Since IMDB will not accept my review of this film, here it is.

Charles,

Lighten up man, this was supposed to be a relaxed type of movie. So one needs to watch it in that mindset. When you go to a bar, you just want a drink as fast as possible? Why bother with the bar at all then hm? Why not just make them at home as you sit at your comptuer writing ESSAY length reports on movies. (You said that was a small post?) What the heck, for that matter since you seem to want the drink in your system as soon and efficiently as possible, why dont you just get an injection of some sort. I am sure you get tagged as being the prude, but I am going to go ahead and agree with your friends and family ( and your doctor) here Charles boy, you need to get out more. People go to bars for atmosphere, music, dancing, meeting people, good times, to party. These are the main components of this movie. Basically in short, if you go in with such HUGE expectations of this movie you will be dissapointed, in the end though I enjoyed it, I wasnt expecting much when I saw it the first time but it had good music, and such. So Charles, take those prozaks your Doc prescribed and get back to me when you are in a better mood.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I got a laugh out of it, and still am at the expense of humorless and mindless Cocktail fans. I like alot of awful movies, but I can at least admit that they are awful. This bunch treats the film like Citizen Kane. More fun for me!

"Does a firm persuasion that a thing is so, make it so?" - William Blake

reply share

add reply

formatting help

really bad karma going on here, i mean, when i log on such forums i expect somthing like: lets discuss this plot, or,what did the author mean by that line, not everyone to go ballistic? its just a movie.

besides, we need to be more open minded, so i would say that the movie kept me setting tell it ended, and this is a very good sign i guess, but since nothing is perfect, it has its some avoidable cons that i think it was covered in this debate over the year.

the tom cruise thing: i tend to believe that most of tom cruise anti-fans are males, and they hate his "the cutest kid in the class looks" yet he is dumb and he dosent deserve all this blessings, but the guy used to work in the lowest possible position in the icecream industry, so maybe life is not that bad..

pink floyd's "time" is ringing in my ears all of a sudden.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Idiot! If you managed to get that from what I wrote then you really cannot have any perception skills. I merely said that my English would not be perfect.

......... Alright, now, back here in reality. I will go to the trouble of re-posting what you said: P.s. While you are reading this do not even try to discredit my post by mocking my grammar/sentence structure as I have never claimed to be a master of English. I am merely a graduate of IS and Business, not English.
I wonder, Rossinio, how you would explain such a statement. My point, which not surprisingly has eluded you, is that you will have a very difficult time explaining to me why a person who has attained a business degree would not be able to speak clear English. I am assuming that English is your first language.

Perhaps your post script was just a non-sequitur, but it reads like an excuse. "Don't think about criticizing me for not being able to speak properly. I have a business degree,"...... It just does not make sense. Had you not even bothered to point out your 8 year old grasp of the language and then added the fact that you have a business degree, I would not have bothered to point out how this excuse for your poor grammar is lacking coherence.

I made my points on King Arthur and someone disagreed. I had forgotten about that post but I do not stand corrected as I have read most if not all the legends and so have my friends and all of us have come up with the same conclusion, the film is bullsh*t and another "hollywoodisation" of a good legend into a poor film.

Allow me to expound on your minimalizing of how childish your behavior on that board was. After your scattershot original post, the first response was this: " Well, if u knew that britain was a roman province in the 5th century A.D u shouldn't be surprised that u saw Arthur as a roman officer..."
You responded with: "You are a muppet! Plain and Simple. The whole point is Arthur was not based in Roman times. Thus Arthur was NOT a Roman officer.
Arthur was only based in Roman Times for "Hollywoodisation/Bollucksisation" for this film.

I realize that I risk losing you by telling you that I both disagree and agree with you on this. The film is ridiculous, in that it tries to blend too many things together. It is taking it's story from various versions of the mythology, and from several different sources that attempt to explain the historical derivation of the mythology. This makes the title and characters completely arbitrary. Are the filmmakers trying to tell you what really happened, or make their own version of the legend? Who knows, who cares.......

However, where you come up short(aside from the fact that you go off the deep end and expose yourself as an individual unable to engage in a civil dialogue), is in your apparent assertions that you have all of the information on the mythology of Arthur. Combatreview makes several points that refute your assertions, and get this, he mentions his sources.

Historians are not even able to verify if there was an Arthur at all. Most of the aspects of the story that people hold as universal are the result of a synthesis of legends. The combination of so many legends into one story came centuries after England was occupied by Rome, however, that does not mean that the origins of these legends does not go back to those times. The very origins of the name "Arthur" are Roman. Historians are on both sides of this argument, and there will never really be any way to verify the truth one way or the other(unless time travel is made possible one day). Somehow, I have a hard time accepting that despite the decidedly unclear vision provided by people educated in this subject that you have somehow managed to solve the puzzle and can provide the world with a comprehensive factual timeline and origin of all of the characters.

What is most contemptible about your responses on this thread, Rossinio, is the way that you repeatedly cite only yourself(and your friends, who of course, are not present, and whose research is not available to anyone) as a source. Once your sad misinformation is exposed, you retreat into this response "English is a notoriously a mickey mouse subject. But that is besides the point," to discredit the person putting actual information into the discussion(combatreview), rather than personal supposition(you).

In summation, King Arthur is an irrelevant, misinformed film and Rossinio is an irrelevant, misinformed poster.

Why in the world would I go to a business school, isnt this just a place for lay people to learn the basics, I have a degree, not a certificate saying I have completed the course.

I suspected this would be really confusing for you, so I will take credit for not being as clear as possible, and not speaking in the simplest terminology available. In the US, when you attend a university, though much of your course work will be in subjects unrelated to your major(in your case, business), you are still tied to the department in which you major. Thus, in receiving my degrees, I was in the film school, and the english school.

The funny part is that your attempt to correct me only serves to punctuate the original point..... If you attended a university, why do you feel as though you should not be expected to speak proper English?

All that I can conclude from your posts is that my comments clearly angered you. Did I hit a nerve? Did I get too close to the truth? Did it cause you to almost realise that you are a nobody? Im sorry if I hit a nerve, it cant be easy to accept when you are clearly dellusional. But anyway I look forward to hearing from you again, as I am sure I will.

Yes Rossinio, I am seething. I may never get over this shocking blow to the ego. It is great fun the way so many of the people on this thread read anger from straight-forward responses. As is the standard, I neglect to make any ad hominem(you might want to look this phrase up) attacks, while you(like the others) love to lace your posts with them(You are angry, you are nobody, you are 17-19). If anything, your trivial insults provide me with a bit of self esteem. I am much better at insulting myself than you, because I have the magical, mystical ability of self-reflection. I could very easily go through my posts and point out flaws, but you come up quite short, primarily because you spend too much of your time focusing on nothing that I have said.

I quite comfortably see myself as nobody, Rossinio. It certainly did not take your non-sensical ramblings to illustrate that to me. In fact, if I had only your posts as a frame of reference, I would be likely to think of myself as the most captivating celebrity on the planet. That you would think so highly of your ability to stir emotions is one of the terrific mysteries and inconsistencies that make you who you are.

I will leave you by posting another of your greatest hits:

Next time you answer my posts please do not twist them, make observations and comment, maybe I will take your comments more seriously if you take this plan of action.

......Pot, meet the kettle.

"Uh oh. Taking a phrase out of a satire and seriously applying it to the real world? Dangerous."

reply share

add reply

formatting help