Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 7 topics

Friday, June 2, 2017

bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 09:22PM -0400


>> B++
 
>But I hate 3D.
>Wouldn't 2D be just as good for this film?
 
i hate 3D too. a good story doesn't need the distraction or gimmick.
 
i believe i'll see wonder woman, though i don't normally love super
hero films. original batman was decent IMO.
 
>rates it 8,5 (so far)... while critics' ratings at 7,5 would suggest
>it's good but not great.
 
>I agree that this is the type of film best seen at the cinema.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 09:21PM -0400


>> Well put.
 
>Have been watching some CNN in the last two days.
>Agitprop of the finest. Do these "journalists" have no shame??
 
they do not. which i've been telling your for > 1yr now.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 09:19PM -0400

On Tue, 30 May 2017 11:07:33 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los>
wrote:
 
>You've already cited percentages from 40% to 25% to 481%. The first of
>which is a lie, the second a guess, and the third an F- effort in 3rd
>grade 'rithmetic.
 
the 2nd was a guess and very close to what it really is. and you tried
to hijack a thread whose point was that kimmel is a biased dufus.
kinda like what's her name, that comedienne on the C list or whatever
she's on.
 
 
>We've already hashed this out, all this is indisputable.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 09:15PM -0400

On Wed, 31 May 2017 20:49:27 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>> she didn't like hombre? **SLAPS HEAD*** ... :)
 
>I never said I didn't like Hombre. If you were present in the movie thread discussions you would know that and would know that Gracchus picked one Western film for me to watch that he thought I would like and I picked Bringing Up Baby as the screwball comedy for him to watch.
 
>I said Hombre was a decent character-driven story but it didn't blow me away and make me think I have to watch 20 more Westerns.
 
don't lie, admit you didn't like its message.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 09:16PM -0400

>High Plains Drifter
 
>John Wayne: Rio Bravo, the Searchers, Red River, Hondo, Fort Apache
 
>Those are good places to start. :)
 
 
i liked unforgiven.
 
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 02 05:57PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 8:17:37 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> Poor djokovic dead at 30. Somehow Federer got another life I at
> 35 but djokovic is dead forever at 30.
 
I didn't say Djokovic was completely dead at age 30 but he's dead (for him) at the moment and he won't beat Nadal if they meet in the SF IMO. He's not there form-wise yet. Surely even you can see that?
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 02 06:01PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 5:57:07 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > Poor djokovic dead at 30. Somehow Federer got another life I at
> > 35 but djokovic is dead forever at 30.
 
> I didn't say Djokovic was completely dead at age 30 but he's dead (for him) at the moment and he won't beat Nadal if they meet in the SF IMO. He's not there form-wise yet. Surely even you can see that?
 
We can still dream though. Help me, Novak Djokovic. You're my only hope.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 02 06:07PM -0700

> I didn't say Djokovic was completely dead at age 30 but he's dead (for him) at the moment and he won't beat Nadal if they meet in the SF IMO. He's not there form-wise yet. Surely even you can see that?
 
So one week before he regains his perfect form, he will make a press to announce his intentions to be in form again?!!! lol
 
How do you suggest we will know he regained form before he regained form?
 
How did Federer announce he is in great form before winning the AO?
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 02 06:14PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 9:01:34 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > > 35 but djokovic is dead forever at 30.
 
> > I didn't say Djokovic was completely dead at age 30 but he's dead (for him) at the moment and he won't beat Nadal if they meet in the SF IMO. He's not there form-wise yet. Surely even you can see that?
 
> We can still dream though. Help me, Novak Djokovic. You're my only hope.
 
Personally, I can't wait to see Pipe Cleaner humiliated by Nadal. I have my popcorn ready! :)
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 02 06:15PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 9:07:57 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> So one week before he regains his perfect form, he will make a press to announce his intentions to be in form again?!!! lol
 
> How do you suggest we will know he regained form before he regained form?
 
> How did Federer announce he is in great form before winning the AO?
 
It's a matter of time before he regains some decent form but he isn't anywhere near the form needed to beat Nadal at the FO. You can't see that?
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 02 05:56PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 5:23:12 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> Bela Tarr's all films. Sometimes it works and serves the storytelling
> but more often doesn't, imo.
 
> Not sure if 45 Years was that kind of film though. Just a shot in the dark.
 
