comment #1

Walter Sobchak says ...

Achtung HE readers! DON'T TAKE THE BAIT!

Just quietly walk away.

comment #2

Dan Revill says ...

Must resist the temptation to say anything to this obvious bait other than, get bent Wells.

comment #3

erniesouchak says ...

I tuned in about 10 min. into it, and Wells is right, it's a phenomenal BJ.

comment #4

dre says ...

can't....contain....myself....

comment #5

scooterzz says ...

schickel's not even in it.....

comment #6

tholl-yung says ...

ONG, OMG, who takes writing credit, who narrates, he goes down on himself? Does he take breaks?

comment #7

JapAdapters says ...

I'll take it further than Wells on this one: I don't think Spielberg has ever made a great movie aside from his twin gems JAWS and RAIDERS. In fact, every non-rousing action movie (really the only movies he can really use his abundant genius on without completely spoiling with his complete contempt for real people) are so emotionally disingenious I can barely stand them. The last truly emotionally challenging movie he made was SUGARLAND EXPRESS, which actually has a -- gasp -- non-happy ending! Everything else is either half genius/half complete pandering bullshit (SAVING PRIVATE RYAN/A.I.) or just plain insulting dog shit (THE COLOR PURPLE). Don't even get me started on his supposed masterpiece SCHINDLER'S LIST, where Oscar Schindler lectures Nazi soldiers and they actually lay down their guns!!! Gimme a fucking break!!! Personally, I think Spielberg is severley miscast as a great film maker. The guy should be doing what he does well: making movies that make money.

comment #8

Josh Massey says ...

Geez, you didn't even mention his career worst: The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

(And yes, I loved Catch Me If You Can and Munich, and have a bizarre love for 1941).

comment #9

cinefan says ...

What exactly is the point of posting this information again? It's a complete waste of time because no matter what anyone says, people are going to feel the same way they always have about Spielberg's work and are going to continue to like or dislike them depending on where they're coming from.

comment #10

christian says ...

he does talk explicitly about 1941.

comment #11

cinefan says ...

What exactly is the point of posting this information again? It's a complete waste of time because no matter what anyone says, people are going to feel the same way they always have about Spielberg's work and are going to continue to like or dislike him depending on where they're coming from.

comment #12

Ogami Itto says ...

"But will he have the cojones to speak the truth about Spielberg's so-so, second-tier and flat-out-bad films -- 1941, The Color Purple, Always, Hook, Amistad, A.I., Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal and Munich?"

I actually liked A.I. It was a dark fairy tale with a really downbeat ending. I could've done without the Robin Williams cameo, though.

comment #13

Mark says ...

the problem with creating great lines these days like "one of the most exuberant acts of televised fellatio ever broadcast" is that you can just google it and discover that someone else already wrote it. In this case, Marc Cooper's blog. i'm not saying Wells plagarized; i'm saying the world is too big.

comment #14

Rod32303 says ...

Blow jobs are awesome.

as is Speilberg.

And sometimes Wells.

hatin' bitches, as always, live on this site.

comment #15

dave l says ...

If Wells was anything other than a crank, he would write retrospective reviews of Spielberg's key movies, good or bad. But instead, he's going to be lazy and take the easy way out: posting something cranky and dismissive whenever the subject enters his reptilian brain.

comment #16

Mike Binder says ...

You got to let this one go buddy.Speilberg hating is a dog that won't hunt.

Live clean

comment #17

jeffmcm says ...

Now I understand the John Gissing ads that are all over Wells' site.

comment #18

corey3rd says ...

Hating on Speilberg should be an Olympic sport. The man removes all the sexual elements out of his films. His characters are pumped full of saltpeter. There's nothing passionate between them.

He's spent most of career creating the myth of his genius. Try sneaking onto his part of the lot to start creating your career.

How come he doesn't even appear on On the Lot after having his name hype that turd? Why isn't he spreading his knowledge to these kiddies?

How does this compare to the wankfest that was History Channel's "Genius of Lucas" two hour jizz-athon?

comment #19

jeffmcm says ...

I'm watching it right now. It moves too quickly to really be excessively hagiographic or stringently critical; it's a quick survey documentary.

Meanwhile, Spielberg is one of the three or four best directors now working.

comment #20

Ponderer says ...

Two interesting things from the documentary: I think it's pretty clear that Spielberg feels he has a fairly shitty instinct for straight-up comedy. He really doesn't hold back on 1941's myriad flaws, and he refers here and there to comedy stuff not working. (Compare the Richard Dreyfuss taking out the trash sequence in Close Encounters to the jet-pack sequence in Minority Report, and it's clear that he's still got the corny Borscht-Belt sensibility.)

The second: while it's impossible for Wells to admit this (as he's buttered his bread with a presumptive, unyielding certainty of Spielberg's irrelevancy), in the last ten years, Spielberg's become one of the most interesting and politically overt filmmakers we've got. Every single film he's made since Amistad has had an engaged social consciousness, each one has been more and more uneasy with society.

Yeah, he's still capable of pumping out turds like The Terminal, and Amistad was dreary, but contrary to the horseshit Wells has been alleging, Spielberg's become an honest-to-god artist in the last ten years, rather than the King-Vidoresque craftsman he wanted to emulate. The sooner he gets Indy out and keeps exploring this path, the happier I'll be.

comment #21

lazarus says ...

As much as I dislike many of Spielberg's bad habits, and agree with much of what Jap Adapters is saying, I take exception to a couple things: for one, I find it odd that someone would criticize so much of the man's career, yet hold Raiders up on such a pedestal. While it's certainly supreme entertainment, it's far too derivative of Gunga Dun and Fritz Lang's Indian Epic to really be considered a benchmark, even of S.S's filmmaking. I'll agree that Jaws is his most purely realized film, without the fat that accompanied almost every subsequent release. One could make the argument that Close Encounters is his real masterpiece, as it reflects more of what became the running themes in his filmography. I'd argue that it's more emotionally challenging (your term) than anything else, and the ending, while happy in a certain way, isn't pat.

If I'm not mistaken, Spielberg has said in recent years that he would never make a film like that today, with a man abandoning his family for some kind of obsession. Which just illustrates the compromised panderer he has become over the last 15 or so years. While A.I. contained what may be the most impressive filmmaking in his entire career, the lack of follow through sabotages it like every other post 1970's release.

