MovieChat Forums > Cocktail (1988) Discussion > Since IMDB will not accept my review of ...

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

posted 21 years ago by CharlesCastle
197 replies | jump to latest

Sometimes I like to review old movies given that I don’t always have money to make it to the theater. I’ve picked COCKTAIL today because this movie is a giant among movies (a giant, pathetic loser) and never ceases to amaze me with its inexhaustible supply of horrible lines, horrible acting, senseless gratuity, and wastage of celluloid. I’m not sure in which genre to place this movie so I’ll create one: Romantic bartending melodrama.

I think Tom Cruise is ok, and most of his movies are ok (ok means ok—not real good, or pretty cool, simply ok). After you watch this movie, you will wonder how he maintained a career after this and didn’t become the Tim Thomerson of straight-to-video Blockbuster dustbins. You might be asking, “who the hell is Tim Thomerson? That’s exactly the point. I’ll give Cruise credit, he’s got something going on.

As indicated the movie is about bartending and romance. Tom Cruise is a hotshot New York bartender who woos all the women, and men, with his ability to spin bottles and pour drinks at the same time while spouting monosyllabic nonsense, recite poetry, and flash all 32 Crest Whitening formula-treated teeth. First of all; who gives a *beep* about bartenders who spin bottles behind their back and through their legs in the process of mixing a gin and tonic. If I order a gin and tonic, just give me a gin and tonic as fast as possible. I’m there to drink and I need immediate alcoholic refreshment. Reminds me of a show I saw of a bunch of meatheads who actually compete in Las Vegas for “Best Bartender in the World”. They actually practice in their garages spinning bottles around with rubber bars and balancing Jack Daniel’s liter jugs on their heads. One time I was tripping on acid at a bar and bottles started spinning all over the place, been there done that, don’t need it. Here’s a memorable line for you—guy walks into the bar and sees Tom Cruise and his buddy’s bottle spinning brilliance and says, “You’re the hottest bartender in town, you need to work for me”. And so he does.

While there he gives his unforgivable performance of “The Last Bartender Poet”. This qualifies as one of the most comedic and reviling episodes in Hollywood history and makes me embarrassed to be an American and someone who speaks the English language. I can’t remember the whole thing but it goes something like this at the end: “I got your Alabama Slammers, I got your Tijuana Mamas I got your Caribbean Windjammers, I got your Hangover Mananas
Yes, I’m the last bartender poet, and you better know it”. Something like that. He gives this performance in the middle of loud music and dancing at a New York bar. Everyone hushes and gives their ear to this. After he’s through everybody whistles and claps and he bows, at that point I started laughing and guffawing.

First of all, who would think that that was cool?? Second of all, how much idol-praise does Hollywood think that common moviegoers and common people will give. I can just see the director while making the movie, “Its Tom Cruise, they’ll eat this up.” Wrong buddy, I thought it sucked and it makes me think that the people who made this movie, wrote this movie, produced this movie, and the people who even made coffee for the aforementioned are a bunch of fricking losers and should be unemployed right now. They should live in misery and be forced to watch this scene every day of their lives as compensation.

Normally I am a lot more longwinded about films this awful, but I just want to move on from this experience and never look back again, so I’m gonna wrap it up. Don’t ever watch this movie! Unless you and a bunch of drunk friends have a rainy day and absolutely nothing to do. It will make you laugh but after its over you find you can discuss it for days. Tempers will flare, conspiracy theories will be formed, and you will walk away in a state of bewilderment at the negative power of this movie. I’m not gonna give away the end of the movie not because it will be a spoiler, just because its a waste of my time.

I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.

[–] tonywayne 17 years ago

You want someone to speak English and address the things you've said in your posts? Fine...

Since when would anyone compare Cocktail to any of Spielberg's films? Are you serious? You're going to put Cocktail on the level with Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan? E.T.? Jurassic Park? For my part, you lost ALL credibility as a film critic with the Cocktail/Spielberg comment. It doesn't even matter if you like Spielberg, he has offered several films that should, at the very least, stoke a great range of emotion about the human condition.

Nobody on this board is claiming that Cocktail should be in the IMDb Top 250. Most have simply been saying that they enjoyed watching the movie. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

There are some lessons being learned by the characters in this movie; perhaps you simply didn't have an open enough mind to find them. Did I just insult you? No. I just don't think you watched this movie with an open mind. Most people who don't drink vilify alcohol and anything associated with it. Are you one of those people and that's why you can't find any redeeming value in this movie?