What about "Under the Skin"? It was getting rave reviews at the time and we were both bewildered. But interesting to see that now that's cooled a bit. 6.3 on imdB but still 85% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 02 06:04PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 8:23:12 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> I take your word on Dodsworth and will probably watch it at some
> point... seems to pop up a lot on lists with 30s titles. So it's at
> least supposed to be one of the important films of the 30s.
 
Yes. I'm surprised you haven't seen it actually. It's ahead of its time with quite a modern outlook for a 1936 film exploring a long-term marriage with two people who are going in different directions and who have a different set of values.
 


> Bela Tarr's all films. Sometimes it works and serves the storytelling
> but more often doesn't, imo.
 
> Not sure if 45 Years was that kind of film though. Just a shot in the dark.
 
It was just uneventful IMO. I was thinking after I watched it, "that's it?"
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 02 06:06PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 7:46:09 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > That's a good question but why do critics like many of the things they do? 45 Years is nothing special and there are much better films which examine long-term marriage. As I posted above, the movie Dodsworth (1936) does a much better job of showing a long-term marriage saddled with problems.
 
> Maybe because it was marketed as an art film and had two quality actors with respectable track records in the central roles. Critics watch the film with high expectations and cognitive dissonance does the rest. Any alternate theories?
 
Some critics were paid off? :)
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 02 06:13PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 8:56:14 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> > Not sure if 45 Years was that kind of film though. Just a shot in the dark.
 
> What about "Under the Skin"? It was getting rave reviews at the time and we were both bewildered. But interesting to see that now that's cooled a bit. 6.3 on imdB but still 85% on Rotten Tomatoes.
 
Or how about 12 Years a Slave, Manchester by the Sea or Fences? Or how about The Master? Or Boyhood (I know you haven't seen it?) Those are all movies most critics loved. There are so many I could list if I thought about it seriously for a few minutes.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 08:44PM -0400

>see lots more films than TT of all varieties. Or you as well. So i'm
>easily the greater "cinephile", and thus my opinion, when I choose to
>give it, is worth more to the discerning reader.
 
no matter how many movies you or anyone else sees, your opinion will
only have worth to someone who likes the same movies you do.
 
i have an auntie, retierd doctor. her taste in both movies and
restaurants is opposite to mine, yet she sees 10x the quantity of
movies i do. her opinion would only be valuable to someone with
opposite taste to me.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 08:48PM -0400


>> No reply. Does this mean quality beats quantity after all...
 
>LOL ... I went through the rest of it, and my % did fall. I finished
>with 229/250 seen, or top 1%, #4 on their list of all who'd done it.
 
well done, i've never been the top 1% of anything. except maybe ping
pong, was awfully good in college.
 
>because i've kept a log since then.
>BTW, the VAST bulk, probably 95% of the ones i did see, i saw in the
>theater, not on netflix, DVD, etc.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 08:49PM -0400

On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:16:00 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> it.
 
>> I am not sure how he can be better qualified if he has no quality or taste filter that help him to avoid watching the majority of the 130 movies a year that fall under junk or bad category.
 
>Whisper and Jaros apparently have a mutual support pact wherein each is obligated to jump in whenever the other finds himself in an indefensible position. The strategy is very transparent, very stupid, and very ineffective.
 
damn, i didn't make the list? :-)
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 08:52PM -0400

>political but made its points with a dash of wit and panache. "Carol"
>was an example of the wrong way to do this, it was dull and got bogged
>down by its ham-handed handling of the similar issues.
 
agree carol was garbage.
 
> The six Oscar
>noms were political.
 
well after last year, did you doubt it would be?
 
>isn't lasts only 15 minutes so it comes and goes.
>"H8teful 8" - better than the revanant
 
>"zootopia" - hits all its comedy marks and then some, animation is amazing
 
another PC film.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 08:53PM -0400

On Wed, 31 May 2017 20:18:54 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> worth the price of admission. But some aspects, like Leo's performance,
>> were gushed over too much.
 
>I disagree about Carol and The Revenant. IMO both were quality films for reasons I've already discussed on RST.
 
revenant was good. carol, not so much.
 
bob
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 02 05:54PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 8:41:38 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >> of you guys who watch a fraction of this. You can't comment on movies
> >> you haven't seen, or if you do it's meaningless.
 
> >His opinions should carry more weight regarding movies than anybody else on RST because he goes to see 100s of predominantly crap movies like Captain America, X-Men, Baywatch and
Ghostbusters a year? What happened to quality over quantity? Would you say a person who drives a different low end car every day for a year knows more about a quality/luxury car than a person who drives a Mercedes C300 Coupe for the same period of time?
 
