 
|
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 |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: RE: Well Put! nt posted by EBerlin on July 13, 2007 at 16:45:42
...from the Boston Globe?
"As filmmaking, the disappointment is that it manages only C-level vision."
And you're the guy whose "unambitious" (the Globe again) product permits his cheap-shot "Rush Limbaugh" remarks? Who can't even differentiate a few sidebar remarks from actually "reviewing a film"?
By God I believe you are!
Quite the little heel-nipper too, I might add. What's your breed?
clark
How come no follow up for my answer to your attempted smear of my film?
Sorry-don't really see how this is a "cheap shot". Rather than post a lengthy list of all the major mediafat-ass, drug addicted, hypocritical blowhardsconservative commentators, I simply used the name of the most famous one to illustrate how, as I wrote above, they're using the 37/39 'controversy' to try to deemphasize the points Moore is making in this movie. You can supplant Rush's name with any other of your choosing, but the fact remains-it's not only no controversy, it's not even true.
"Who can't even differentiate a few sidebar remarks from actually "reviewing a film"?
Though you didn't call out in your subject header that you were 'reviewing' Sicko , you used the thread of a review, (mistaken) statements from the film, and other's comments about previous Moore films to add emphasis to the (very dramatic, by the way) Big Finish concerning the veracity of the film Sicko. For me, that's close enough, on this little blogosphere, to call it a review. Your definition may differ, but the point remains-see the actual movie before commenting. Then, at least, your words will have the weight of true criticism, as opposed to the knee-jerk, don't-have-to-see-it-cause-I've-heard-about-it bombast of, say, the Christian Coalition.
And btw, I'd love to have credit for any documentary film, even if it (only) received a 'C' from the 'Globe. Nice work Elliot.
Sorry, Clark, but you kinda walked into this one...And yes, the Boston Globe didn't like the film and although it was "recommended" by the NY Times they were also rather critical of it. Oh, and by the way, my hometown paper, The Washington Post, also gave it a bit of a thumbs down.
On the other hand it received a large number of professional rave reviews, has a "Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and...
It was picked up for national distribution by Miramax, opened in over 70 cities nationwide, won over 15 festival awards, a National Emmy nomination, a Christopher Award (for creative work that "affirms the highest values of the Human Spirit), and was named "One of the Five Best Documentaries of 2004" by the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures." In the Palm Springs Film Festival in which appeared all five of that year's academy award feature doc nominees, my film was given the "Audience Award for Best Documentary Feature." It also played in heavy rotation on HBO for a year which means people wanted to see it.
Finally, if you check out the Amazon viewer ratings you will encounter a film which has, to date, received 42 viewer reviews. There was one 4-star review that called it "inspiring" and "a great documentary," and ALL the rest are 5-star reviews.
So, I don't have any problem taking the bad reviews along with the good...and I guess a lot depends on which review you look at!
Elliot
What film did you make? I don't come here a whole bunch.
"Paper Clips."
My wife who is a nurturing and altruistic soul also connected with Paper Clips.
No pun intended there I assure you.
Cheers,
J.B.
No film in history is going to be loved by all. Moore's films have a political viewpoint and anytime that happens you will have reviewers with a different political view that will very likely will give a negative review. Movie critics are not exactly up to the standard of journalists and that's not saying much as the journalists if Sanjay Gupta is a good representative are pretty biased paid off individuals. Film critics are often paid off and so why would it be any different for political reviews.
Documentaries like Hostory books present a writer/director's bias. Moore makes no pretense for his film - he is telling one side - his side in order to combat the hundreds of millions spent on the other side. I amazed the other side even has a supporter.
I am not sure I get the argument FOR having a paid insurance private medical HMO?
The arguments I hear make absolutely no sense. You get to pick your doctor or hospital? But we get to that in Canada and it's free. And the word free is slippery for Americans to understand because we are taxed but does it not make a bit more sense to pay a bit higher tax to hedge your bets? I mean basically the higher tax is a safety net so that you when your wife or yourself has a heart attack and the HMO tells you that you need $487,000.00 for the medical bills you don;t suddenly find yourself taking out three mortgages and selling your car and asking the kids to support you.
The taxes may cost a couple grand a year more but the gamble is not worth it. It's like a warranty on your life. It's about the only warranty in the world worth paying for. But for some reason people think it's more important for doctors to own three homes 7 cars and 19 televisions and in order for that to happen the balance scale has to hit many other people in a negative way to the other extreme.
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
