Interestingly enough, there's quite a few "Republicans against Romney" groups, several of which claim they would rather vote for Obama, because they know Romney is a fake, trying to condemn your own healthcare bill dosen't make you look good.

You haven't misunderstood me. Fiscally, I'm right-of-center. I believe the debt needs to be shrunk by massive across-the-board cuts. Entitlements have to be dealt with in an intelligent way. The defense budget, the other scared cow, also has to be greatly reduced. Why the hell do we have so many overseas bases? We need a military that can defend the country in a time of crises, but we have to stop trying to be the world's police. It's gutting us financially.

There are actually a few things in the Republican platform I could get behind (such as energy self-sufficiency) but I don't believe any of those will actually be pursued.

Socially, I'm liberal. So, yes, I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm strongly pro-choice until the fetus is viable. After that, I consider abortion to be murder. (We can argue about the age at which a fetus is viable, but it seems to be around 20 weeks.)

Sadly, however, I can see only two ways to escape the current hyper-polarization and special interest uber-power:

(1) A charismatic, truly independent individual becomes president. (Santa Claus will be his Secretary of State.)
(2) A national or world disaster of major proportions that forces everyone to put aside petty interests. It would be a real tragedy if it comes to this, but we might be headed down this road. (Climate change could well provide the engine for something along these lines.)

Not much I can say, can I? I will admit it's hard to keep an edge when reviewing a constant stream of mediocre movies. If people no longer find the reviews entertaining/interesting/informative, it wouldn't make sense for them to keep reading.

Based on what I understand, the first movie will be largely unchanged from how it was envisioned before the three movie decision. What Jackson has done is primarily split movie #2 into two pieces. The first will focus on Smaug. The second will focus on the Battle of the Five Armies. The additional material will be used to beef up these films.

In theory, I still prefer the original idea: Movie #1 would be an adaptation of THE HOBBIT and Movie #2 would take the additional information and provide a bridge to THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

But we'll see how it all turns out. Maybe I'll love it.

It's not just the health care flip flop that stinks about Romney. Do you know how a business like Bain Capital works? I suspect most don't. And if most Americans did, Romney would lose this election, and lose in a way that makes McGovern and Mondale's losses look like tight races by comparison.

Since we're talking about "The Hobbit", it has been confirmed part 3 will be released July 2014. Consider the fact part 1 and 2 will be released December 2012 and December 2013. Also consider the fact the three LOTR releases each had a December release.

I'm wondering why have the last film come out during July instead of Decemeber? Is this to attempt to slay the summer ? I've never considered the LOTR films to be summer blockbuster types of films. It just feels weird to me to have all these films come out in December and have the last one come out in July.

http://news.yahoo.com/release-date-thir ... 41018.html

It's because of the split. WB felt that because parts 2 & 3 are essentially one long movie broken into two pieces, they wanted to limit the time in between, and Jackson doesn't need a full year to get the final part ready. It's essentially the same strategy they employed for the final Harry Potter movie. I suspect it probably also has something to do with them wanting a big summer entry in 2014.

Does splitting it into 3 movies bother you based on what the content demands, or the precedent it sets. I mean, how long is it before we get 9 parts to the film version of Mary Had a Little lamb with the remake coming out a year after the previous installment?

For me, the most interesting part of that situation would be reading Mr. Berardinelli's review of the film adaptation of his book. I don't know if there are any rules about critics reviewing adaptations of their own work, but I can imagine that it would be difficult to provide an objective opinion under those circumstances.

"Unfilmable. " - James Berardinelli

The solution is to stay home and review classic movies. Or royally bad ones like "Ben and Arthur."

Or convince studio heads to only produce GOOD movies lol

I don't know if James has ever answered this question, but I'll ask anyways:

James

Have you ever cried (or gotten emotional) when watching a film? If so, what film(s) drove you to tears (or close to them)?

FREDDY GOT FINGERED.

Ahem...

CITY LIGHTS.
THE RETURN OF THE KING.
SOPHIE'S CHOICE.

There were probably others, but they escape me at the moment.

Not Precious or The War Zone?

Precious did it for me. So did Million Dollar Baby.

OH COME ON! "Million Dollar Baby" was one of the most shamelessly manipulative movies the Oscars ever paid attention to. It tried way too hard to be "gritty" and "Groundbreaking," but every scene rang false. "Finding Neverland" or "Hotel Rwanda" (which wasn't even nominated) were much better.

Agreed, that film did almost nothing for me, I think Swnak's oscar win for that film was a fluke. I wasn't a huge fan of Precious either, that film also felt like it was trying way too hard for it's own good.

Million Dollar Baby, for all of its faults, is a really well-written movie. The drama feels organic, the acting is very good and it actually pulls off the amazing feat of being three movies for the price of one: the first half, the second half, the combination of the two that make the movie something completely different than either half. It's truly more than the sum of its parts! Shamelessly manipulative? Fuck that noise, as the kids say. Start a thread on 'movies that are shamelessly manipulative' and see what the people of this forum have to contribute. Terms of Endearment might fall into that category. Hell, I Saw The Devil is shamelessly manipulative and I loved that movie! It wouldn't have worked if it hadn't tried and successfully shamelessly manipulated me.

There is only room for one Mighty Mike on this forum and that Mighty Mike is Vexer.

I wouldn't call it shamelessly manipulative, I just didn't find it very involving is all.