> suicide squad, btw, i wished i would've walked out of after 15mins.
> however, was obligated to finish it through.
 
> >Where is StephenJ on the movie threads when we (mostly TT, Gracchus, Grif and myself)
discuss all kinds of movies especially some of the classics? Why doesn't he comment when we're discussing those type of films?
 
> movies, like anything else, is a matter of opinion. to each their own.
> i may disagree with another opinion, but he's entitled to it.
 
> bob
 
Exactly!!
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 08:55PM -0400

On Tue, 30 May 2017 07:31:14 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
 
>> > 19/1000
 
>> Baywatch? Seriously, I wouldn't think anybody above age 20 would pay to see that movie? You sound immature for your age. Do you have kids?
 
>Agreed. Why would anyone watch a movie with Zach Effron and The Rock in it. When was the last time these guys made a good movie? And The Rock cannot act.
 
the Rock was filming a movie in the building where i work last month,
had a lot of people wanting his autograph. i would've hung around to
watch but didn't know til after i went home. tom hanks and clint
eastwood were there last year too, and ben affleck. really, they film
a movie there every month or so, i never stick around to watch though.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 09:03PM -0400

On Wed, 31 May 2017 06:31:29 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
 
>(4) Obviously what constitutes "quality" or "junk" various widely among different people. For example, I mentioned "American Pie 2" earlier. Well loads of people loved that movie and it was a huge success. For me, it's junk. For you, it may be an all-time classic.
 
>(5) Regarding #3 and #4, I'm obviously referring to my own tastes and those who have similar tastes. I make those inferences to determine whether the movie probably is or isn't worth my time. If some gems fall through the cracks, well then I've missed out. But I doubt if there are many.
 
>I don't even know why you're in such a snit over this since you've already said that you don't care about what anyone else thinks. If you like to indiscriminately watch movies across the board and have the free time to do it, then slurp 'em up and commiserate with your wingman about it. Be happy.
 
the problem with movies is it's so reliant on personal opinions and
taste. and it's just too hard to judge others' taste. there are some
movies that are both liked and disliked by both smart and dumb people,
so it's hard to make a comprehensive list. true that on average, these
things tend to group, but there are plenty of counter examples.
 
i know some very smart people who like movies i wouldn't watch for 10
mins and i just scratch my head. but it happens so often i came to
realize it's just taste - some people like strawberries on cheesecake,
some plain, some prefer thick crust pizza, some thin. i prefer plain -
and thin - btw.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 09:08PM -0400

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:27:59 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> Feeble flailing from you, Steve. You've never proven yourself as one of the exceptional people on RST. Self-praise and circle-jerks with your wingman don't even begin to compensate for that, so spare everyone the imperious airs.
 
>Imo Jaros is probably the smartest person on rst. I say this as someone
>who doesn't agree with a lot of his views, but the guy is switched on on.
 
jaros is very smart in fact. i don't agree with all his views, and
sometimes even when i know i've proven him wrong he wont' submit. but
hey no worries.
 

>Kill Kill!' is something I would classify as junk if I just read the
>plot line. After watching the movie it's one of my all time faves -
>maybe even no.1
 
it's a cult classic.

>those 'gems' you would otherwise miss.
>If you had any decency you'd apologize to Steve & behave better in the
>future.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 09:10PM -0400

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 01:36:56 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
wrote:
 
>> where it's warranted.
 
>Yes, it's important to play the ball & not the man. If Gracchus, Raja
>or john make a sensible post then I will praise it based on merit.
 
john? "sampras suck on clay." that's all he's got.
 
>clothes & reveals the body of a goddess. I would easily acknowledge &
>recognize this. Gracchus & co would stick to original assessment. A
>bit of a sore/cancer on this group unfortunately.
 
play the ball, not the man. i believe i coined it first here and it
holds true.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 09:13PM -0400

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 01:45:19 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
wrote:
 
 
>>> Imo Jaros is probably the smartest person on rst.
 
>> Wow, Whisp, that's really disrespectful to bob. And he's been so loyal to you all these years. Bad form, old fellow.
 
>bob openly endorses Jaros.
 
i've never met jaros but i chat with him a bit outside RST. we have
some differences of opinion, but agree on a lot of the big topics.
 
jaros is more conservative than i am, but he's incredibly consistent
in his belief system which i respect.
 
>If Einstein posted like Raja for yrs & then suddenly revealed his theory
>of relativity, you would never acknowledge it because you have
>permanently locked in your prejudice.
 
 
bob
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment