Take a certain movie and slap a label on it "This is a guy movie.", "This is a chick flick." and you get these arguments. Now I have noticed that movies recently do get made with the idea of what audience they'll appeal to, and I think now a lot of work goes into figuring out the magical androgynous formula to pull both audiences together so everyone can go out after and talk about it over coffee or get laid (which ever just happens to be the most applicable scenario), but call me naive or whatever but I think there was a time where people just made movies and let them fall where they landed.

Here's some of my favorites, I guess most are guy flicks.. I dunno.. I just enjoy them. If a girl likes any of these too that's great, Id hope anyone can just approach a movie as "it's a movie", and keep an open mind.

Die Hard - Only the original. It's a freaking classic, not just a good action movie. So many little details worked out that there's a scene where you can see a whole sub-plot silently occurring based on one of the character's facial expressions. When Gruber puts the coke fiend on the radio to talk to McClane watch all of McClane's facial expressions.

Way of the Gun - This is another movie where entire conversations occur between characters without a word being spoken. The shoot out at the end is incredible and well thought out.

SE7EN - David Fincher at his best.

Aliens - Video games will never stop quoting from this movie (or stealing ideas from it). Can't wait for Avatar (no, not the cartoon).

The Hudsucker Proxy - One of the best comedies no one's seen.

Face / Off - Cheesy over the top in the best possible way. John Woo's best American movie IMO (Hard Boiled being his best period).

Event Horizon - Many don't like this flick, I loved it. The whole scientific concept of hell being this other place of pure chaos that this ship slipped into really drew me in.

I've got a ton more, but I'll stop here. Why do I like these movies? Because they're fun in some form or fashion.

And soon as Hollywood can get back to making movies that aren't based off something from 10-20 years ago I'll get back into being a movie buff.

Oh and PS, I SOOO Want to see Antichrist too. Looks like some really F'ed up horror.

No chick flick! hehe.. they did include and interesting hookup between two main characters.

So you're saying that they turned it into a chick flick? *ducks and covers*

Either way, I'm still disappointed they killed the Enterprise series; I think I'll sit this movie out and wait for the next franchise thingy.

Great list, Farhad. I'm certainly adding some of those suggestions to my NetFlix queue. I hear The Wrestler is amazing, and Rourke gives his best performance. That's a lot of hype to live up to! In Bruges was a surprisingly good flick. The trailers mislead me into thinking it would be like a Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels type movie, so I didn't want to see it at first.

I wasn't a fan of Ghost Town. It was a chick flick wrapped in a comedy. Gervais was great in it, though. And, Slum Dog Millionaire was great, but I think it was hyped too much. It's not Oscar worthy in my opinion. [/two cents]

Faith and scientific method are opposed to one another.

That is your opinion. It is not based on facts or evidence, and is not much different than bible thumping. What evidence do you have that faith is 'opposed' to scientific method?

Faith does not follow the scientific process. In fact, it requires someone to suspend all logic and evidence to adhere to it.

The scientific process begins when someone develops a hypothesis. Quite often, the hypothesis (especially in the realm of physics) is based on no more than an idea, a thought, or an abstract concept. The scientist proceeds to conduct physical experiments in the real world to accrue evidence.

I do not see how this is fundamentally different from a religious person who is exploring right, wrong, and the condition of life and thier place in the world. Such a person would conduct personal experiments, test ideas, and arrive at conclusions. The inherent process is similar. The only real difference is the subject material. What you are essentially arguing is that you refuse to acknowledge the study of ethos, pathos, a priori, and other abstract sciences of thought and philosophy. While you may have no interest in such fields, you certainly cannot deny thier ultimate reality and value as a part of the human corpus of understanding?

Don't confuse "faith" with hypothesis. One is arbitrary unprovable fantasy of the mind of a three yeaer old. A hypothesis is something that can be tested.

I disagree that areas of faith are untestable. Human morality and emotion are very testable. Conduct the experiments. Go kick a puppy. Look at a vid of a cat playing in a box. Go watch a chick flick. Listen to a powerful strain of music. Did you feel a twinge of pity, guilt, joy, or whatever? From whence comes these strange compulsions? What evolutionary function do they serve? You will find that you have quite a few 'illogical' moral standards that are based on no evidence, that have no identifiable origin, and that fulfill no valid socital purpose. How did you - who claims to have built his life on nothing but physical evidence - obtain so many dimensions without having developed a hypothesis, conducted an experiment, and obtained the physical evidence?

Since the majority of good in the world comes from science and technology and the majority of improvements in life span, quality of life, understanding of the universe, societal advancement...

