A barrel of laughs
-
choatelodge — 16 years ago(November 25, 2009 08:20 AM)
Sounds like you and your sister really are capable of deeper appreciation of plots, story lines and characters in a period drama, but in each others company you readily devolve into the more shallow and puerile disassociated mockery you both enjoyed as children.
You no longer identify with the characters but laugh at them from the lofty position of isolated outsiders.
It's not unique behavior by any means. Just consider, the movie that each of you remember as serious and good, didn't change at all! -
Gothbag — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 09:30 AM)
Sounds like you and your sister really are capable of deeper appreciation of plots, story lines and characters in a period drama, but in each others company you readily devolve into the more shallow and puerile disassociated mockery you both enjoyed as children.
You no longer identify with the characters but laugh at them from the lofty position of isolated outsiders.
Yeah, I don't understand how OP could want to make such a fool of himself. -
richardr-1 — 16 years ago(December 27, 2009 05:00 PM)
This film is not at all hard to understand and if you have to ask, well, you may be surprised to know that you just aren't very bright. It is a tragedy set in a time which, judging from your immature post, you know nothing about. You must be about 13 years old I judge. Although these days, people are so ignorant, you may be 35.
-
szisoman — 16 years ago(January 05, 2010 04:03 PM)
I read your post & the whole joke as i see it is you.
You failed to understand what films are about. Throwing in "likeable & admirable character" cannot but reveal your ignorance.
For your info, not all characters have to be liked or admired, you might have heard of anti-hero character.
I'm guessing you're american, because some of the remarks are awfully ignorant, the film is about an english butler who is very dedicated, as they used to be in those days (its set in the late 30's) especially when in the service of a lord, who took his job with more dedication believing it was his duty to suppress his own emotions & personal life for that of serving his master, so you're in a way to sympathise with him, not admire him or like him, & maybe learn something from his own suffering.
As for the silly remark of me mops, me brooms, its an english accent if you hadn't noticed, but i suspect you could ever do.
Now, the only thing i didn't like in the film is christopher reeve. why? because its the late 30's, pre WW2 & we see a yank who is wise & long sighted to see the dangers of appeasing the germans & more, he lectures european politicians & calls them amateurs! well well, if i recall, none of the americans had that wisdom back at the time, & when america was enjoying its isolationism & refusing to take part in the war when it first started, i think its insulting to depict an american telling european they were amateurs, when its a known fact it was the americans who were amateurs.Other than that, the film is excellent & well acted by everyone. so in conclusion, i think the only loser is you.
" I am talking about..ethics " -
covenant12 — 16 years ago(February 08, 2010 02:08 PM)
"I'm guessing you're american"
The same tired (and lazy) reproach used in almost every argument at some point, regardless of the context, here on IMDb. Somebody doesn't like something, doesn't understand something, has a different opinion than you, then they must be American, because Americans have few if any positive attributes. Amirite?
Keep wearing it out.
You saw Dingleberries? -
NovaIncognito — 12 years ago(May 23, 2013 04:57 AM)
Actually, you are the ingnorant one. Upon second viewings, I still cried at some of the sadder parts, but I also did get a little bit of a laugh at the way he was (and I believe it was on purpose, and your intellect or rather, lack of doesn't comprehend this) repeating what Mr. Stevens was telling him "I got me mops and me brooms." He also went on to say something like "If I find any dust, I'll give them a good going over with me mop here." It was rather humorous on second or multiple viewings (as you can see, I am a fan of the movie, having watched it countless times), so you not having a sense of humor is your problem.
Also, you are clearly British and ignorant in your understanding of history. Lord Darlington is based upon quite a few of the upper class in Britain at the time, specificaly Lord Halifax and Neville Chamberline and their appeasement policy towards Nazi Germany. The only silly part is the fact that this movie actually tries to make excuses for these ignorant AMATEUR appeasers, and that they did it out of their own ignorance and good intentions, but that is exactly what Christopher Reeve's character was saying in the film, that they were amateurs who were living in the past. He even said "do you realize the place the world is becoming around you? The day you could act out of your noble instincts is over" and he was correct. And perhaps that is what people like Halifax and Chamberline were trying to do, if we want to make excuses for them rather than call them traiterous dogs that helped assist hitler'sGgermany and are therefore indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people, many of them British. So, I suggest you learn a little bit more about your history before you start attacking not only one of the better parts of this movie and one of the more historically accurate parts of it, but one that tried to be understanding about the British appeasement policy towards hitler's Germany.