I would disagree that being subjective is mandatory simply because we are human beings. That's a cop out for your inability to be objective. Bear in mind that you can only learn to be objective if you can learn to be selfless. Selfish people are subjective by nature; it is necessary for them to be a part of what they are evaluating (which you've proven time and again in your case).

Before you make any assumptions about me...

I don't drink either. But I could care less about the alcohol in the movie. It's a part of their profession. I don't like tattoos either, but I'm not going to demonize the people on Miami Ink. Not all things are for all people. And to answer your original post, yes, there are bars people go to for the things that are happening, not just the drinks. Surely you've heard of Coyote Ugly (and the fact that it is a real bar)?

I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of this movie, but I thought it was enjoyable nonetheless. There are some good lessons about following your dreams and how to approach starting a business. I would say the attempt in the movie to deliver a message of fidelity or trust falls flat, but at least they make the attempt (how many movies preach sleeping around and/or use the "never trust anyone" message?).

At the end of the day, you come off as more of a wannabe intellectual than someone who can watch a movie and deliver a valuable opinion. Your "review" is obviously that of someone with some self-serving purpose behind trying to get people to avoid the movie. Care to elaborate on your agenda for us?

Thanks.

[–] CharlesCastle 17 years ago

Another response for all of you who do not understand nuance, context, irony, or humor. This cat is your hero. I give you credit for being able to form sentences in English. If only they made sense.

Your "review" is obviously that of someone with some self-serving purpose behind trying to get people to avoid the movie. Care to elaborate on your agenda for us?

...

WUT R UR CRIMZ, CHARLESCASTLE?!!1!one!@#

Do you people huff paint before coming to this board?

"If you are mean enough to steal from the blind, help yourself."

[–] tonywayne 17 years ago

Is that really the best you can do? An attempt to insult my grammar?

Every sentence in my post was completely coherent. Your lack of understanding is your own problem, not mine (or anyone else's).

Come back when you can address the points I made. That is, IF you can come up with your own coherent sentences...

[–] CharlesCastle 17 years ago

Is that really the best you can do? An attempt to insult my grammar?

I didn't insult your grammar, professor. In fact, I quite clearly stated that the problem was not grammatical, and that your problem was your inability to grasp less tangible aspects of dialogue.

Your lack of understanding is your own problem, not mine (or anyone else's).

Sorry, guy, but I understood your post quite clearly. The problem is that you lack any understanding of mine, which is why you are here doing nothing but rephrasing the same worn out, idiotic attempts at rebuttal that have been deflected on this thread for years, only with a more polished verbal presentation than the average moron.

Come back when you can address the points I made. That is, IF you can come up with your own coherent sentences...

How about I just go ahead and come back now, instead? You have said nothing here. The fact that you think being able to construct proper sentences alone will lend credibility to your base attempt at deconstructing my review and this turd of a film only underscores your complete inability to understand the context of this presentation. I kind of like it that way. Adds to the lol-factor.

"If you are mean enough to steal from the blind, help yourself."

[–] tonywayne 17 years ago

The part I find humorous is that you STILL haven't addressed a single point of my original response to you. You continue to go on and on about the structure of my post instead of going back and actually answering my challenges.

Which, of course, means that you know you've been exposed. Several other people exposed you in their responses and you did the same to them.

It is very easy to see through your thinly veiled composition. You're trying to "talk big" in order to dissuade people from my argument (or anyone else's). But, again, you have yet to ACTUALLY respond. You pretend that by writing something that "sounds smart" that you'll be able to push me aside.

You don't get to have the last word when you don't even address the responses to your original post.

[–] CharlesCastle 17 years ago

The part I find humorous is that you STILL haven't addressed a single point of my original response to you. You continue to go on and on about the structure of my post instead of going back and actually answering my challenges.

The part I find amusing is that I never once said a word about your grammar or the structure of your post, and yet here you are still tilting at windmills.

Which, of course, means that you know you've been exposed. Several other people exposed you in their responses and you did the same to them.

It's true. You have thoroughly vanquished me, like so many of the others before you.

It is very easy to see through your thinly veiled composition. You're trying to "talk big" in order to dissuade people from my argument (or anyone else's). But, again, you have yet to ACTUALLY respond. You pretend that by writing something that "sounds smart" that you'll be able to push me aside.