Thanks, J.P., for spitting in the eye of The Color Purple, which for some reason is getting credit as a misunderstood classic, when the objective viewer will recognize it for the uneven, poorly paced, and overreaching mess that it is. It didn't deserve any of the Oscars it was nominated for (Out of Africa is the real underrated classic of 1985, even after winning Best Picture), and at least the voters had the sense that year to shut it out.

comment #22

BurmaShave says ...

Rule 1: Don't comment on things you haven't yet seen, you look foolish.

2) The documentary reaffirms my affection for Speilberg, who seems to be one of the nicest and most down to earth guys in Hollywood.

3) MUNICH is excellent, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN is fun as hell and one of his tightest films. Even COLOR PURPLE has its strong points. A very sold B+ effort, and as has been explained on another thread, it's very beloved by African Americans.

You're becoming an ass. God bless Speilberg. I hope he has another 20 years of films in him.

Just Stop.

comment #23

BurmaShave says ...

Oh I forgot, A.I. really grew on me with repeat viewings. Just a chilling piece of work. In time it will be regarded as one of his finest films.

comment #24

tholl-yung says ...

3 cameras was unmotivated, distracting and annoying. Schickel was so non-existent, it was more a hand job than felatio. The only writing you saw was the selection of clips. Oh, and the website for the show slimmed him down. But he's cool, he's got what every guy's ever wanted: control.

comment #25

Breedlove says ...

Spielberg has "complete contempt for real people"? What does that even mean? I'd agree with the sentiment that he's one of the three or four best, most consistent filmmakers working today. I find his work consistently fascinating. Mike Binder, you may have been in his best one. I could watch that movie once a week for the rest of my life. And, yes, he does come across in every interview I've seen as a very sweet, surprisingly humble, decent guy. If it's an act, then he should be putting himself in his own movies, because he's good.

comment #26

tholl-yung says ...

I agree, except sweet and humble? The guy's a raging egomaniac. But it's cool.

comment #27

Aunt Sassy says ...

"...which I suspect sight unseen is going to be one of the most exuberant acts of televised fellatio ever broadcast."

As opposed to this website, which is one of the most exuberant acts of auto-fellatio ever broadcast.

comment #28

tholl-yung says ...

OK, not raging, but supremely secure, confident and very taken with himself.

comment #29

tholl-yung says ...

Sounds like Auntie's getting a little Sassy at home with the automatic. Bye.

comment #30

Rich S. says ...

Sorry, Jeffrey, but I actually watched the show. It wasn't great, but it did give me some tidbits I didn't know, such as Spielberg and Lucas trading points on Star Wars and CE3K. Rather than self-fellatio, it's more of a stream-of-consciousness thing, with Spielberg doing a kind of "where I was when I made such-and-such" thing.

The length of each segment kind of tells you where his affections lie. On that basis, Schindler's List, Jaws, Empire of the Sun and Private Ryan appear to be his favorites.

He does explicitly go into why 1941 didn't work and the hubris involved. Unfortunately, he kind of throws Kubrick under the bus for the end of AI. By my count, the documentary neglected to mention seven of his films: Twilight Zone, the two Indy sequels, Always, Hook, Lost World and Catch Me If You Can.

His final comments expanded on the over-arching theme of his work, which he believes is communication. He mentions the divorce in E.T. briefly and explains SPR is a gift to his father, but either doesn't recognize, or won't discuss, the recurring theme of connecting with your father.

comment #31

BurmaShave says ...

He didn't throw Kubrick under the bus at all, but rather explained he embraced his idea for the ending as the best way to end the story. Throwing him under the bus would be "Well I didn't really buy it, but it was Stanley's idea". You could tell A.I. was very much a labor of respect for Speilberg.

The documentary also really gave me an appreciation for how prolific he is. He's practically working at a Woody Allen pace these days for fucks sake. Keep it coming.

comment #32

Mark says ...

Suge Avery + entourage bursting into her father's church mid-song, is one of the greatest American scenes on film.

comment #33

Rich S. says ...

Okay, maybe "throw under the bus" is a little strong. But he does say that the critics took him to task because they believed that Kubrick would have ended AI with David trapped under the water, looking up at the Blue Faerie. He tried to deflect that criticism by pointing out that that was actually Kubrick's idea. It is clear that he respected Kubrick's ideas and has a great deal of affection for the movie.

comment #34

JapAdapters says ...

lazarus: Derivative or not RAIDERS holds up as a classic to me. It's exactly the type of movie that Spielberg should be doing, IMO. It's just so much fun. Of course it's pretty violent too and I bet Spielberg would shy away from that in making what is essentially a kid's movie today.

Breedlove: His "complete contempt for real people" means his characters are not real people. They're not complicated like real people. They're not flawed like real people are flawed. I've never bought them as real people because they're usually so one dimensional and trite. For example, Oscar Schindler in real life was a complicated man, who did what he could without affecting his bottom line. That's a lot more interesting and true (to real people) than what Spielberg dumbed down on screen. That's what he does: dumb shit down and press the most obvious buttons (modern day Private Ryan: 'I hope my life was worthy of you' ... PUKE!) really, really, really hard. As in: "Yes, Spielberg, I know I'm supposed to feel this way but thanks for the ham handed touch and oh so unsubtle John Williams (GAG!) score."

Further, where are the great performances in his movies? Isn't that a staple of a great director? He may be one of the four or five best working today, and he's clearly a visual genius who COULD make great movies, if he wasn't so concerned with trying to be so popular. I remember a quote from another documentary about the 70's filmakers where a guy said Spielberg talked a lot about wanting to make "films" but ironically became the biggest movie maker. He's always struck me as the film version of the guys who hung around the hippie scene and talked a lot of lefty shit but were only in it for the pussy and ended up voting for Reagan.

comment #35

NYCBusybody says ...

"Don't even get me started on his supposed masterpiece SCHINDLER'S LIST, where Oscar Schindler lectures Nazi soldiers and they actually lay down their guns!!! Gimme a fucking break!!!"

I think that scene is quite believable, for the simple reason that the war is over. I think any reasonably intelligent filmgoer (which doesn't include JapIdiot) would pick up on the subtle point of the scene: the young German soldiers are not so much laying down their arms in sudden, humanistic fervor, but in the realization that "shit...this thing's over, our side lost, and who knows if we'll be included in war criminal trials? I think it best to not add to that". Schindler even hints as much to them. He appeals to their humanity, but he's really, subtly appealing to their self-preservation instincts.

comment #36

NYCBusybody says ...

(look at the relieved, "i'm glad it did, but how the fuck did THAT work?" look he gives to Stern right afterwards)

comment #37

JapAdapters says ...

