 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: More (mostly local) reviews on SWEII posted by clarkjohnsen on May 18, 2002 at 10:41:39:
review. Enough said.
Follow Ups:
"Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, manage.
Those who can do none of these become critics."
Robert Benchley - noted writer, actor,
humorist, cynic, and critic.
So I trust you're not just a useless reader?clark
Lucas movie goes into preduction, hype builds, critics/reviewers see film prerelease, a few good "words" are spoken/printed, onslaught of bad reviews, forums post "have you seen the reviews" / "the reviews are in", movie opens to make zillions, etc.George Lucas dreamt about making a space-fantasy movie a long time ago, in a consciousness far, far away. He has not only brought that dream to life on the big screen, he has followed it with extensions of that dream. I'm sure he has surpassed even his wildest imagination as to how far this "dream" would take him. At the same time he has made millions upon millions of dollars. He can do whatever he wants because he is George Lucas.
How many reviewers can say this about their dream? And, who in their right mind grows up dreaming about cutting to bits the hard work of another? Most reviewers wouldn't know a great film if it bit them on the ass and fed that flesh to them. They'd rather pick apart every nook and cranny of a film, piece of art or product just to prove that its creator is "still" human. What a bunch of lifeless losers.
In this area, we get a section in the Friday newspaper called the "Lagniappe" section. It contains about 20 pages of entertainment information. I always look at the movie section to see what's playing and read the reviews. The reviews that say a movie isn't worth seeing is usually what I see first. So far I'm "batting a thousand".
I go to the show to be entertained by subjects that I'm interested in -- not to be educated, not to see how closely the movie follows the book, not to see the greatest story ever told. Movies are to escape into another world, to entertain and to suspend belief and reality. They are not made to impress critics/reviewers -- at least not the movies that are worth seeing.
If you don't like the Star Wars movies, George Lucas or a combination of the two, don't go see them and don't review them. And the excuse of "I'm a reviewer. It's my job." is not acceptable -- get another job. But first, you need to get a life.
Thank you for that.The first injunction is of course a sheer impossibility. The second would lead to Pollyannaish writing: "I just *loved* this movie!" Don't we hate that in audio reviewing? Aren't the mags always getting ripped for publishing only favorable reviews? Yet along come people who can't take the heat when some scribbler tells what he saw.
Remember, everyone: Reading is for both amusement and information. Movies are pure amusement. Should they fail in that endeavor, I want to be forewarned.
clark
clark
before you realise that GL and/or SW is not your cup of tea?> > > The first injunction is of course a sheer impossibility < < <
There have been 5 movies now. If after the first two you're not impressed, why go back? "It's my job" is not acceptable. I'll tell you why: the majority of critics/reviewers can't enjoy a movie. They are stuck here and will (probably) never leave. Sad, but true. Michael Coate has some valuable information in his recent update.
There's nothing I'm going to say that will make you change your feelings on this subject (hell, I see it IS your job!). And of course there's nothing you can say to change my mind. Want the last word -- it's yours. Read it twice -- once for you, once for me.
.
***If you don't like the Star Wars movies, George Lucas or a combination of the two, don't go see them and don't review them. And the excuse of "I'm a reviewer. It's my job." is not acceptable -- get another job. But first, you need to get a life.This is as silly as it gets. One needs to experience that - well, film - to know he hates it. I didn't see the first one or perhaps even the second one - forgive me for not praying to the list - but when the - I believe the third one - came out, I went. I think it was around 1981 or so, so I am sure you would know which one I was mistoftunate to see.
If I didn't - how would I know just what kind of "film" that was? Problem was, I read many reviews and I thought it was something worth seeing, that is why I went. I even took my kid with me.
It is perfectly right, and even much more - important!, to call junk junk, as one sees it. Thank God for people like Michael Medved, or we all would be just reading the Ebert "stuff".