Except, I am not pretending. I am just watching you tell me what I think and what I have done.

You don't get to have the last word when you don't even address the responses to your original post.

I have responded to all of the blather you are handing out several times over these four years, that is why I dismiss you. If you think you can outlast me... well, good luck with that. See you in 2010, Mr. Endurance.

"If you are mean enough to steal from the blind, help yourself."

[–] tonywayne 17 years ago

Well, you apparently don't know how to engage in proper discourse about a common topic. I'm not sure what makes you think that dissecting the WAY I respond is sufficient. It must be your lack of understanding of debate and/or argument.

At the end of the day, I could care less what you said to other people. You have failed to respond to the points I presented.

I'm beginning to think that you simply get your jollies by exhausting others' patience in trying to engage you in an actual discussion. If that's true... please walk away from your computer and find another outlet.

I don't care to hear more about the structure or grammar in my posts, so if you don't have anything to counter my original response, then we're done here. You've proven my points about the kind of person you are more than sufficiently.

[–] CharlesCastle 17 years ago

I'm not sure what makes you think that dissecting the WAY I respond is sufficient.

You keep accusing me of this, of attacking your grammar, structure, etc., yet you can not explain how. It is not happening. I am sorry you feel insulted because you spent time and effort using proper grammar and syntax and I was not interested in trampling over the same ground with you as I have with people on this topic for years, but creating some flimsy strawman regarding the content of my responses to you is not helping you reach that goal of an in-depth Cocktail discussion with me that you seem to be craving.

You have failed to respond to the points I presented.

Because your points are not points at all, and have been responded to within the body of the thread. I am not a coin operated response machine. It is a much higher priority for me to get amusement out of the bizarre reactions I get from people here than to actually engage in yet another dialogue regarding the substance of the movie 4 years after the fact. Get some perspective, you lunatic.

I don't care to hear more about the structure or grammar in my posts, so if you don't have anything to counter my original response, then we're done here.

If you don't care to hear those things, perhaps you should stop listening to the voices in your head that claim I am doing either of those things and instead actually read what I have said, because I have not done either of those things.

You've proven my points about the kind of person you are more than sufficiently.

Obviously by wishing to get a laugh out of someone who is responding to me without even the slightest hint of an understanding of the concepts I alluded to in my first response to you, I am fulfilling your very telling prophecy. You have outed me, Holmes.

"If you are mean enough to steal from the blind, help yourself."

[–] tonywayne 17 years ago

So, let me get this straight...

You won't rehash things that might or might not be elsewhere in the thread...

BUT, you will spend all this time going back and forth about everything other than what I asked about?

I don't usually resort to petty insults, but... wow, you need help.

Goodnight and goodbye.

[–] CharlesCastle 17 years ago

So, let me get this straight...

You won't rehash things that might or might not be elsewhere in the thread...

Basically. The thread is four years old. You are expecting me to just sit here and indulge your own laziness and utter lack of an attempt (or incapability) to even understand the context in which the review is written, and treat you as though you are the first person to actually respond, and as though this is some fresh-in-mind topic, and as though you are making salient points on a serious topic rather than one that is intentionally absurd. You keep telling me I am saying and/or doing things, yet you are entirely incapable of citing those things. You lack any sense of perspective, don't seem capable of intuiting a thing you have read, and actually suggested some nefarious agenda on the part of someone for writing a gag review. In short, you are a lunatic. This is not exactly the sort of thing that encourages me to engage you in a serious conversation. So what I am left with is the choice to either:

1) humor your absurd, stone-faced, literal understanding of things and engage in a debate with you regarding the merits of the movie Cocktail (of all the inane things to debate) and my facetious review of it; or
2) make fun of you for being the sort of humorless person who is ridiculous enough to try and drum up such an idiotic conversation, and for repeatedly insisting that I am taking shots at your grammar and, erm, structure when I very clearly did the opposite.

BUT, you will spend all this time going back and forth about everything other than what I asked about?

See #2 above. This thread is for the lol-factor. The fact that this is even remotely mysterious to you is... terrific. Thank you for being that guy.

I don't usually resort to petty insults, but... wow, you need help.

Well, I understand and forgive you for that horribly shocking and off-color remark. I just hope the imdb administrators don't delete your shocking display.

Goodnight and goodbye.

You will be missed.

