CrazyJustin2007 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyJustin2007 Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedya Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Wouldn't it be easier to put your views in several paragraphs and post them here, rather than directing people to a Youtube link? Sorry, but being on dial-up, I have no desire to wait for the video to finish downloading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelluloidKid Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Wouldn't have been eaiser to say this: The Birth of a Nation (also known as The Clansman) is one of the most influential and controversial films in the history of American cinema. Set during and after the American Civil War and directed by D.W. Griffith, the film was released on February 8, 1915. It is important in film history for its innovative technical achievements and also for its controversial promotion of white supremacism and glorification of the Ku Klux Klan. The Birth of a Nation is based on Thomas Dixon's The Clansman, a novel and play. A sequel was released to theaters one year later, in 1916, called The Fall of a Nation. The film was directed by Thomas Dixon, who adapted it from the novel of the same name. The film has three acts and a prologue. It is now considered a lost film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolisforever Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 >Wouldn't have been eaiser to say this: >The Birth of a Nation (also known as The Clansman) is one of the most influential and controversial films in the history of American cinema. Set during and after the American Civil War and directed by D.W. Griffith, the film was released on February 8, 1915. >It is important in film history for its innovative technical achievements and also for its controversial promotion of white supremacism and glorification of the Ku Klux Klan. The Birth of a Nation is based on Thomas Dixon's The Clansman, a novel and play. >A sequel was released to theaters one year later, in 1916, called The Fall of a Nation. The film was directed by Thomas Dixon, who adapted it from the novel of the same name. The film has three acts and a prologue. It is now considered a lost film. Nice copy/paste work. Copied from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredCDobbs Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 This guy is trying to sell a book. This is advertising spam that he has posted several places on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolisforever Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 >This guy is trying to sell a book. This is advertising spam that he has posted several places on this board. CrazyJustin is NOT trying to "sell a book". He is just posting reviews. Fred, stop being a jackass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredCDobbs Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 The YouTube link is just a promotion for the 1001 book which Amazon sells. His post is spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metropolisforever Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 >The YouTube link is just a promotion for the 1001 book which Amazon sells. >His post is spam. Fred, you are an idiot. He is posting reviews, not "spamming". Just because he likes a particular book does not make him a "spammer". When someone posts a good review for a movie, they're not "spamming" either. Therefore, when you say that CrazyJustin is a spammer, you are treading on the same grounds as one who would say that Roger Ebert is a spammer. Roger Ebert is not a spammer. He's just a film critic (and an idiot.) CrazyJustin is not a spammer. He's just a film critic too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeeteeze Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 For the record, I sat thru part of this guy's "review". It wasn't so much a panning of a film as it was of Griffith's and/or Dixon's opinions. So, with that in mind, imagine a reviewer dismissing the film "Batman Returns" because "everyone knows that didn't happen". My review of his review. Take it or leave it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyJustin2007 Posted January 12, 2008 Author Share Posted January 12, 2008 Yeah the editor of 1001 hired me to do my on take on the movies to boost sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyJustin2007 Posted January 12, 2008 Author Share Posted January 12, 2008 *Is happy that Roger Ebert is an idiot and I'm not......yet* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts