[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
You’re just cranky because you got lost in the theater. We know you old people need help going down the ramps and finding your seat…
[/quote]
No, I’m cranky cuz some boyz like you were sitting in front of me and they had their ballcaps on sideways and their asses hanging out of their pants and were giggling at Mila’s purty eyes.[/quote]
Shit happens.
WAIT WAIT WAIT - he wasn’t bline in BOTH eyes. I’m pretty sure when I saw the movie he was blind in ONE EYE only. The book was for blind ppl and since he was blind in one eye he learned how to “read” it? Correct. This is also why he WAS able to see, and talk to people normally, and be so good at shooting and what not. I mean if he’s blind in both eyes, this movie to me is dumb…I don’t like such unrealistic things, and I rather leave this thread believing it was only one eye haha.
Anyways - movie was awesome…only thing that was gay and cheesy, was the very ending. IMO.
The end.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Then, I do not have to be able to do something myself to know that I have seen better elsewhere.
[/quote]
So, you assholes are actually in theaters with actors on the screen who can perform like Denzel Washington belching out, “I’ve seen better!” at the screen?
If we were talking about Nick Cage and his lack of ability to pick good scripts (aside from Knowing lately), then I could see that response…but some of these people have more natural talent than that and Washington is one of them.
When I see Dakota Fanning act, I don’t say, “I’ve seen better child actors!”…because she’s good.
How the hell did some of you earn those “elite film critic” diplomas?
What is your favorite movie?[/quote]
I never claim claimed that I go around yell at teh screen that I have seen better, but the claim I responded insinuated that you could not critisize any actor/whatever unless you could do better.
That is nonsense or else I would have to accept pretty much any product or service just because I cannot do better.
Ni mivie comes to mind right now but I really like Spartacus the tv series, but I am not sure if the acting is the desicive factor.
I you want to know who I think is a great actor it would be this guy, Philip Seymour Hoffman.
[quote]rasturai wrote:
WAIT WAIT WAIT - he wasn’t bline in BOTH eyes. I’m pretty sure when I saw the movie he was blind in ONE EYE only. The book was for blind ppl and since he was blind in one eye he learned how to “read” it? Correct. This is also why he WAS able to see, and talk to people normally, and be so good at shooting and what not. I mean if he’s blind in both eyes, this movie to me is dumb…I don’t like such unrealistic things, and I rather leave this thread believing it was only one eye haha.
Anyways - movie was awesome…only thing that was gay and cheesy, was the very ending. IMO.
The end.[/quote]
SPOILER ALERT**
If you were only blind in one eye, why would you need to learn how to read braille? That doesn’t make any sense. On that note, I think he just learned to read braille because that was the only version of the book available. I don’t think he was blind at all. Why was he wearing sunglasses if so? How was he making eye contact with people when talking to them?
SPOILER ALERT
Wait…people are unaware of why blind people wear sunglasses?
He was blind. Period. Not “blind in one eye” and MOST blind people wear sunglasses for a very specific reason. I didn’t know people thought Stevie Wonder was just trying to look fly.
SPOILER ALERT*
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait…people are unaware of why blind people wear sunglasses?
He was blind. Period. Not “blind in one eye” and MOST blind people wear sunglasses for a very specific reason. I didn’t know people thought Stevie Wonder was just trying to look fly.
[/quote]
eh, he still seemed to be making eye contact with people while talking to them. That doesn’t really bode well for him being blind. I think him being blind makes more sense in the context of the movie, but I think that there are a couple of “plot holes” that make him being blind not very believable (including the sunglasses portion, since most people think blind people wear sunglasses to hide their googly eyes).
SPOILER ALERT
Yes, he was blind in both eyes. Blind people wear sunglasses, too. And look at how he killed that damned bird based on hearing alone. And he looked at people he spoke with because he heard them first. Blind people do that, too. I’m now waiting for it to play again out here. It was that good.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
SPOILER ALERT*
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait…people are unaware of why blind people wear sunglasses?
He was blind. Period. Not “blind in one eye” and MOST blind people wear sunglasses for a very specific reason. I didn’t know people thought Stevie Wonder was just trying to look fly.
[/quote]
eh, he still seemed to be making eye contact with people while talking to them. That doesn’t really bode well for him being blind. I think him being blind makes more sense in the context of the movie, but I think that there are a couple of “plot holes” that make him being blind not very believable (including the sunglasses portion, since most people think blind people wear sunglasses to hide their googly eyes).
SPOILER ALERT[/quote]
They also wear them so they are not seen as HANDICAPPED all of the time. If your hearing and sense of touch magnify in sensitivity, you could get along quite well without sight and probably fool most people unless they were staring right in your eyes…ESPECIALLY if you had sight from birth and lost it later.
I am really surprised there is this much confusion. Have you ever met someone who was blind?
I seriously doubt it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
They also wear them so they are not seen as HANDICAPPED all of the time… [/quote]
True story, but doesn’t make sense in context of the movie. If he were wearing them to avoid appearing HANDICAPPED, he would never take them off around people so as to avoid appearing HANDICAPPED. How, then, would you justify the fact that he ALWAYS removed them when he was indoors?
