FishProfiles.com Message Forums

I think everybody expects they might cry during something like "Schindler's List" or "Braveheart". The ones that really get me are the ones where you don't expect to cry at all and then find yourself bawling uncontrollably....
"Babe: Pig in the City"
"My Dog Skip"

Kid or "family" movies are the worst sometimes for me. They always kill the dogs It is the old bait and switch.

Pokemon the movie

Not really but that was just asking to be said




I think I cried in...oh wait...I don't cry for movies

A Cinderella story c'mon, how can you not feel sorry for Cinderella

(I actually cry in most movies)
(I also cry when I see elmo with his goldfish in a bowl )

Last edited by dude_dude at 01-Aug-2005 05:45

The Bridges of Madison County
Steel Magnolias
Armageddon

Last edited by Theresa_M at 01-Aug-2005 09:19

~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is water at the bottom of the ocean

I remember crying during the Lion King... .... "come on dad, wake up..." Man, that's unfair, they shouldn't put kids through that...or teenagers... or twenty-somethings either...

I've also cried at the end of Braveheart, and likewise in LOTR, the third one... when the human army marches all that way then charges and drives a huge wedge into the orc army in front of that white city on the hill - I forget what it's called - but anyway... yeah, there's just something about those battle speeches and charges that get to me.

---

Back in the saddle!

Grave of the Fireflies (SADDEST.MOVIE.EVAR.), and, like the above poster, Lion King--incidentally, in the same exact scene.


"star wars episodes one and two made me cry because of how sucky they were (ok, not really but i had to say it)"

When you watch them without context, they are actually, at worst, mediocre movies. They just appear bad when viewed in juxtaposition with the original trilogy and the negative hype generated by, perhaps, a few hundred fans, which spread infectiously across the entire star wars fanbase. In many theatrical respects, the second was quite a bit better than the third, which turned out quite crappy.

Last edited by Cup_of_Lifenoodles at 01-Aug-2005 10:27

actually cup, the first one was bad because of jar jar binks, the "ethnic" aliens (since when do star wars aliens have accents??), and the fact that it was basically an action flick with the star wars name attached to it.

the second one was worse than the first one, imho, because of the "deus ex machina" devices that were used oh, r2d2 can't get into the droid factory? well, he can actually fly, even though he NEVER flies in any other part of his life that we know of, and this is supposed to take place BEFORE any of those other parts ]:| and other stuff too. episode 3 was bad too, just not quite as bad as the first two

---

"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman

"actually cup, the first one was bad because of jar jar binks, the "ethnic" aliens (since when do star wars aliens have accents??), and the fact that it was basically an action flick with the star wars name attached to it."

Accents? It's more realistic to assume that not all aliens speak in perfect English--not to forget Yoda's obvious speech impediment. I think you're reading too far into the Star Wars namesake.

So, due to the childish antics of a single character, the movie is bad? If you will recall, Binks (though catered towards younger audiences). played a pivotal role in the movie, leading the jedi to places unexplored and mustering together a force capable of standing up to the trade federation droidage. Yes, he was silly, but his ludicrous behavior did not make him a bad character nor did it make the film a bad movie. Btw, the first and last star wars were basically action movies with little to no genre crossover.


"the second one was worse than the first one, imho, because of the "deus ex machina" devices that were used oh, r2d2 can't get into the droid factory? well, he can actually fly, even though he NEVER flies in any other part of his life that we know of, and this is supposed to take place BEFORE any of those other parts and other stuff too."

Applicable to episode 3 as well. Again, you're not considering the film as, well, a film, but rather a segment in the part of the star wars hexlogy. It has been firmly stated by producer and creator alike that, in times before the empire, technology was more elegant and refined; an age where appearance was placed alongside functionality. Tech was not so much simplified in future star wars movies as it was "uglified". Could a battle droid be capable of matching guns with IG-88? I think not. How about those non-SSS [self subspace (hyper) sustainable] starships of the clone era? They can't touch a mod-2 (single pilot) B wing. And who's to say R2 lacked flying capabilites before? He could have just as easily used his leg prepulsors in times when the camera was not focused upon him. Unless it was expressly stated that R2 did not have these capabilites post ep3, then we cannot be sure. Episode two was actually a very well engineered drama featuring complicated beaurocratic dealings and played off as a mystery. It was as much a tragedy as was episode 3, only better developed and had a sense of direction. Character association was more ounced as well.

"episode 3 was bad too, just not quite as bad as the first two"

Except the others had less glaring plot inconsistencies, condensed and rushed plot and character development, crappy dialogue (episode 1 had it's moments, but the hackneyed lines in ep3 were FAR worse), and just abyssmal acting in general (the second focused less on Christiansen, which made the movie much more enjoyable).





Last edited by Cup_of_Lifenoodles at 01-Aug-2005 12:34

guys...this is getting of topic...

---

I know human beings and fish can co-exist peacefully.

The end of Seabiscuit is just him saying that they all made each other better. Gets to me. Sad, I know.

"Constant vigilance!"
Mad-Eye Moody