"If you are mean enough to steal from the blind, help yourself."

[–] tonywayne 17 years ago

Since you are the lazy one, I'm going to point out something that you apparently didn't notice yourself.

I read through the entire thread before I posted. NO ONE else said anything about your Spielberg comment.

So, at the very least, you could have addressed that part of my response.

The fact you just ignored it says to me that you either a) didn't have anything to say because you knew you were wrong, b) didn't read the entire post and made a bunch of assumptions about what I must have been saying, or c) knew that the only thing you COULD argue would be the construction of a post and not the content.

Once again, stop dissecting the commentary about the fact that we are posting and answer the question. You say you've answered everything... show me where. You can do a simple search of each of the pages of replies and you'll find that the only posts with Spielberg's name are the one you made your insult of his films and then my response.

Of note: you finally said something funny. I actually did laugh at your comment about IMDb potentially deleting my last post. There are FAR worse things being spewed in these message boards that do not get deleted. Why would they freak out over me telling you that you need help (especially when it's so obvious)?

[–] CharlesCastle 17 years ago

I read through the entire thread before I posted. NO ONE else said anything about your Spielberg comment.

So, at the very least, you could have addressed that part of my response.

Darn, you mean no one else seriously addressed that particular facetious comment? Well, there is definitely egg on my face for not responding to that well-thought out point.

The fact you just ignored it says to me that you either a) didn't have anything to say because you knew you were wrong,

What about the part where the review is a joke and you are some guy taking it seriously, like four years down the road. At least three years after I basically stated that the review was a joke? *knock knock* Any one, or thing in there?

b) didn't read the entire post and made a bunch of assumptions about what I must have been saying,

That might have been it, or it might have had something to do with the fact that you don't seem to understand, no matter how explicitly it is stated to you, that the review, right down to inconsequential minutiae as the (alleged) Spielberg comment, is not serious? I don't know. It is definitely one of those.

Also, it is pretty rich of you to assert that I am not reading your posts and am coming to spurious conclusions regarding your comments, when you are still kicking and screaming over something that never happened, as illustrated here:

or c) knew that the only thing you COULD argue would be the construction of a post and not the content.

Ooh ooh! That is another good option. It might be that. Good one!

I am still waiting for you to like, show me where I have done that. Still has not happened, and you are still whining about it like a soaking wet, beaten down Tina Turner laying in a pool of her own blood.

Helpful Hint: When speaking to people on message boards, it is important to actually display the portions of dialogue to which you are referring and responding. With your haphazard model, I find myself being told that I have said or done something, only without the benefit of any attempt whatsoever to actually show where these things have taken place. You then create some absurd junior high dichotomy, wherein my refusal to actually address your stupidity most assuredly proves that I must realize that your non-existent point is true. In all but your first post here you have insisted that I am attacking your grammar, structure, and construction without a single quotation that backs up this assertion, while I quoted exactly what I said (which, incidentally, was the exact opposite of what you claim it to have been). Going about conversation your way is an open invitation to the strawman. You can claim I have said something and never have to authenticate it in any way. When I provide counter-factuals you can simply ignore them and continue to assert that your lie is truth.

Another example would be the so-called "Spielberg comment". I'm not denying a comment was made, but minus the benefit of you providing me with a quote, I really have no idea what you are talking about. This can also be applied to your initial response to me, wherein you appear to think you are providing a rebuttal to specific comments (absurd, in it's own right, considering the nature of the review), yet can not even be bothered to display the comment/s to which you are responding. This thread is rather large and has stretched out over lengthy intervals of time. I've not even really made a substantive response here for over two years until last night. You seem to think I am just sitting here constantly reading and re-reading it, making a detailed notebook with references to each and every comment made. Of course, all of this rather ignores the fact that whatever the "Spielberg comment" might have been is a complete red herring because neither the review nor the thread is intended to be a serious review and discussion of Cocktail. It also ignores the fact that I rather despise Steven Spielberg, which would invalidate any facetious comment (of course, facetious comments only need be invalidated around Vulcans like yourself) I made comparing Cocktail to one of his films (or his films in general).

Of note: you finally said something funny. I actually did laugh at your comment about IMDb potentially deleting my last post. There are FAR worse things being spewed in these message boards that do not get deleted. Why would they freak out over me telling you that you need help (especially when it's so obvious)?

