I genuinely believe that Michael Moore believes he is telling the truth, how he sees it, hence my comment on opinions. One mans terrorist is another mans revolutionary.

As someone outside the US it is sometimes an insight into some of the subjects which may very well get discussed a hell of a lot over there but there is very little known about over here. Without films like Roger & Me and Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room I wouldn't have gone away and found out more about what large corporations are getting up to in todays society, thus I wouldn't have found out about NAFTA and the role of the WTO. So if such films can turn someone onto what these things are and how they effect our everyday lives and in some way educate people to a degree where they want to find out more for themselves then surely that can only be seen as a good thing, right?

How anyone can always stand one side of the fence before hearing the argument is beyond me. To paraphrase Chris Rock:



Or something like that.

It all comes down to what is 'Truth'. Everyone has their own version, and you, makeitstop, see Michael Moore as a cold hearted liar, and hey, thats your right, where I sit is in the fact that no matter how much stuff he melds to fit his argument he truely believes what he is saying is correct, Michael Moore's 'version' of the truth.

There is no black and white, only shades of grey.

I absolutely agree with this! And SNE, are you really back? Or are you just sort of back? It's good to see you!