Home Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

... and you continue trying to insult my intelligence and that of other's here.

The fact that you were left to fumble about with the spelling of "Charley" or "Charly", whichever you prefer (i.e., I used the spelling at the link's website as I didn't recall the exact spelling), instead of apologizing for the presumption which substituted for a gap in your own knowledge speaks to pride rather than honesty. I don't need to "fish for an apology" after catching what appears to be a blow-fish on the line! I guess this was one of those rare occasions when the fish is determined to troll for the fisherman! ;^)

You ask if an award bestowed upon an actor somehow makes Charly a great film? No, not any more than winning a similar award for visual effects makes 2001 a great film! BTW, you said that '68 wasn't a great year by the look of it, but have you forgotten that 2001 was released the same year and won it's only Academy Award in competition with Ice Station Zebra?

You grouse about target audiences and the juvenilisation of American cinema, but you forget that the first rule of good cinema is to entertain. Yes, market forces do drive what ends up on the screen, but what would you suggest as an alternative, state-run cinema with the inevitable "educational" propaganda that would generate?

No, you don't have to like Star Trek or Star Wars or any other mass oriented entertainment, but pidgeon-holing it as being strictly juvenile fare does these films a grave injustice as well.

>>> "How you draw conclusions about what I have seen or haven't seen is drivel." <<<

LOL! That was just sarcasm; I'm surprised you missed it? ;^)

>>> "All of my posts on this subject criticise your opinion as being shallow - I have no wish to drift over to the right of the page. You can rant about Star Trek all you like- it only proves my point<<<

And what point is that? I haven't "ranted" about Star Trek at all, pro or con; I only used the first one as an example of slow pacing and then added a caveat based upon Robert Wise's Director's cut which is coming out this week.

BTW, you seem pretty certain that Kubrick's screen credits trump Robert Wise's, but are you so sure? I suggest that you read the linked URL in it's entirity; be prepared to have you eyes openned and your jaw dropped. (~8^o)

You're kind of like the guy who farts in an elevator before stepping off while others are left to "ride it out." I've avoided calling you names or suggesting that you might be as ignorant of the cinema as you believe yourself knowledgeable while you insist upon casting similar thoughtless invective my way. I, for one, do not think that the word shallow applies to you, although a similar word, callow, does come to mind.

Oh, and for the record, "Charley" couldn't have won *an Oscar for best children's film in 1965* because the Academy doesn't give out special Oscars for "children's films" or films produced for television! For shame, could the infalible John Dem possibly have some of his facts in error?

That's alright, I'll pass on the crow; it leaves more for you to consume! :o)

Regards,
AuPh


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.