Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

agreed...no self-respecting jazz fan could have been content with Ken Burns' treatment

Posted by Jazz Inmate on October 22, 2008 at 22:47:14:
If your idea of jazz is Louis Armstrong, Duke, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker and Diz, you'll love it. But Burns' narrative is too exclusive and hindsight driven. It doesn't work for me. Part of the reason is he spends so much time on jazz's development from New Orleans music and dancehall/swing big bands. He started running out of time and budget before he even got to 1950. Like many, I think the most exciting advances in jazz came toward the end of that decade and into the 1960s. So the emphasis on earlier periods left me flat. And some who I regard as the absolute geniuses of jazz, like Bud Powell and Wayne Shorter, were given short shrift.
-------------
Call it, friendo.