DVD Review: THE UNBORN: UNRATED (DVD;Universal/Rogue/Platinum Dunes/Relativity Media)

Ricardo

Yawn.

kuntasensei

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

It's just as good as calling me a "pompous ****" -- it's what he really feels, and at any rate, his comments aren't constructive; I APOLOGIZED to this guy in the Knowing thread for mixing up a reply, and yet again, he made a derailing, hurtful comment about me being the only person allowed to discuss a given film title, when that wasn't even TRUE OR SO. He never even acknowledged my apology, which I openly admitted was my fault (with regard to the mixup) and you still think I am not being fair or nice to him?

That's ridiculous, '**** -- at this point, it's self defense with regard to his comments.

He made that comment about you being the only one who can say anything because you posted the following to me (emphasis added):

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Did I not SAY almost all of what you're saying above in the review? The borrowing from other films...the disappointing ending...are you implying that just because I wrote it the way I did the same information isn't valid?

For some reason, you took me posting my brief five sentence review as some sort of indictment of the review you posted, when it had absolutely nothing to do with you other than I AGREED WITH YOU. Ricardo's evaluation of your response to me was completely valid, because your response reads as if anyone else stating their opinion is somehow a slight against you.

You did the exact same thing in the Knowing thread. I posted links to the Sun Times' review and discussion as a point of interest for people who enjoyed the movie, saying absolutely nothing about you or your review in the process, and you self-importantly responded with:

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

As for those of you like Ricardo who are pulling links from the Sun Times to "discredit" my abilities over other "professionals" (many of which don't know a good piece of cinema from a rusted wrench -- TRUST ME, I know many) you don't have to bother resorting to tactics such as that. It's cheap, immature and won't discredit the work I have done in many publications and online.

Here's the thing... IT'S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU. That's what I meant when I said "Stop playing the victim", it's what MrNightly so eloquently said to you in post #30 of the Knowing thread, and it's exactly what Ricardo's referring to when he tried to tell you how you're coming across. Perhaps "****" was a poorly chosen word, but ultimately he was trying to tell you to tone down the pompous attitude a bit. It's not self-defense because no one here is out to get you. And yet, for some reason, you seem to want to react defensively to anyone who criticizes you in the slightest. It is that specific behavior that got you the reaction in that thread and in this one. That you have had three long-time members of this forum telling you to tone it down should be a sign that perhaps you should consider it. That we've all done so without flaming you is a testament to the membership of this forum.

shack

Mike LoManaco wrote:

Ease up a little and STOP the thread hijacking -- you didn't even come into this thread with ANYTHING constructive to add.

When you post on an internet forum...you don't get to say who can respond, how they respond and what the content of their response is. If you don't like the way your "tailored" reviews are received here...feel free to not post them.

And Ricky is right on....

Mike LoManaco

kuntasensei wrote: »

He made that comment about you being the only one who can say anything because you posted the following to me (emphasis added):

Right -- I understand where it came from, but the fact of the matter is his response wasn't cemented in any kind of concrete truth because it's not what I meant. I never intended to make it as if no one can say anything about a film save for me, and that's simply NOT what I mean or meant. All I was trying to find out was if what you meant by your statement had anything to do with agreeing with the elements I pointed out in the review.

Further, your initial comment about my reference to Yustman and her sexy figure bordered on rude -- enough with the "non-professional" remarks already. Ricardo's continuous flaming deal here with little comments like "Yawn..." just fuel the situation even more. I went as far as to stop posting the "Pro Review by..." because it was pissing everyone off, and still you made a comment about my choice of words with regard to Yustman.

other than I AGREED WITH YOU.

I didn't KNOW this. You DIDN'T SAY anything to indicate that you were finding the same things about the film (i.e. "But yeah, Mike, it had a mixed bag of themes from other films like The Exorcist..."), just something about a mish mash of themes. It was a MISUNDERSTANDING.

Ricardo's evaluation of your response to me was completely valid, because your response reads as if anyone else stating their opinion is somehow a slight against you.

That's ABSOLUTELY not how it reads to me, nor how it was meant -- his sarcasm by calling me "Mikey" and other well-known tactics for "poking fun" at someone was purposely utilized as a weapon to continue the flaming in these threads.

You did the exact same thing in the Knowing thread. I posted links to the Sun Times' review and discussion as a point of interest for people who enjoyed the movie, saying absolutely nothing about you or your review in the process, and you self-importantly responded with:

Right -- as everyone in here likes to point out to ME, it's a free country, riddled with examples of "free speech;" IT WAS MY OPINION that you were putting that link up just to discredit what I wrote based on what came before it -- IT WAS NOT out of self-importance, AT ALL. It was almost like "Anyway...for those of you who were interested about the film and WHO DIDN'T WANT PLOT SPOILERS REVEALED, here's a link..." Can't you see how it SEEMED from my perspective? It seems okay to try and explain to me what others' points are and where they come from, but it's suddenly ignored when I point out how YOUR words were interpretted...