LOL! Yeah, it's SO believable. Never mind it never happened, never would have happened, never could have happened, ignores what being a Nazi meant (and means), is such an obvious Hollywood moment it could only appear in a Holocaust movie directed by Stephen Spielberg, etc.

Of course, you would believe it since you seem to have a lot in common with those guards. If only someone could give the speech that would make you lay down your keyboard for good.

comment #38

NYCBusybody says ...

"His "complete contempt for real people" means his characters are not real people. They're not complicated like real people. They're not flawed like real people are flawed. I've never bought them as real people because they're usually so one dimensional and trite."

Wow, this JapIdiot has come on strong as the new moron on these boards.

I've always thought those exact sentiments about Kubrick films, in which not one character I've ever seen (outside, perhaps, Paths of Glory) acted even REMOTELY like a real person. Now, to be fair, I think this was probably due to the fact that Kubrick DID have contempt for real people, but that's beside the point. He was a ridiculously one-dimensional filmmaker, in that his characters were ALL just one big hyper-stylized flaw - symbols, not people.

I submit that the single worst, most odious, sub-intelligent scene in the history of motion pictures is at the end of "Full Metal Jacket", when the soldiers start humming the Mickey Mouse Club theme. Now, this actually could have been a good idea if the sound had been played non-diegetically over a shot of the soldiers marching - i.e., play the actual theme on the soundtrack, without the soldiers whistling it.

Kubrick, being the lumpen, brain-dead, trumped-up geek he is, instead has the soldiers become LITERAL symbols on screen...they are no longer the young men who just committed war atrocities, but walking post-modern commentaries. There is NO WAY any real soldiers in this situation would have thought to whistle that theme in a jaunty-aren't-we-so-clever-and-meta way. The scene loses all realistic impact, undercuts any reality the film had strived for, and ends with most viewers saying "Wow, Kubrick is a genius, I wish I could make movies with oh-so-clever meta endings so people will think I'm a genius too!".

Which, of course, is exactly what poseurs like Kubrick want.

comment #39

JapAdapters says ...

I'm an idiot and Kubrick is a poseur? Hmmmm, projecting much?

comment #40

NYCBusybody says ...

You just remind me of not only Kubrick, but most of his fans - fat geeks in basements who open posts with "LOL!".

You're the one projecting on ex-hippies who voted for Reagan simply out of jealousy that they got pussy and you never have. Conquering females feels good for the alpha males that can do it, such as I. Those weaned on Kubrick films in their basements lose out, then get jealous, and lash out.

Lash out again, and prove my point.

comment #41

JapAdapters says ...

Your confused. You brought up Kubrick, not me. You lashed out at me, not the other way around. You're a poseur who talks about "conquering" females, not me.

You don't know shit about me, my weight, or my proximity to a basement but let me clear some stuff up for you: I'm 6'3", weigh 200 lbs, live in a house without a basement (though we're currently adding one), have a beautiful (in spirit and yeah, physically too) wife who I've been with for 12 years and still have sex with every day. I've lost out on nothing. I have a full life and happy children, things I would GUESS (since I don't really know you) will never come your way because you live in the basement of your mind and see the world in cliches, probably because you are one yourself.

You talk about people weaned on Kubrick and their lashing out when the reality here is you insulted me (and not my anti-Spielberg arguments) because you're a child and children lash out. Talk about projecting!

comment #42

JapAdapters says ...

Oh, yeah: Now go jerk me a soda, shit dick.

comment #43

tholl-yung says ...

3 cameras. The writing of this doc was in the editing, the ending was done by a butcher.

Is he shallow, is he deep, does he paint with house brushes? I didn't know he always wanted to make a dinosaur movie. How hard is it to be prolific when you're so successful?

comment #44

jesse says ...

I haven't watched the doc yet (TiFaux'd it last night), and I am disappointed by the omissions (I'd like to hear at least a few words from him on each film, even if it's just lip service to some of the less cinematically interesting ones). But I'll watch it -- despite potential lack of critical eye -- because Spielberg is one of the absolute best filmmakers working today and his quality hasn't dipped at all over the past -- his most prolific and, in my view, fascinating -- decade as a director.

Every movie he's made post-Hook has pretty much either been great, near-great, or hugely underrated. A.I. is a great movie, and I thank everyone who's pointed out the idiocy of the knee-jerk "oh, Kubrick would've known when to end it" crap that greeted it upon its release. I feel ambigious about the last 20 minutes of the movie, but it's not a simple schmaltzfest. It's about the last sliver of humanity on earth being quietly, willingly snuffed out! Yeah, it's a real heartwarmer. It may not be carried off as well as the rest of the film, but that's more because the rest of that film is flat-out brilliant, with some of the best work of Spielberg's career. That plus Minority Report plus War of the Worlds equals some of the most visceral yet actually-interesting American sci-fi of this or any decade.

The Lost World, Amistad, and The Terminal are less amazing but all underrated, as is the near-great Munich, which, again, completely contradicts Spielberg's "sappy ending" rep. The ending to Munich basically says "we are fucked." Jeez, what a sentimentalist, huh?

That said, I love Kubrick too (overrated as he can be by geeks -- and I do prefer someone like Spielberg who can make make seven or eight movies per decade, rather than one), so JapAdapters and NYCBusy, you both sound like fucking lunatics as far as I'm concerned.

comment #45

christian says ...

well spielbeg did come out and support arnie gropenator, so...but he was just conquering, right nyc? oh to have a picture of you...

comment #46

jeffmcm says ...

How do you add a basement to a house?

comment #47

christian says ...

you dig.

comment #48

pm123 says ...

JapAdapters, despite his, uh... indelicate style, makes a good point. Spielberg's films, it seems to me, have no real human characters - Schindler's List could have been a very interesting film that got the audience to root for a Nazi, but instead devolved into a cliche-ridden sermon about how we all must have the courage to fight against the Nazis, who are easily recognizable, as they are subhuman monsters from Mars in scary uniforms (at least they were in that movie). Wrong. They are us. We are them. Until Spielberg, as an artist, truly feels that HE himself (and, by extension, we, the audience) could have or might yet slaughter innocents, he will never make an interesting movie. "Munich" came close, but didn't quite get there. Or so it seems to me.

I have a basement. A small one.

comment #49

jeffmcm says ...