Wow. Did I say that? Man, I feel like a big dummy now! I guess that upon further consideration I can see that your comment, while truly shocking and extreme, did not actually violate the terms of service, and will likely not face the wrath of imdb's overlords.

I should choose my words more carefully around you. You are a swift one.

(Are you a robot? It would answer all sorts of questions. Have a nice day!)

"If you are mean enough to steal from the blind, help yourself."

[–] tonywayne 17 years ago

You seem to know so much about all your posts, why should I spend time cutting & pasting? Oh, but wait, you DON'T know anything about your posts, because now you're claiming you don't even remember your comment where you compare Cocktail to Spielberg films.

And yet, you claim it was all in jest. That's an interesting thing you've got going over there.

I still contend that your original post, to which I was replying, was NOT a joke. You only backtracked after everyone started letting you have it for taking the movie too seriously (or, perhaps, you were merely taking yourself too seriously).

There is NOTHING in your original post to indicate that it was a joke. Sure, I read the rest of the thread, but I didn't buy your backtracking for a second.

If you want to have a serious discussion with me about something that you clearly meant seriously from the beginning, then go read your posts and then we can go from there. But if you're going to continue this charade about it being a joke from the start, then we have nothing left to discuss.

Please don't waste everyone's time by trying to dissect THIS post. I'm actually over it, I just wanted to make sure other readers aren't left with you putting words in my mouth.

Once and for all, goodnight and goodbye.

[–] CharlesCastle 17 years ago

You seem to know so much about all your posts, why should I spend time cutting & pasting? Oh, but wait, you DON'T know anything about your posts, because now you're claiming you don't even remember your comment where you compare Cocktail to Spielberg films.

And yet, you claim it was all in jest. That's an interesting thing you've got going over there.

Can you read? If you expect someone to be able to respond to you with any understanding of the context of a comment you should provide a citation. Of course I can not provide you a context off the top of my head for a comment that I made years ago. You asked me to respond to a comment by merely alluding to it as "the Spielberg comment". Since it is certainly not a part of the review, I assume it is somewhere within the vast body of this thread. You are the one telling me I said something, therefore the onus is on you to actually cite my words. You are the one who just stumbled in 4 years late and have this fresh in your memory. I was simply trying to explain to you why, for instance, I am at a loss for how to respond to the very important point you seem to think you made with regards to a facetious comment in a joke review. *pats you on the head*

I still contend that your original post, to which I was replying, was NOT a joke. You only backtracked after everyone started letting you have it for taking the movie too seriously (or, perhaps, you were merely taking yourself too seriously).

Um, sure buddy. And my other joke reviews that have also been posted since the same date on the Highlander 2, Virtuosity and Roadhouse boards (along with posts on Pearl Harbor and Battlefield Earth that have long since vanished into message board dust) were totally serious as well. You cracked the case.

There is NOTHING in your original post to indicate that it was a joke.

Well, not on the planet Vulcan, anyway.

Sure, I read the rest of the thread, but I didn't buy your backtracking for a second.

That's because I never backtracked. I did, however, have to explain to slow-minded wackjobs like yourself, that it was tongue-in-cheek.

If you want to have a serious discussion with me about something that you clearly meant seriously from the beginning, then go read your posts and then we can go from there. But if you're going to continue this charade about it being a joke from the start, then we have nothing left to discuss.

Nothing? Damnit! You seem like a really bright guy. My loss.

Please don't waste everyone's time by trying to dissect THIS post. I'm actually over it, I just wanted to make sure other readers aren't left with you putting words in my mouth.

There is no problem there, friend. I actually provide you the courtesy of displaying your words so that a direct contrast may be provided to the reader between you and I, giving an actual sense of the dialogue. In return, what I get is your failed analysis without even the vaguest attempt at presenting context beyond that which exists in your clouded ability to perceive.

Once and for all, goodnight and goodbye.

Well, that is a good final, final, final parting. I can't wait to see your final, final, final, final parting.

Best wishes.

"If you are mean enough to steal from the blind, help yourself."

[–] LadyU 16 years ago

I watched this last night on tv - never seen it before as I'd always heard it was utter crap...and it is...in a way (cheesy dialogue, steroetypical characters, ott reactions to everything)...but it also was a good lighthearted comedy that passed my time and I enjoyed it..so it's not deep and meaningful but it was more fun than Titanic. After reading some of the posts on here though, you'd think it was the 2nd coming or something though....

and wow, this thread is like 4 years old, wtf???