Here's the thing... IT'S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU. That's what I meant when I said "Stop playing the victim",

THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE JUST SAID THAT in more non-hurtful words; STOP MAKING IT ABOUT MY SELF-IMPORTANCE BECAUSE THAT IS UTTERLY AND INEFFICIENTLY UNTRUE -- ABOUT MY ENTIRE MORAL CHARACTER.

it's what MrNightly so eloquently said to you in post #30 of the Knowing thread,

Eloquently? Are you KIDDING me? I understand you are using this word sarcastically, but his comments bordered on harassing because he DOES NOT KNOW ME PERSONALLY and I have reported that comment to moderators. My comments are "laughable"? WHY? Because I am DEFENDING myself?

and it's exactly what Ricardo's referring to when he tried to tell you how you're coming across. Perhaps "****" was a poorly chosen word, but ultimately he was trying to tell you to tone down the pompous attitude a bit. It's not self-defense because no one here is out to get you.

How can YOU tell someone what is worthy of self defense or what isn't? I feel there is an issue here and I feel the need to defend my stance and my person -- and you are DAMN right that "****" was a poorly chosen word; I cannot BELIEVE someone actually noted that. I DON'T have a pompous attitude, and, again, I am merely defending myself against comments that were lunged at me hurtfully. This is supposed to be a discussion about a FILM ON DVD, and look what it turns into...amazing.

And yet, for some reason, you seem to want to react defensively to anyone who criticizes you in the slightest. It is that specific behavior that got you the reaction in that thread and in this one. That you have had three long-time members of this forum telling you to tone it down should be a sign that perhaps you should consider it. That we've all done so without flaming you is a testament to the membership of this forum.

Tone WHAT down? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I already stated that I WAS NEVER OUT TO DISCREDIT ANYONE ELSE ON THIS SITE REGARDING THEIR FILM KNOWLEDGE, PROFESSION, ETC. I MADE APOLOGIES WHERE NECESSARY. For your information, it's NOT "criticism in the slightest"...it's a bit more out of hand than that.

And you WOULDN'T call what this has turned into FLAMING?

Mike LoManaco

shack wrote: »

When you post on an internet forum...you don't get to say who can respond, how they respond and what the content of their response is. If you don't like the way your "tailored" reviews are received here...feel free to not post them.

And Ricky is right on....

First of all, please don't join a flame bandwagon JUST FOR THE SAKE of joining it and "keeping up with the membership who is jumping on one person" because it seems "cool." You don't know what you're talking about with regard to your first statement -- I am going to make this clear for you now: I NEVER -- EVER -- SAID WHO CAN RESPOND, HOW THEY CAN RESPOND AND WHAT THE CONTENT OF THEIR REPLIES SHOULD BE -- I NEVER SAID THAT ANYWHERE. You cannot STATE that I did, BECAUSE I DID NOT.

Further, you're wrong about the "internet forums" and their rights with regard to posting -- on most forums, if cruel or hurtful comments are made at membership, moderation teams step in and stop it with warnings. People DON'T get to just "type whatever they want" with no regard for the subject matter. I see you're one of those people who just want to criticize the reviews for the sake of doing it -- it's so easy to just say "Don't post in here..." because for some reason, these are not DVD or Blu-ray reviews to you, personally. :rolleyes:

In response to your last statement, no, he is not "right on" because he doesn't know me. His accusations of my character via sarcastic, childish remarks are ridiculous, and STILL my apology is going unacknowledged for which I tried and smooth over the misunderstanding in a different thread...:rolleyes:

dorokusai

Oh, yea, you guys should chill out.

Mike LoManaco

dorokusai wrote: »

Oh, yea, you guys should chill out.

I am going to do just that, 'Doro, by unsubscribing from this thread. It's ridiculous already. I have to write the next review for my freelance assignment, anyway, Haunting in Connecticut.

kuntasensei

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Further, your initial comment about my reference to Yustman and her sexy figure bordered on rude -- enough with the "non-professional" remarks already. Ricardo's continuous flaming deal here with little comments like "Yawn..." just fuel the situation even more. I went as far as to stop posting the "Pro Review by..." because it was pissing everyone off, and still you made a comment about my choice of words with regard to Yustman.

I think it was pretty obvious to everyone here that I was busting your balls and agreeing that she's hot. That said, to state my honest opinion given my experience, I don't believe the reviews you're posting here are in print in any form, edited or otherwise. They are overly wordy, have content that no editor in his right mind would allow to be published in any printed medium, and their excessive length would exclude them from 99% of the enthusiast press. I don't doubt that they are a labor of love for you, as you seem to passionately enjoy movies. I just don't believe that they exist anywhere in print. That's just my opinion, and since you're so determined to hide behind anonymity after initially railing against people criticizing you "on anonymous online forums", I suppose we'll never know who you really are or where you are published.