You're not paying attention to what happens in Schindler's List. The movie has two lead characters, Schindler and Amon Goeth; one learns to do the right thing, the other decides not to. Audience identification is split between them, and nowhere in the movie are Nazis depicted as hubhuman monsters from Mars. If you want to see a movie where you get to root on a Nazi, look at Verhoeven's Black Book. If you want to see a movie where the bad guys are monsters, look at 300.

comment #50

DavidF says ...

Since it's SPIELBERG ON SPIELBERG how can it be fellatio? Sounds more like masturbation, if anything. Anyway, we just had a Spielberg bashing thread (the last time Wells did a "this is gonna suck, sight unseen" post, IIRC).

I just watched the SCORCESE ON SCORCESE doc on The Departed DVD and saw bits and pieces of last night's (which I recorded) and I don't see any difference. I don't see how the Spielberg one is any more full of self-love than the Scorcese one which skips over After Hours, one of my faves. It also skips over New York New York, The Last Waltz and I don't know how many other movies but I don't hear Wells talking about how Schickel gave Marty a virtual blow job. Hypocrisy, I say.

Spielberg talks about 1941 which is regarded as his greatest flop and that's good enough for me. Do we really need to hear him dissect Always for 10 minutes just so Wells and the other Spielberg haters can have their hatred reaffirmed?
Or maybe you dreamed that Spielberg would break down in tears and say, "Oh God, I totally should have let Spike Lee direct Color Purple, I wasn't up to it! And why oh why did I show the old guy in the bookends of Saving Private Ryan? I'm so stupid! I ruined that movie, didn't I? Didn't I? Tell me I made a good movie, please!"

Gimme a break. The man has made multiple classics - in every one of the last 3 decades - and he'll make more. He's also made several films (eg Munich, AI) that are terminally underrated by those with kneejerk opinion.

You don't have to like all of his films but saying that Schindler's List or Private Ryan or ET (or whatever) sucks isn't going to change the opinion of the public at large or the people on this board.
Deal with it, haters.

comment #51

DavidF says ...

And I just wanna add, having read back through the thread, that JapAdapter gets a bit overzealous in his attacks on Schindler's List...to wit:
The scene where the German soldiers lay down their guns "ignores what being a Nazi meant (and means), is such an obvious Hollywood moment it could only appear in a Holocaust movie directed by Stephen Spielberg, etc."

Riiiight. Except that not every soldier was a devout Nazi, son. Read a history book. You think every 18 year old kid sentenced to watch Jews in some remote factory is a Nazi poster boy? You think every regular soldier - even most - were devoted idealogues? I think not. Stevie knows something about people - and about history - which you did not.

Anyway, Jeffmcm has it right. Schindler's motivations are not explicity spelled out - even in the scene where he breaks down at the end. I think all of his complexity is in the movie as we see in the scene where he tells Stern how war always brings out the worst in people. He's excusing Goeth and yet we can see how, in his case, that's not what happened at all.

Your criticisms of the film, I'm sorry to say, are on weak foundations.

comment #52

pm123 says ...

DavidF:

Did you ever get the feeling in "Schindler's List" that the character of Schindler was capable of sending innocent Jews to their deaths? Or that Goeth was ever really capable of authentic human compassion? I didn't, in either case. And without a dark side, a truly dark side, a character like Schindler is two-dimensional. The same goes for Goeth - without the sense that he is capable of JUST AS MUCH goodness as Schindler, but chooses not to exercise that part of his moral conscience, he remains a monster from Mars. But that's just my opinion.

comment #53

jeffmcm says ...

I'll answer yes to both of your questions, especially since both Schindler and Goeth exhibit exactly the behavior you describe; Schindler is complicit in the deaths of many Jews before he sets up The List, and Goeth toys with the idea of resistance before deciding it would take too much effort. You clearly have very banal standards for what a monster from Mars looks like.

comment #54

jeffmcm says ...

In fact, I'd say Amon Goeth is one of the two or three richest and most complex characters in any Spielberg movie.

comment #55

JapAdapters says ...

There are a couple of ways to add a basement to a house. One, you put the existing house on stilts, dig, pour concrete, tie it all in, etc. The other is to an an addition with a basement. Since you're so interested, we're doing the latter.

DavidF, maybe you should read some history books before you go questioning other people because you sound like an idiot, frankly. At what age did Nazi soldiers begin their indoctrination? Were they merely just following orders or did they believe Jews to be sub human? Of course not every soldier who served in the Nazi party was a straight up monster, but (at best) they went along. It's what they did, and why it happened. In fact, not every German who heard their neighbors being dragged out in the middle of the night thought it was right, but most didn't do anything about it. Again, it's why it happened. And I'm supposed to believe that soldiers who were indoctrinated into the Nazi youth, taught they were members of a master race, had for years done what they were told, etc. decide en masse to lay down their guns because Oscar Schindler gave them a speech? Not only did it not happen in that situation, I bet it never happened during the entire fall of the Nazi regime. You know when soldiers lay down their guns? Not when given speeches but when they're faced with other guns. That's a fact of humanity.

Btw, I'm not trying to be ... uh, indelicate. I think Spielberg clearly has a genius, but his pandering style has always irked me. I don't see him as an artist because I don't think he has courage. People are lauding MUNICH but I remember an article where he basically said he could make that movie because the climate was right for it (as in, people were already dissenting). Gre at. Basically, he'll be as brave as the market allows which I THINK is chicken shit. That's fine, I guess, and I know a lot of people like his movies but that's supposed to sway me? I guess I should like Michale Bay too because he's made a shitload of paper too. There are parts in just about every one of Spielberg's movies that make me go "Wow!" but he manages to ruin MY overall experience by tacking happy endings onto even his darkest movies (witness the inexplicable ending of MINORITY REPORT). Personally, I'd love to see a movie directed by Spielberg where he didn't give a fuck what people thought about it. That'd be something ... and it'll never happen. Too bad.

Oh, and 'y'all are just haters' is maybe the lowest form of discourse. I remain unconvinced and y'all are just retarded for using it.

And jeffmcm, try using "I think" or "In my opinion" every once in awhile. Otherwise you'll continue to sound like a self important twat.

comment #56

JapAdapters says ...

Also, I love the whole 'the criticisms of movie X are knee jerk. Sure this thing people criticized happened and that tacked on happy ending was there, but those criticisms are invalid because the first half was so great' defenses. Fantastic logic.

comment #57

jeffmcm says ...

Why? Are you worried that unless I say "in my opinion" that it might actually be ironclad truth?

Y'all are a hater.

comment #58

JapAdapters says ...