And calling the Americans amateurs, well, that is based on nothing, and the fact that the United States didn't have to get involved in the European side of WWII (remember, this was a world war, not a european war) but did anyway, saving countless European lives, many of them British, makes your comments about "the Americans" very immature and just demonstrates more of that ignorance.
The entire fact that you were actually calling someone else ignorant is a joke!!
Sorry, no animals in the discussion hall. You have to dismount your high horse to participate. -
Camargue — 10 years ago(March 31, 2016 11:54 PM)
"I'm guessing you're american, because some of the remarks are awfully ignorant . . . "
The word is American, and, most of us are NOT "ignorant."
" . . . its the late 30's, pre WW2 & we see a yank . . . lectures european politicians & calls them amateurs!"
Just exactly what was the history of military excellence, experience, and success in Europe, up to that point? [Honestly and truly, actually well executed battles, won with strategy and sense, that achieved a noble goal.]
" . . . well well, if i recall, none of the americans had that wisdom back at the time, & when america was enjoying its isolationism & refusing to take part in the war when it first started . . . "
Would you like to review the names and numbers of various countries, kingdoms, duchies, towns, villages, and other areas that held themselves OUT of wars, up to that point? [Honestly and truly, formal resistance to any and all wars in which they had a treaty (of any kind) or any type of signed agreement of mutual protection, or they were neighbors, colleagues, cohorts, or friends, were engaged.]
"i think its insulting to depict an american telling european they were amateurs, when its a known fact it was the americans who were amateurs."
It is both risky and careless to call someone who has NEVER lost any competition an "amateur," and then to defend those who have lost most competitions as "professionals."
Again, let's count the wars that America had been engaged in, and how many they won. (1) The American Revolutionary War (our first; it was successful and got the job done; we "evicted" the Brits and gained our independence). (2) Actually, rather than copying and pasting a list of all American Wars from 1776 to 1930 (the time of the movie) I'll let YOU look them up; the list is very easy to find; just Google "American Wars" and any accurate list begins with the American Revolutionary War even though it began before we were officially a country; (we didn't finish ratifying the US Constitution until September of 1787).
The rest are mostly Indian Wars, War of 1812, etc., but if you check the "win and lost" column you will not find a SINGLE "lost." This is NOT anything to brag about, but it needs to be ACCURATE! And, we NEVER lost a war, even though we "invented" a new way of fighting (based on advice from the American Indians, who were "on our side" and wanted us to sack the Brits and send them packing) beginning with the Revolutionary War that meant so much; our independence.
And, it can be said that we "gave the French hope" and they gained their independence in a similar fashion.
Before you start on the Indian Wars, consider how many decades and centuries that we lived IN HARMONY with the Indians.
My eleventh great-grandfather left England and landed in the area that is now Maine (USA) in August of 1635. I won't bore you with the details other than that he was a Puritan who did not feel safe during King Charles I, and, given their history then and for some years on, I doubt that anyone had much "faith" in the English monarchy at that time).
My ancestors lived next to the Mic Mac (many spellings) from 1635 until now. I strongly believe that if it were not for the Mic Mac, that many Englishmen/women of that time would have died or would have lived lives of much less comfort; they learned much from the American Indians. I try to imagine my eleventh great-grandmother getting "cooking lessons" from the Mic Mac women. It must have been a hoot! And, my poor great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother looking for "English" ingredients. It must have been very difficult for her. I wonder if American deer tasted different from British deer. Or milk; did they have cows? And what kinds of grain could they cook? I can't imagine!
" . . . so in conclusion, i think the only loser is you."
In fact, if you knew how to argue (most of us learned in college level English 101, or high school debate class; but that's how American education works) you would know that one of the first "rules of engagement" is that we NEVER lob ad hominem attacks. They are NEVER acceptable.
So, in conclusion, I think you had a point, but you delivered it with such ham-handed and negative attacks, and with such nonsense claims, that you put your entire argument at risk. [Case in point: Americans have NEVER been "amateur" fighters (since the first skirmish of the Revolutionary War). We won our country through blood and battle because the Brits refused to listen, or respect our views, and tried to arbitrarily tax us to death. They had goofy kings making bad decisions, and we were the beneficiaries of their errors.
We have NEVER been the aggressors. And, NEVER for personal gain. We do not wage war for fun. We were "begged" to save your (Europe's) bacon in WWI and WWII and Korea and Vietnam and the Gulf Wars. We TRY not to fight; our people are NOT hawks! We pay a GREAT PRICE to be the World's Po