> > > One needs to experience that - well, film - to know he hates it. < < <This is film number 5 in the series. If you -- by "you" I'm referring to the critic/reviewer -- think your mind is going to change about George Lucas or the Star Wars movies after seeing the first 4, you're quite the optimist. You need to put the SW movies into the right perspective -- what audience is Lucas mainly targeting? I'll give you a hint: it's NOT the reviewers/critics. The point I'm making is this: if you are a reviewer/critic and you don't like Lucas and/or the Star Wars films, do NOT review them. If you were a food critic and you hated eggs, why would you get anything that contained eggs when you went in to a restaurant to critique it? "Hi, my name is Mr Reviewer. I don't like Star Wars movies and I don't like George Lucas. That said, let me tell you about Attack of the Clones". Kinda stupid, isn't it.
> > > I think it was around 1981 or so, so I am sure you would know which one I was mistoftunate to see. < < <
Around 1981 -- was it 1980? -- would have been "The Empire Strikes Back". Of all the SW films, this got the most "praise". If you are off by 2 years (1983), then it would have been "Return of the Jedi".
Still a no-go on the first one. Reviewing is not about finding films (equipment, music, wine) you would be inclined to like only.You seem to be blowing that "I hate Lucas" out of proportion. I do see a lot of trash made by those I hate, and sometimes you fid something in them that is entertaining, interesting, original, etc. And yes, your food critic must try eggs from time to time to make sure he is not simply following some old and perhaps wrong impression - we all grow and change.
But the bottom line - someone MUST write bad reviews about bad films, or it is not fair to all of us.
Which one did I see? Hell if I know. It was one of the two you mentioned, I am sure.
.
Rob CThe world was made for people not cursed with self-awareness
I suspect she did - she was only 6 or so at the time. She was just an excuse for me to see it.She is not going to see the latest one.
Vic,While I will agree that Star Wars: Episode II is not exactly Nevsky or Rashomon, Lucas has been very important for one important reason;
He opened my eyes at the age of 7 to the wonderful world of film.
I was fairly sheltered as a kid, but movies changed that for me. Yes, I read a lot as a kid and was totally seduced by the dark side (television), but movies were always numero uno!
If not for Lucas, I never would investigated Kurosawa, Ford, Eisenstein, Capra, Wilder, etc...
I got so into samurai stuff thanks to Lucas that I took up Kendo as an adult. I went out and bought every book that I could find on Kurosawa, and the other directors listed above and read. I've seen so many "good" Japanese movies, that I can't bother to waste time on the anime crap that everyone likes today.
I began to read mythology thanks to Lucas and became more interested in politics and still consider Orwell to be my favorite author.
While Sarah might hate the 3,000+ recordings in my music collection, she loves the fact that we have hundreds of movies and that is something that we both share. She can't stand Lucas either, but she does laugh a lot when I come out of the shower imitating the Emperor in Jedi...So be it...Jedi"
He's done a lot for movies, and that is more than I can say about the majority of modern directors.
Tosh
Well said.
Where is our scale? Where is the proportion?His contribution was in making a rather entertaining film that blazed some new trails - the original SW. A somewhat notable contribution, yes, but more than a "majority"? Cut me a break.
The "majority" could of course be as bad as you want it to be, and in that context you may be right. But by saying this you are ignoring perhaps hunderds of great directors who have done perhaps many times more for the film industry.
Lucas should have left after the first one, as this apparently was his level of incompetency.
But you know what? Lucas doesn't concern me much at all. He is simply a barometer, or our rectal thermometer, if you will. His films - and their HUGE monetary success - simply indicate the state of health of our society.
The miserable state, to be sure.
What excites us, what grabbs our minds, is getting more and more primitive every decade. If you look at that people went to see and enjoy in say, the fifties, and compare it to what the wide audience sees today you will see what I mean.
We slid from Ninochka to Titanic in just few short - VERY short in any historical tirms - years.
If that is not a sign of decay then I don't know what is.
However, we are sliding down on a logarithmic scale, meaning that we are never going to hit the bottom.
Instead, the quality of films that get us going is going to contnue getting more and more ridiculous.
Yes, going ga-ga over something like SW is ridiculous, degrading thing for ANY society.
But not sliding into home!N. is one of the funniest movies ever made, and not a single joke! I wonder if your critic Mr. Murphy has ever seen it. And if he had read how good it be, would he have therefore put it at the bottom of his to-see list?
clark
There IS one joke in it - dontcha remember the "coffee without milk" - it is hilarious by any standard.A wonderful film with many underlining things, some of which will escape the casual viewer the first time around. Shame - the director didn't even get a nomination!