No, it's just that I don't think something is an iron clad truth because you say it's so the same way I don't think it's an iron clad truth if I say it's so. It's an opinion. You should learn the difference if you don't want people to think you're an arrogant oaf, but if you don't care neither do I.

comment #59

jeffmcm says ...

I don't see how, in any post in this thread, I looked like an arrogant oaf, which is a strange comment after what you've written in this thread.

comment #60

JapAdapters says ...

I know this is hopeless but the answer lies in my stating my opinion and saying it's my opinion whereas you state your opinion like it's an iron clad truth. Oh, and your arrogance permeates just about every threat you post in.

Now, do tell how I've been arrogant.

comment #61

jeffmcm says ...

You seem to have forgotten to add 'In my opinion...' to these statements:

"...his complete contempt for real people..."
"...just plain insulting dog shit..."
"...I hope my life was worthy of you' ... PUKE!"
"...I'm an idiot and Kubrick is a poseur? Hmmmm, projecting much?"
"...Oh, yeah: Now go jerk me a soda, shit dick."
"...maybe you should read some history books before you go questioning other people because you sound like an idiot, frankly."

You raise some good points but your presentation leaves something to be desired...and you're calling _me_ out for arrogance?

comment #62

JapAdapters says ...

Try to keep up here jeffmcm:

Your first and second quotes are in the middle of a paragraph that begins with:

"[b]I don't think[/b] Spielberg has ever made a great movie aside from his twin gems JAWS and RAIDERS"

Says in the middle: "[b]... I[/b] can barely stand them"

and ends with: "[b]Personally[/b], I think ..."

That's three indications I'm giving my opinion.

Your third quote is me responding to a question someone asked about said opinions and I lead with: "[b]I've[/b] never bought them as real people because ..."

The fourth and fifth quotes are me responding to somebody (renowned douchebag NYC, no less )who called me unintelligent and JapIdiot then proceeded to make a connection to Stanley Kubrick, fat geeks, basement, etc. that had nothing to do with anything I'd written.

Finally, the last quote is in response to somebody saying I don't know my history or people as well as "Steve" because I don't buy (for one second) that Nazi soldiers would lay down their weapons because of a lecture from an unarmed industrialist. You'll notice I then took the time to try and explain that I do know my history and the nature of people.

Now, I'd point out your arrogance but maybe you'd be better served by reading your own comments and noticing the decided lack of any sort of presentation of them as opinion rather than "facts."

I'm sorry the expression of a strong opinion bothers people. Maybe I've got a bug up my ass about Spielberg, but I've also taken the time to explain what it is I don't like, said I think he's clearly uber-talented, but ultimately leaves ME cold.

comment #63

JapAdapters says ...

Shit, i thought html tags worked here. My bad.

comment #64

JapAdapters says ...

Oh, and jeffmcm, thank you for saying I brought up good points. I know they're not popular so I appreciate that.

comment #65

jeffmcm says ...

Clearly where we differ is that I don't think that sticking "In my opinion" in front of an aggressively argumentative statement really makes it more polite or conversational, or less arrogant. If you want to discuss Spielberg, fine, but I suggest you reign yourself in a little bit and we'll all get a lot farther.

comment #66

DarthCorleone says ...

I went to a Q&A at the Smithsonian several years ago in which Schickel interviewed Spielberg. It was a cool event to attend. There were many entertaining anecdotes. One of the comments that always stood out in my memory was Spielberg's self-deprecating commentary about 1941. He said that his World War Two comedy and drama had something in common: watching them with an audience you could hear a pin drop during both of them.

I thought you liked Munich, Jeff. I thought you only had a couple minor reservations about it. Am I remembering that wrong?

I for one like A.I. and love Catch Me If You Can and Munich. I thought Amistad was o.k.

The Terminal is not good, but I think it's really only the last act that fails. I agree with someone above that The Lost World is atrocious. I've never bothered to watch Always, Hook, or The Color Purple.

War of the Worlds is two-thirds of a great film, and those two-thirds are great enough for me to give Spielberg credit.

comment #67

JapAdapters says ...

Um ... but this doesn't apply to the people defending him in this thread because they agree with you, right? And thanks for the lecture on how "we" can all get along. How arrogant, and typical.

comment #68

jeffmcm says ...

Jap: Of course it applies to those people. Saying "No offense, but you're a huge asshole" doesn't really change that you just called someone an asshole, and 'in my opinion' works basically the same way.

If it's arrogant to politely ask that you stop calling people names and behave like a grown-up, then go ahead and ignore me. And what do you mean 'typical' since as far as I know, you've never posted on this blog before this thread?

comment #69

DavidF says ...

I'll say it again JapAdapter - you're the one who needs to read a history book.
Not everyone in the German army was a member of the Nazi party or a graduate of the Hitler Youth. Especially at the end a good number of them were not even German.

This is not excusing or explaining the behaviour of "the ordinary German" (or Pole or Lithuanian or whatever) - it is pointing out a crucial distinction you seem to be missing. Some Czech kid drafted into the army in 1944 (a likely candidate for a guard in Schindler's factory in nowheresville) couldn't give two shits for Hitler or what happened to the Jews one way or another. Thus, it makes perfect sense they would lay down their arms given the chance though, as Jeffmcm points out, in the movie it is clear Schindler wasn't sure his gambit would work.

People lay down their guns when the war is over - which is why Schindler was giving the speech. It wasn't because of his speech but because the more he was over and they knew he was right that they walked away.

Crikey, watch Band of Brothers or read a fricking book to find out what happened when the German army surrendered! Newsflash: They didn't keep shooting at Allied troops until they were all dead. They laid down their arms; many of them happily and many of them honorably.

It's like you're arguing that every American soldier in Iraq is a Bush-loving, pro life Republican. It's absurd and historically innacurate. PERIOD.
Period.

comment #70

DarthCorleone says ...

JapAdapters, regarding the ending of Minority Report, try interpreting everything after Anderton gets imprisoned as a vision of his. There's ample evidence for it, even if it's not explicitly stated. I've never heard Spielberg's take on this interpretation, but it works for me.

comment #71

pm123 says ...

Why do discussions on the internet inevitably devolve into personal attacks? You people are all such assholes!

comment #72

pm123 says ...

Just in case, that was a joke.

comment #73

JapAdapters says ...

I called no one a name or spoke to no one in a tone that didn't fist call me a name or speak to me in a tone first. That's a fact. Look it up and deal with it. Then ask yourself why it is you're lecturing me and not the people who started using those insults and tones.