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

IT WAS MY OPINION that you were putting that link up just to discredit what I wrote based on what came before it -- IT WAS NOT out of self-importance, AT ALL. It was almost like "Anyway...for those of you who were interested about the film and WHO DIDN'T WANT PLOT SPOILERS REVEALED, here's a link..." Can't you see how it SEEMED from my perspective? It seems okay to try and explain to me what others' points are and where they come from, but it's suddenly ignored when I point out how YOUR words were interpretted...

Amazingly, you seem to be the only person who interpreted it that way. And that's exactly what I mean when I say that everything isn't always about you. You should try READING what people say, not creating implications out of thin air because you feel persecuted.

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Eloquently? Are you KIDDING me? I understand you are using this word sarcastically, but his comments bordered on harassing because he DOES NOT KNOW ME PERSONALLY and I have reported that comment to moderators. My comments are "laughable"? WHY? Because I am DEFENDING myself?

I wasn't being sarcastic, and MrNightly didn't say "laughable". You are again assigning blame to the wrong person, as you did previously with Ricardo. To refresh your memory, in the post I referenced, MrNightly said:

Mike,

I appreciate the effort in giving to the forum... however from an outsider's perspective, you come across with an attitude whether you mean to or not. I love a good movie review, but recapping the entire story in at least two pages of posts every single time, is just too much for here. We are all simple people who simply want to know the highs, lows and a personal opinion. Everyone's tastes are different, but I think you would be better served as not coming across as Polk Audio's resident expert on movies, as you have no idea the experience and tastes of those on this board. You joined a mere few months ago... don't be afraid to take the low road starting off.

Again, my opinion is exactly that... mine.

I, for one, know that I haven't read an entire post of yours merely from the fact that they are WWWWWAAAAAYYYY too long. I also don't want a recap of the story, just your view with little to no spoilers.

Take it for what it is... free advice

I think that pretty much sums it up.

And you WOULDN'T call what this has turned into FLAMING?

No, I wouldn't. You're the only one here who seems to be defensive, and any time someone says anything about your reviews, you post a kneejerk reaction, sometimes against the wrong person. You need to relax, listen to people's criticism, and learn to have a conversation about it without all the hostility. I'm certainly not being hostile towards you, regardless of you how apparently perceive it.

Ricardo

kuntasensei wrote: »

Perhaps "****" was a poorly chosen word

Absolutely. Thanks for pointing that out. Should have chosen more wisely, but I am not a writer, and English is not my first language. So I blame other forum members, because I learned that word here.

kuntasensei

Ricardo wrote: »

Absolutely. Thanks for pointing that out. Should have chosen more wisely, but I am not a writer, and English is not my first language. So I blame other forum members, because I learned that word here.

Bah ha ha ha! ****.

dorokusai

Ricardo wrote: »

Absolutely. Thanks for pointing that out. Should have chosen more wisely, but I am not a writer, and English is not my first language. So I blame other forum members, because I learned that word here.

Your German right?

MrNightly

kuntasensei wrote: »

I think it was pretty obvious to everyone here that I was busting your balls and agreeing that she's hot. That said, to state my honest opinion given my experience, I don't believe the reviews you're posting here are in print in any form, edited or otherwise. They are overly wordy, have content that no editor in his right mind would allow to be published in any printed medium, and their excessive length would exclude them from 99% of the enthusiast press. I don't doubt that they are a labor of love for you, as you seem to passionately enjoy movies. I just don't believe that they exist anywhere in print. That's just my opinion, and since you're so determined to hide behind anonymity after initially railing against people criticizing you "on anonymous online forums", I suppose we'll never know who you really are or where you are published.


Amazingly, you seem to be the only person who interpreted it that way. And that's exactly what I mean when I say that everything isn't always about you. You should try READING what people say, not creating implications out of thin air because you feel persecuted.


I wasn't being sarcastic, and MrNightly didn't say "laughable". You are again assigning blame to the wrong person, as you did previously with Ricardo. To refresh your memory, in the post I referenced, MrNightly said:

I think that pretty much sums it up.


No, I wouldn't. You're the only one here who seems to be defensive, and any time someone says anything about your reviews, you post a kneejerk reaction, sometimes against the wrong person. You need to relax, listen to people's criticism, and learn to have a conversation about it without all the hostility. I'm certainly not being hostile towards you, regardless of you how apparently perceive it.

Buddy... this is a useless cause I fear. I think it's time to move along... nothing to see here

kuntasensei

MrNightly wrote: »

Buddy... this is a useless cause I fear. I think it's time to move along... nothing to see here

Well, you can't say I didn't try. So... that Odette Yustman sure is a smokin' piece of tail, huh? (See what I did there? Heh...)

wutadumsn23

kuntasensei wrote: »

Well, you can't say I didn't try. So... that Odette Yustman sure is a smokin' piece of tail, huh? (See what I did there? Heh...)

LOL, agreed she is def. yummy. See now we are back on track

MrNightly

kuntasensei wrote: »

Well, you can't say I didn't try. So... that Odette Yustman sure is a smokin' piece of tail, huh? (See what I did there? Heh...)

There ya go again, stepping on mike's toes and pissing in his wheatie's again...

hearingimpared

Just saw it and it sucked.