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
They also wear them so they are not seen as HANDICAPPED all of the time… [/quote]
True story, but doesn’t make sense in context of the movie. If he were wearing them to avoid appearing HANDICAPPED, he would never take them off around people so as to avoid appearing HANDICAPPED. How, then, would you justify the fact that he ALWAYS removed them when he was indoors? [/quote]
Let’s take this slow…he did not want people to know he was blind. FACT.
He was NOT blind since birth as he lost his sight during the explosion (just like the lady he met married to his enemy). FACT.
Losing sight due to a very bright explosion will cause retinal damage but the eye itself will look normal even if he may not focus on the person’s eyes of who he is speaking to.
If you are still nitpicking after that, have at it. You simply can not be satisfied.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Didn’t read the entire thread but it sure is interesting how much hatred of Christianity and the Bible comes percolating out of a movie review thread. [/quote]
It’s pretty funny actually. It seems some of the complainers missed things in the movie (like him being blind) due to complaining because the book had a cross on it. It was a good movie…and if the simple image of a religious book on screen sends you into a fit, maybe the problem isn’t the movie.[/quote]
Exactly what I was thinking.
Saw it last week. Denzel is still the man. Will probably buy it on Blu-ray when it comes out. Awesome movie.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
SPOILER ALERT*
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait…people are unaware of why blind people wear sunglasses?
He was blind. Period. Not “blind in one eye” and MOST blind people wear sunglasses for a very specific reason. I didn’t know people thought Stevie Wonder was just trying to look fly.
[/quote]
eh, he still seemed to be making eye contact with people while talking to them. That doesn’t really bode well for him being blind. I think him being blind makes more sense in the context of the movie, but I think that there are a couple of “plot holes” that make him being blind not very believable (including the sunglasses portion, since most people think blind people wear sunglasses to hide their googly eyes).
SPOILER ALERT[/quote]
They also wear them so they are not seen as HANDICAPPED all of the time. If your hearing and sense of touch magnify in sensitivity, you could get along quite well without sight and probably fool most people unless they were staring right in your eyes…ESPECIALLY if you had sight from birth and lost it later.
I am really surprised there is this much confusion. Have you ever met someone who was blind?[/quote]
I dated a blind guy but he did not wear sunglasses. I think it was b/c he wasn’t totally blind, he could still see out of one eye, but very poorly. If he had to read or something he would have to put the book right against his face. Strangely enough, he was a history/English major and went for his PhD. I know he dated a completely blind girl and she didn’t wear sunglasses either.
Finally saw this last night. Great movie and Denzel is probably the only actor out there today who can get me to see a movie without knowing anything else about it.
This thread on the other hand, ridiculous. I really don’t feel like getting into a religious debate so I’ll just let those of you that disliked the film keep your panties all wadded up.
What really surprises me is that his blindness, even at the end, was unapparent to some. Go back and watch the first 10 minutes. Your first clue is when he opens the car door with the skeleton looking for boots. Instead of just looking down he has to feel the skeletons foot. Your next clues are in the house. He pushes the first dish over to listen to what all clangs together. Before he opens the closet he stumbles into a chair. Then he actually has to put the boots on before he knows if they will fit. Finally, your tell tale sign should have been when he was reading with his eyes closed. I might watch it again this weekend to pick up the other hints.
Ah shit Wol will be all up in here soon. Hey Wol whats up with the Tom Cruise Avi? You changing religions?
[quote]DJHT wrote:
Ah shit Wol will be all up in here soon. Hey Wol whats up with the Tom Cruise Avi? You changing religions?[/quote]
I called Inkaddict Goose from Top Gun. Then he tried to pretend like he was Maverick and I made sure that I’m Maverick, He’s Goose.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
Ah shit Wol will be all up in here soon. Hey Wol whats up with the Tom Cruise Avi? You changing religions?[/quote]
I called Inkaddict Goose from Top Gun. Then he tried to pretend like he was Maverick and I made sure that I’m Maverick, He’s Goose.
[/quote]
Lol. So what is the next big movie? Looks like shit for the rest of this year.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait…people are unaware of why blind people wear sunglasses?
He was blind. Period. Not “blind in one eye” and MOST blind people wear sunglasses for a very specific reason. I didn’t know people thought Stevie Wonder was just trying to look fly.
[/quote]
what wears sunglasses at night and screams?
Stevie Wonder answering the iron.
Ummm you guys really confuse the shit out of me…just pure mind-boggling retardation. Yes he was fully blind, yes he looked at people during convos, yes he could shoot people while being blind, yes he wore sunglasses to hide his blindness, etc.
THE FUCKING POINT WAS THAT HE HAD DIVINE INTERVENTION. GOD WANTED HIM TO TAKE THE BOOK TO A SAFE PLACE TO SPREAD GOD’S GOD DAMN FUCKING WORDS!!! I really didn’t think the movie needed any explanation. That said I didn’t really like it even though Denzel and Gary are great actors.