I don't see what your "no offense" comment has to do with the price of tea in China. Saying "I think that movie sucked" if you, in fact, the movie sucked is giving an opinion. And saying 'these two characters represent blah, blah, blah" is different than saying 'I always thought these two characters ...' but I just think this is a concept you don't get, so fuck it.

Btw, if I want to call someone an asshole, I don't say "no offense" I just do it ... asshole.

Finally, a person can read a blog (long) before they post on it.

comment #74

jeffmcm says ...

I'm talking to you and not NYCBB or anyone else because you, not they, went out of his way to call me a self-important twat, without putting 'in my opinion' in front of it. You are the one (after Wells, of course) set the tone for this discussion as one of argumentative smugness from your initial post. That's a fact. As for your 'opinion' idea, now you're just trying to use semantics to weasel your way out of a corner. If I say "Spielberg is one of the best directors" I think it's pretty goddamn obvious that that's an opinion without needing to clarify for a mouthbreather that it's not an ironclad fact; and it's a significantly less strong thing to say than most of your "in my opinion" statements.

Like I said, you make some good points, but your presentation fails them.

comment #75

BurmaShave says ...

JapAdapters is the new D.Z., meaning, he is Wells.

comment #76

JapAdapters says ...

I'm not in a corner, you self important twat. You want arrogarnce, reread what you wrote here and choke on it, like the rest of us did, asshole:

"You're not paying attention to what happens in Schindler's List. The movie has two lead characters, Schindler and Amon Goeth; one learns to do the right thing, the other decides not to. Audience identification is split between them, and nowhere in the movie are Nazis depicted as hubhuman monsters from Mars. If you want to see a movie where you get to root on a Nazi, look at Verhoeven's Black Book. If you want to see a movie where the bad guys are monsters, look at 300."

comment #77

JapAdapters says ...

And BurmaShave is the new NYC, meaning he is a total and complete tool.

comment #78

jeffmcm says ...

Yeah, I wrote that. So? It's certainly less offensive or condescending than most of your comments in this thread where you call Spielberg's movies dogshit and various people idiots. But that's just my opinion.

comment #79

JapAdapters says ...

So, that post (and several more like it) are the reasons you're an arrogant twat. You not only state your opinion as fact but imply the other poster is an idiot who doesn't understand the movie the way you do. Then you go on to be condescending some more. Who did I condescend to in my original post?

Oh, and are you retarded? I didn't call anyone an idiot. And, once again, the only other people I insulted were people who insulted me first.

What, I can't call Stephen Spielberg movie dogshit because you like him? But people can dismiss any criticism of him as being the result of haters and that's the way we can all have better discourse?

Btw, I love how you complained I called you an arrogant twat without putting "in my opinion" in front of it ... only a few short posts after saying that "no offense but your an asshole" doesn't take away the sting of the insult.

Now go away.

comment #80

jeffmcm says ...

I'm still amazed that you think that my post is outrageously arrogant, but yours are the simple statement of opinion. Those are some pretty strong blinders. In your initial post, you condescended to everyone who might possibly disagree with you, by making aggressively argumentative claims. You called NYCBB and DavidF idiots (not a bad idea in the case of NYCBB, but completely unwarranted otherwise); and you are clearly not interested in having discourse and weren't from your initial post.
And I was making fun of you, you dimwit.

comment #81

JapAdapters says ...

DavidF, that extrapolation of the circumstances surrounding this scene is genius, except you just pulled it out of your ass.

Oh, and I know the German army laid their weapons down at the feet of the U.S. army. I fucking said that in my post, Corkey. THAT'S WHAT SOLDIERS DO. What they DON'T do, and would never do, is lay it down at the feet of a speech giving industrialist. And you can't find a single book, WWII survivor, soldier in any war anywhere, etc. to back up your silly defense of a (IMO) stupid ass, button pushing, Hollywood BS scene. Eat it.

comment #82

JapAdapters says ...

My post was a statement of my (strong) opinion without stepping on anyone else's specifically stated opinion. Yours was a condescending attack on another posters opinion. If you don't see that, it's because YOU are wearing blinders. If strong opinions bother you, then don't be a hypocrite by expressing your own to others. And when you do, have the basic common sense NOT to criticize others for it, you arrogant twat.

Once again, I only insulted those posters because they insulted me first. What you're doing would be akin to someone taking you to task for calling me a dimwit after I called you an arrogant twat. Get a grip, asshole.

comment #83

jeffmcm says ...

Your initial post went beyond the expression of a strong opinion into the territory of chest-pounding and insulting rhetoric. Having established that tone, it was only appropriate for someone like me to respond with a statement similarly strong - although my statement is significantly less offensive because I don't use phrases like 'dogshit' or 'PUKE' in it. You sound like someone who is happy to launch with a bullying volley and when someone else shows up with an equally strong POV, insists that he's some kind of innocent victim. DavidF never insulted you. The most he said was that your attack was 'a bit overzealous' to which you responded 'you sound like an idiot'. If you think that's an appropriate response, you're a defensive, overreacting idiot.

comment #84

DavidF says ...

Pulled it out of my ass?? It's not an extrapolation. Watch the movie again, asshole. Schindler makes the speech AFTER the truce is announced but before it takes effect. They all listen to the radio and hear that the army has surrendered, then Schindler goes in and says, "The war is over. You can shoot everyone in here anyway, or you can go home."

I don't care what your OPINION is. That's what happened in the movie (and likely in real life, more or less).If you can't follow the story (or the timeline of WWII), shut your trap about the quality of the movie.

Your take on history (German=German soldier=Nazi) suggests you learned about WWII in John Wayne movies. You talk about the indoctrination of "Nazi Soldiers" as if we're watching a 1943 serial. Yeesh. Yeah, I'm sure the ceramic factory guards were high ranking SS officers....

As for the "Corkey" comment: Fuck you.
(and you spelled Corky wrong)

comment #85

JapAdapters says ...

DavidF, do yourself a favor and don't tell people to read about things then say this scene probably happened. It NEVER fucking happened nor did anything even closely resembling it. At least you could have read a book about Oscar Shindler, like I have, before talking out of your ass. And, fiw, NOTHING you've said about the makeup of the specific Nazis (the extrapolation I spoke of) Schindler lectured to "happened in the movie."

comment #86

JapAdapters says ...

And jeffmcm, some reading comprehension classes are in order. Here's what DavidF(uckface) said after calling me overzealous: "Read a history book" and "Stevie knows something about people - and about history - which you did not." Those aren't condescending comments (and hence, insults), you arrogant twat of an asshole? I've actually read a specific history book about this subject when he -- clearly -- hasn't.