That's one kind of good, but science doesn't fill care packages, stand by a bedside, or volunteer at soup kitchens - and therefore we must reject your claim that 'the majority of good' comes from science and technology. Rather it would be more accurate to say, "Science and technology have allowed good people to do MORE good to others". Science is amoral and cares nothing for good or bad. It just does. Parenthetically, why would science want to improve human life-spans? Isn't that unsustainable? Therefore 'someone' in the scientific community is conducting experiments to achieve ends that are based on moral judgements of what is 'good'. You better stop them...

Why can't the elf-believers just STFU and let real good continue.

Well, first you as the evidence based individual must supply the proof that the elf-believers are deliberately interfering with good. That's going to be hard to do since the Elfians are the ones in the soup kitchens, in the hospitals, and out helping the poor.

You sir are the scoundrel.

Whuh? On what physical evidence have you arrived at the conclusion that I believe in elves? Come come, let us have your reasoning.

The world is getting to be a better place and it is not coming at the hands of religious extremists.

It is a sad truth that there are many bad people that abuse religion and wrest it to thier negative ends. I tend to not blame the religion for that though. I blame jerks for being jerks. Jerks are that way, and will find a delivery mechanism for thier jerkiness whether it be science, religion, politics, Global Warming, or whatever. Whence comes this tendency, think you?

^The cinema is called 'Jeux d'enfants'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364517/

Might watch it later if I feel giddy happy and want to watch a Romance comedy movie. From what I gather it screams out 'chick flick'.

But then again I enjoyed 'The Notebook', 'family man', 'love actually' and 'When Harry & Met Sally'. Movies I thought of watching but didn't were 'the scarlet letter', and 'pride and prejudice'.

I'm not into serious straight up romantic movies. I just can't take it.

I remember somebody told me I should watch that movie. Thinking it was a chick flick I told them to fuck off and let me eat my spaghetti-O's in peace. Later a girl, using vagina power, talked me into watching a movie with her so I suggested "True Romance" (since its the only chick flick I could think of). To my surprise, the movie turned out to be AWESOME. It was like a chick flick for guys...or like an action film for girls. The theme of chivalry and true love spiked with violence, sex and drugs. Well done...well done indeed.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
We call this genre "Chick Flicks For Dudes".

Dick Flicks.

We call this genre "Chick Flicks For Dudes".

The ultimate chick-flick. If you laughed when you saw "The Notebook", if you cried during "While You Were Sleeping", you'll laugh, cry and learn to love again when you see "Taxi Driver"!

was immediately turned off by this, until he talked about how it was all DIY. (He didn't mention the chick-flick mods he had to install or the divorce proceedings).

Dunno man, I like Cotsner, but he's only ever Cotsner. I like Denzel, Sam Jackson, again, only ever themselves.....Hanks....he's good when he's good, and the 2 above, well, ok....something about his calm-guess Sleepless in Seattle and Forest Gump sorta jaded me.....The undisputed king of "make everyone feel good or sorry for him" characters.......stick to directing, producing, and cherry-picking yer future roles Tom....and NEVER do another chick flick, please.

"Meg Ryan, your lips have arrived at gate 4, Meg to gate 4"

I think the point is the imbalance in the type of role the Muslims stereotype is cast in, as Tom Stall pointed out, they are, more often than most other stereotypes cast as the role of the enemy.

The reason there is not a Jewish version of this video is because Jews in movies can also be sympathetic genocide victims, or intelligent problem solving types, or funny scene-stealers, or that cute guy the cute girls falls for in the latest 3 hankie chick flick sobfest... and yes, Germans in films are for the most part perpetually stuck in 1939-45 invading other countries and shouting 'Mein Furor' but they can also be punk rockers, composers, happy beer-swilling tourists, new wave musicians or esoteric art film directors... its not to say that these groups are not stereotyped in film, but their stereotypes have more variety, and fill many more roles than always being terrorists.

I think Farhad is right in that the Russians are the only group that can begin to compare in the treatment the Arabs have received from Hollywood, they are always baddies perpetually dubbed as 'those sneaky-fucking Russians'. Unless they are played by Sean Connery, then they get to be noble, but they still speak with a Scottish burr.

Neo-hippie chick flick-

blondie sure is a uni-dimensional hack...whassis name?? Man, how'd you like YOUR Hollowwood career to be nothing but memorizing some emotionally deficient writers ramblings???

Thanks for the warning trailer.....

the following review is available online @ www.filmsboundtoblow.com

My wife and I are a great match - I love really girly "chick flicks" (like Amelie) and she loves Hong Kong action films.