I simply picked it as the first great old film that came to my mind. Without a question there have been others, but one thing is for sure: if we look at the trend in our (using this losely... ) viewing tastes, there has been a horrible slide.
From films to video games. Some day we will have a direct wire into our brain from the monitor, and popcorn will be fed intravenously.
Vic,I think you are missing the point about Lucas. Anyone who watches the Star Wars films and thinks that he can direct, clearly hasn't seen too many good films. Lucas is not even a good storyteller.
Star Wars pushed boundaries that others were afraid to push, in terms of visual effects, sound, animation, set design.
I agree that standards have fallen off of the chart and that we find moronic shit to be entertaining. Star Wars is nothing more than a Saturday morning cartoon with some cool characters and a lot of action and wonderful special effects. Take it for what it is...a cheap thrill.
However, as I said before, Star Wars opened a lot of eyes and in a good way.
Would you prefer that I don't seek out obscure foreign films and only watch the crap that Hollywood comes up with?
I think you also have to divide up films that are entertaining and those that are really above and beyond the norm.
Fine, I consider Rashomon, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo to be some of my favorite films but that doesn't mean that one can't enjoy stuff like Slap Shot, Empire Strikes Back, Bridge on the River Kwai, Great Escape, Stalag 17,....
Movies being a form of art, has a few masterpieces and a lot of dreck. Unfortunately, dreck has been "in" for more than 30 years.
Tosh Medved
neither Vic nor Clark can understand what you are saying. Neither can get off of their high horse and see Lucas and his movies for what they really are -- entertainment. Lucas didn't and doesn't set out to make any of his films Shakespeare, Fitzgerald, Poe, Dikinson, etc. He makes the films that a young George wants to see. He takes his "dreams" and paints them on the big screen to entertain those that want to be entertained. As for paving the way, you're right on this too. Someone had to push the envelope. Someone had to take the risk. He did. I think Michael Coate summed it up best in his Star Wars update...
Did you bother to read my post in which I say the problem is not lucas? No? Lucas is just a mediocre director, no one asks him to be Dikinson, and he doesn't bother me one bit.But... well, just read what I said.
I like that.Tosh, the problem is not that people watch and like films like SW. It certainly has its place in the Universe. It is not the worst film ever made, far from it. Lucas is not the worst director to ever walk this Earth, by far.
The point is the Great Hoopla that surrounds it.
You probably recall how many people comment on what they call "art" film vs. the rest (it is really good films vs. bad ones). They tend to say: "Well, OK, on some days I eat at the best French restaurant, on others I just get a Big Mac!"
Put that way there is no problem. But "just a big Mac" is NOT what we are having here.
Instead we are having people getting dressed up, reserve the tables, hire limo's, all the stuff you normally associate with some ritzy place, only to go and get that dreaded Big Mac.
In other words, like it or not, the SW becomes the "fine cuisine" of 2002 America.
It is NOT what is served, it is how you treat it. And treating this mediocre work as if it were some great event does make it into an event.
It teaches the kids that this "stuff" is what movie making is all about.
So they grow up having watched each episode twenty times, and knowing nothing else.
So the SW would not do any harm to someone who already has some knowledge. But in our time it is pretty much the choice of SW vs. the Titanic vs. the Gladiator...
> > >
But in our time it is pretty much the choice of SW vs. the Titanic vs. the Gladiator...
< < <Vic, I think you still don't get Toshiro; I don't; one would have to be Toshiro. SW is not Titanic nor Gladiator. Its cultural, it associates with the childhoods of alot of people. Its like the Beatles. Its not just about artistry and content. Many Americans appear to like 'Crouching Tigers Hidden Dragons", but if you know the references it makes, and grow up with the stories and epics from which it took excerpts, you will love it the way many love SW. I just saw "Iron Monkey" a few days ago, which if you're not into nor familiar with what Ive said, it would appear extremely odd. For me, it was extremely refreshing. These things are not just summer flicks; Lucas was very elaborate to create this cultural phenomenon.
But why do people seem to love it more than it appears to deserve? Show me a child who grows up with and fatacizing about arts films, I'll show you one who does.
v
George Locas inside the Wicker Man.
nt
;^)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