I don't care what kind of language you use and -- believe it or not -- don't (GASP )even consider it when I write, post, or speak. I certainly don't need your passive aggressive pussy ass to tell me how to express my opinions. It would seem you two are peas in the same Spileberg fanboy pod.

comment #87

jeffmcm says ...

Your posts speak clearly for themselves: you came on here not to launch a discussion about things that bother you about Spielberg's films, but simply to piss people off. You were itching for a fight or three and here's where you found one. Calling me and everyone else who'll come near you stupid, petty names doesn't make your case any stronger. For the final time: you had some good points buried in your muck, but if you had any interest in convincing people of their strengths you blew that a long time ago.
And you know what? Maybe you deserve to be treated with condescension. You certainly aren't behaving like any kind of an adult.

comment #88

JapAdapters says ...

Your arguments are getting less and less cohesive, asshat. You've confused time lines, misrepresented why you're arguing with me, have confused yourself with some sort of arbiter of what is adult (like all your pssing contsest with DZ?), and have guessed wrongly at why I posted what I had to say. You remain -- forever -- a self important asshole of a twat. Or something like that.

Once again, reread and point out where I insulted all these people without them first insulting me. Oh wait, you can't so SHUT THE FUCK UP already. Please.

comment #89

jeffmcm says ...

You were insulting and aggressive from your first posting. DavidF's 'you're a bit overzealous' and 'your argument is on weak foundations' are not insults. It is a lie for you to paint yourself as a victim when you came in here guns a-blazin' hoping someone would agree to argue with you on your points. Why am I arguing with you? Because you called me an arrogant twat, while acting like a supremely arrogant twat yourself, and for no other reason.

comment #90

JapAdapters says ...

Moron, you've conveniently (and obviously intentionally) ignored the other things he said that I JUST POSTED the last time your tired ass brought this point up! (Hint: "Read a history book" and "Stevie knows something about people - and about history - which you did not." -- wait, do you even see this text or is that growing blind spot blocking it out?) Now, please don't bring this fantasy (of DavidF not insulting me) up again without addressing these condescending insults he put in his post because his knickers were in a bunch over someone knocking his (apparent) cinematic hero..

I called you an arrogant twat because that's what you (IMO) are. I think you'd be shocked to find out how many people think this since you seem so completely unaware of just how arrogant and twat-like your posts are. Admit it, you're retroactively making shit up about your reaction to my first post because I later called you a (well deserved) name. That's dishonest.

comment #91

jeffmcm says ...

Neither of those statements by DavidF are insults on the same level as calling him an idiot. In fact, they were pretty fair responses to the abusive tone you had already established.
Meanwhile, you will clearly notice that I never responded to a single thing that you said until you decided to start calling me names as well. I didn't give a rat's ass about you or anything you had posted up to that point, except to notice that you were acting like a a little baby demanding attention.

comment #92

JapAdapters says ...

A. You don't decide for other people what's more insulting.

B. What abusive tone did I establish and to whom? Spielberg? Unless you're Stevie Spielberg then drop the bs.

C. I never said you responded to me first, now did I?

D. You saying someone else is here to demand attention is laughable. I laugh in your general direction, twathole. Go argue with DZ for another six hours you fucking drama queen.

E. Procrastination time is over. Sorry.

comment #93

jeffmcm says ...

A: Why not? That's what you've been doing.
B: From your first post when you used 'dog shit' and 'bullshit' to describe Spielberg's movies, then in every post that followed.
C: I don't know what you mean. We're having this conversation because you called me a name, not the other way around.
D: You have quite a bit in common with DZ, and I have the misfortune to be stubborn enough to think that I can get idiots like the two of you to learn the errors of your ways.
E: Good riddance.

comment #94

le corbeau says ...

At least I haven't participated in this thread. I can say that much for myself today.

comment #95

DavidF says ...

Jeff, I think it's time to just let this dude stew. Clearly he has been waiting a long time to type the word "twat" as many times as he can, possibly in the hopes that he conjour a real one up before he dies in a basement playing D&D with DZ.

As you pointed out to him, my suggesting that Spielberg knew something he didn't was a point of fact (or at least dispute), not a personal insult.
The guy STILL can't differentiate between German Army conscripts, SS officers and Nazis, nor can he understand the context or timeframe in which the scene (be it real, exagerated or totally made up) even takes place. He can try to "extrapolate" whatever character traits he wants for the extras who played the soldiers in the scene that so offends, it just don't jive with reality.

He writes "NOTHING you've said about the makeup of the specific Nazis (the extrapolation I spoke of) Schindler lectured to "happened in the movie," which not only fails the English grammar test it shows a lack of understanding of both military history AND filmmaking in just a few words!

Imagine how JapAdapter's mind would be blown if he knew how many of the "Nazi" soldiers killed during Saving Private Ryan wouldn't have been German-born or members of the Nazi party either.
But then again, it's not spelled out in the movie so I guess he'd need to actually know something about the makeup of the German army and/or what "Nazi" means.

There ain't anyone reading this thread who is reconsidering their views of Schindler's List, Spielberg's work or the makeup of the Wermacht based on his foul-mouthed, ill-informed "extrapoliations" and "opinions."

They say opinions are like assholes cuz everyone has one but there are no witty sayings I know about assholes with opinions which are like assholes...it's a frickin mindbender. I've wasted enough time here on this douche and I think you, Jeff, have enough of a rep here to establish that any further discussion with this glorified supertroll ain't worth another second of your time.

comment #96

christian says ...

spielberg does bring an audience together.

comment #97

JapAdapters says ...

Now that's funny, christian.

DavidF, I don't know what you're on about regarding the makeup of the Nazi army and history. When i saw what you're pulling out of your ass wasn't indicated in the movie, I meant there was no effort in the movie spent on explaining (as you've attempted to do) why these soldiers would lay down their guns aside from an appeal by Oscar Schndlier. Once again, I ask you (and all you claimed knowledge oh history) to tell me one time where soldiers laid down their arms because someone (without a weapon) gave them a speech. Go to all these history books you've alluded to reading and bring up one example. You can't because it's an entirely FALSE premise, which was my original point.

jeffmcm, you're a lot more like D.Z. than you know. Yeah, DavidF, he has enough of a "rep here": Even the guy who's blog it is can't stand his pedantic ass. At least you two have each other.

comment #98

DavidF says ...