(Oh, btw, I love Roadhouse, Highlander 2 and Virtuosity in just the same way as this film...cheesily bad, but somehow entertaining and fun...how come most of them star Kelly Lynch though...she's a terrible "actress"??)

I am the ray of darkness in your otherwise sunny day...

[–] Desertman84 16 years ago

Cocktail is very entertaining.
Common guys!!!!
You gotta enjoy this film!!!!

[–] CharlesCastle 15 years ago

{{{{{{Tonywayne}}}}}}

I love this conversation, and this thread!
Happy 5th anniversary Cocktail board mutants!

"If you are mean enough to steal from the blind, help yourself."

[–] hovercraftfullofeels 14 years ago

Poor Charles. His only crime was to pen a witty piece - very well I might add - and he incurs the wrath of a multitude who evidently failed to grasp the humour therein.

All I can add is that having just watched Cocktail, coming here and reading the OP's review made the experience that much more worthwhile.

So thank you Charles, there are some who appreciate your endeavour.

[–] machicolator 14 years ago

Charles, why didn't you respond to nytesprite's comment? Of all the discourse on this thread hers was arguably the most worth your time. Take a look in case you missed the post:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094889/board/thread/3647340?d=21084909&p=5#21084909
I'm interested in your thoughts on it.

'For the right price I can give everything up.
Slip into the car, go drivin' to the farthest star.'

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mdl555 15 years ago

First of all, I want to give a big hurrah to Charles for staying active with this topic for 5 WHOLE YEARS!!!! Bravo! I've never seen that kind of commitment to a thread, but this discussion is actually quite a lot of fun and fully deserving of the attention it's getting.

I thought your initial review was absolutely hilarious, but I get the feeling most people kind of missed the humor in it.

Cocktail's a fantastic friggin' movie. It's got good looking people (namely Elisabeth Shue and Gina Gershon...and Kelly Lynch), cheesy 80s plot, and cringe-inducing but oh-so-uplifting corny moments (like the poetry recitations). If nothing else, Cocktail deserves some modicum of praise for giving birth to this wonderful thread. Long live Cocktail!

[–] OldAle1 15 years ago

Somehow, we all missed the 6TH ANNIVERSARY of this thread-that-will-not-die. Well done, Charles Castle, well done!

als das kind kind war

[–] todd gaines 14 years ago

Nice feat Charles to keep this thread active for 6 years. Just found out today.

Come visit my thread, still a bit older than yours. But we certainly do have that in common.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096874/board/thread/2429696

Todd

[–] OldAle1 14 years ago

Nice try todd (and an excellent thread - at some point I'll have to read through it all before it goes poof, and reply to your continuation thread - huge fan of the films), but this is even older:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0282120/board/nest/2623

I'd have to climb across two graves to get to you

[–] daughterofolaf 14 years ago

Haha, awesome thread...and seriously, this is easily one of the worst films ever made--it's not even bad in a fun, guilty pleasure kind of way like Roadhouse or Over The Top. It's just embarrassingly bad all around.

"My Rowsdower has come for me!"

[–] Desertman84 14 years ago

This thread is still alive!!!!!!!LOL

[–] charcoalchicken 13 years ago

bump for future laughs

[–] Desertman84 13 years ago

This thread is still alive!!!!!!!LOL
Bar is open!!!!!!!!!!LOL

[–] Desertman84 13 years ago

It's been going on for 8 years now!!!!

[–] LocoHero 12 years ago

This thread is epic.

It should be laminated and hung in the Tate Modern.

Congratulations too, on its 8th anniversary.

It is nearly 3 years since The Creator, Charles, visited these boards. To be fair, 5 years of arguing about Cocktail is above and beyond the call of duty.

It goes without saying that Cocktail is a superior film to Jerry Maguire, which isn't saying much.

[–] Guamley 12 years ago

Awesome thread!
Charles, what can I say? After reading your review, I too thought you were being a bit hyperbolic in your critique of this iconic piece of 80's celluloid.

However the responses were so over the top in their churlishness and pettiness that along with your calm, well thought out rebuttal, you won me over.

8 yrs. and counting and Charles is still in charge.

[–] Benihanahasnofunflare 14 years ago

Bar is open!

[–] melissa-548-827710 14 years ago

TL;DR

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]