Alright - I'll make it simple and polite.
Your misunderstanding is based on a
You are incorrect in assuming that anyone who is a soldier in the German army is a Nazi. That is to say, not every grunt believed in the master race, killing Jews, supporting Hitler etc.
Many "German" soldiers were conscripted from the countries Germany conquered such as Hungary, Czecksolovakia, Lithuania etc. No doubt some of them were happy for the opportunity to kill Jews etc. but they were not "Nazis."

The sort of people who would have been guarding Schindler's factory in remote Czechoslovakia would almost certainly have not been "Nazis" and likely were not even German. No, it's not explicit in the scene but it is explicit in history. The movie doesn't explain how Hitler came to power either - it assumes you have some knowledge of how WWII started.

So, the objective situation (forgetting about the Hollywood nature of Neeson's speech itself) is that the war is over - the army has officially surrendered - and these guys, mostly kids with no vested interest in The Third Reich, have a moral choice: To kill innocent (albeit Jewish) factory workers or just go home. They chose the latter - not because of the "industrialist's speech" but because the war was over and they lost and they knew it.

You're assumption seems to be that these "Nazis" totally would have killed all the jews (which obviously they did not) unless faced with some growling GI's bearing down on them.

I cannot say for certain that this or something like it did or did not happen in Schindler's factory (and I have read Keneally's book) but I have no doubt variations of it occurred all over the place.

You'll probably poke holes, disagree and tell me I've pulled it out of my ass but that's all I have to say on it.

comment #99

JapAdapters says ...

No, that's well reasoned and polite explanation of your thought process, unlike the condescending and impolite tone of your initial response. Your assumption (in that initial post) that I don't know history is incorrect and I'm not your son, but maybe I was too defensive. I still disagree with your premise because -- as I tried to explain (perhaps inefectually) -- that the nature of being a Nazi (to whatever level) and being a soldier has everything to do with fear of authority and martial action, not speeches from indutrialists. That is to say, people in the Nazi army -- true blue Nazi or not -- would be particularly prone to this thinking because that's how facism works and how the Nazi movement spread. We can just agree to disagree on this, but I still find the idea that ANYONE gave a speech to a group of Nazis and they then laid down their guns. It's the same way I wouldn't believe a bunch of U.S. G.I.s who feel disassociated from the "American dream" (or whatever indoctrination we receive) would be convinced all was lost because someone gave them a speech. I didn't buy it. I don't buy it. It's not the way things work in my experience. It's Hollywood. That's all.

comment #100

le corbeau says ...

Similar scene in The Young Lions-- Brando comes upon a true believer who thinks, well, we still have some Jews, this is our last chance to solve that problem; Brando, horrified, kills him.

Not saying that proves anything about history, just that it's not something Spielberg pulled out of his ass, either.

comment #101

jeffmcm says ...

You keep insisting that the soldiers are 'Nazis' when they almost certainly were not, at the end stages of the war - they would have been hungry and undisciplined and them abandoning their posts is completely believeable - to me - within the context of the movie. This is of primary importance, because it's Spielberg's point in making the film: a person has a choice between doing the right thing and doing what they're expected to do in a situation like this, and in his optimistic universe people will choose to do the right thing.
Nobody's forcing you to accept this if you don't want to; and your last post was more convincing because you actually explained what was on your mind instead of just tossing out insults and aggressive rhetoric.
Also, the owner of this blog has his own issues and I don't really care if he approves of my presence or not. Call me names all you want.

comment #102

JapAdapters says ...

The owner of this site has his issues, I have my issues, and you have no issues? Whatever, dude.

To say it's almost certain they were not Nazis speaks to your issue: you think you know everything. I don't think it's "certain." You saying it's certain doesn't convince me like it convinces you. In particular, your tiresome lectures on how to talk to people mean zero to me because -- as I've explained -- having read many posts by you your own style is that of an (IMO) arrogant twat. Let me put it this way: I do not find passive aggression any less aggressive than overt aggression. I like my aggression straight up with a sock to the jaw.

Regardless, they're soldiers. They do what they're told, and certainly SOME of them were Nazis and probably the superior officers. I've made the point that U.S. soldiers who spend their lives being told the U.S. is the "greatest country in the world," that we're superior fighters, and so fantastic, and are the defenders of democracy in the world, etc. would -- even if they didn't feel connected to all that -- simply put it aside and lay down their weapons because an industrialist gave them a speech. I don't buy it because it is (to me) utter and complete bullshit that ignores human nature and history.

Mgmax, I see the scene in YOUNG LIONS to be entirely different because it's an individual. I can buy an individual -- Nazi or not -- doing just about anything. Isn't it really different when a group does it? Is to me.

comment #103

jeffmcm says ...

Fine, it's merely 'likely' that they weren't all Nazis, and even if they were all Nazis, this was the end of the war, they had lost, they knew it, they were hungry and undisciplined and ready to go home. It convinces me; it doesn't convince you and you have your reasons. That's about as far as the discussion can possibly go. I think the movie is exceptionally perceptive of human behavior and history, you disagree, the end.

Meanwhile, I don't understand why you seem incapable of having a discussion without resorting to personalizing with insults and name-calling, and thinking that you're somehow superior because you admire violence ("a sock to the jaw") is neanderthal. Tell me how the fuck I'm 'passive-aggressive' big man. jeff@sleepinheavenlypeace.com.

comment #104

JapAdapters says ...

Sorry you took that so literally, but I was saying I admire honesty (though violence is hardly neanderthal -- it's part of the world). You admire yourself. I don't think I'm superior, though you clearly think you are and it permeates every thing you write. We won't come to a consensus on this because I do no like you, hence the insults. I expect that feeling is mutual and am fine with that. That's really all there is to say.

comment #105

jeffmcm says ...

All I can say is, everything you're accusing me of doing, you did yourself, first, re: self-admiring and arrogant proclamations of truth. I don't care if you like me, but if you wanted me to try and change my behavior, you chose exactly the wrong way to go about doing it. Now please leave me alone.

comment #106

JapAdapters says ...

I just won a bet that you'd have to have the last word. Thanks, homie.

comment #107

dave l says ...

I think that you just tried to have the last word right there at 4:59. You may now win your bet in good conscience.

comment #108

jeffmcm says ...

Apologies, that was my roommate's Typekey name. 'Twas I.

comment #109

le corbeau says ...

Actually, now that I think of it, the Sebastian Koch character in Black Book acts very much like that, too...

comment #110

christian says ...

good people, good people...please.

allow me to have the last

word.