 
|
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 |
Split it up however you want - "popular" and "art house", American and International, English language and foreign language. It doesn't matter. The key is to encourage debate on film without the personal attacks on matters of taste. The asylum does this for music and equipment. Why not for films? Imagine if "Digital" and "Vinyl" were combined. Every other post would be a personal attack directed toward someone on the "other side".There is a small clique here that hates "Hollywood" movies. They actively seek to embarrass and drive out anyone who tries to discuss or recommend these "kaka" films. So far, they've been very successful; this forum has become a backwater. The naive who wander in, fail to hear the ominous banjo music and post something "unworthy" are quickly made to squeal like pigs (if I may be allowed to briefly allude to a "kaka" Hollywood movie).
By isolating the pretentious and snobbish behavior of a few to a separate forum, free debate on popular cinema will be encouraged.
Who is with me?
Follow Ups:
Those of you think that board is NOT a backwater need to go back and look at the threads for the last month and notice that it's basically a group of about 6-10 of the same posters talking to each other about willfully obscure movies over and over again.And yes, people with more populist taste are roundly sprayed with "Kaka" from this group. They simply leave and never come back.
Listen, if you are too lazy to even get the movie someone already found for you, then perhaps you SHOULD stay with your multiplex or HBO.Many people here do make effort to find things outside the limited offerings of the typical stores, so please don't offend them if you are not one of them.
(nt)
Listen, if you are too lazy to even get the movie someone already found for you, then perhaps you SHOULD stay with your multiplex or HBO.Many people here do make effort to find things outside the limited offerings of the typical stores, so please don't offend them if you are not one of them.
Why is it wrong for me to call these movies willfully obscure, but it's ok to call me "lazy"?
I'm so glad that you and your little group make the effort to watch every little art-house obscurity. Enjoy yourself. But DON'T insult others that find HBO or the multiplex to be enough. Again, it isn't enough for me either, but I will not insult or deride anyone that DOES feel that way. You must stop this behavior, or this board will lose it's balance and turn into a board that only discuses art-house films.
You have to understand that your viewpoint is NOT the only "right" viewpoint.
I think it should be clear to you by now that I am neither scared nor concerned about your endless personal attacks. You can't browbeat me, you are too light for that.So how about stopping dragging us all into the endless personal exchanges? I never attacked you, and I have no intention of doing so, but I also shall not leave any of your ambushes unanswered either - meaning lots of garbage for everyone here to read.
You get pissed over criticism of movies you like - you will have to get over it. I shall continue calling the movies as I see fit, but there are never personal atatcks in that, so stop that silly line.
So the choice is completely yours.
I would like to go back to discussing movies. You and your friends have taken too much of our time already.
I think it should be clear to you by now that I am neither scared nor concerned about your endless personal attacks. You can't browbeat me, you are too light for that.I am neither browbeating you or attacking you personally.
You get pissed over criticism of movies you like - you will have to get over it. I shall continue calling the movies as I see fit, but there are never personal atatcks in that, so stop that silly line.
You need to understand that I am not pissed by your criticism of movies I like. I am pissed about the WAY you criticise ME for liking them. There is a huge difference. Judge the movies, not the people posting about them.
You and your friends have taken too much of our time already.
Don't you realize that this will continue from me and others so long as you judge the posters with a different opinion and not the movies?
OK, continue all you want.
Yes, let me repeat: you keep calling those wonderful films "obscurities". Well, they represent some of the better films today - from the great part of the world. So that obscurity label is the result of lazyness, it is.The only thing obscure about many of the titles we discussed here is the reluctance to see them.
Most films I raved about here were big hits in many parts of the world, many won high awards at many international festivals - still too "obscure" to you?
Oh boy...
"Missed the point . . . as usual"?Why be so insulting, Victor? Don't you realize that it's the insults like these that are making new posters stay away from this board? It has nothing at all to do with what you say about movies! It's about the way you try to make posters with differing opinions feel inferior.
Yes, let me repeat: you keep calling those wonderful films "obscurities". Well, they represent some of the better films today - from the great part of the world. So that obscurity label is the result of lazyness, it is.
So what? Like I said, enjoy yourself. Please, CONTINUE to post about these movies for those that want to see them (including me, sometimes).
BUT
Who are YOU to say that these are the ONLY films worth watching? You are like a religeous fundamentalist. If we disagree with you, if we don't see the light of Victor, we are infidels, not fit to blow your nose on.
Here's another recent example: If people here want to post about John Belushi, they want to be able to do it in a place where people like you don't say such monsterous comments as "He was an animal that deserved to die an animals death" (the quote may not be exact, but the tone is). Why is it OK for you to say things like that, but it's not OK for me to call movies you like something as innocuous as "obscure"?
This board is big enough for all viewpoints, but you don't see it that way. It almost seems like you WANT there to be no discussion of anything except what you want to talk about or what you've seen. Are you trying to chase away any posters with a different point of view? Because THAT is ALL you are acheiveing. Heck, there are people that don't want to see what you talk about because you're so insulting and mean spirited about so many other things.
Belushi was a pig, in my opinion, and I stated that clearly. What - you can't take other person's opinion? You feel insecure right away? Sorry... that is YOUR problem.I would feel like an idiot if I threw a tantrum over you love of him.
You are almost funny. You are straining to find implied insults in posts, yet when you and your friend hurl dozens of DIRECT ones at me that is apparently fien with you.
Listen, I don't give a kaka over all those jackass and other similar comments (do you know how many such insults I received recently?), but please don't then play a nice schoolgirl with me... you want to talk dirty - do so, but then don't run back crying for mommy.
That is revolting.
Belushi was a pig, in my opinion, and I stated that clearly. What - you can't take other person's opinion? You feel insecure right away? Sorry... that is YOUR problem.I would feel like an idiot if I threw a tantrum over you love of him.
It's your tone. Belushi is a pig to you. And then you say that I love him. It clearly implies that I must be a pig too.
When in fact I neither love him (but I enjoy some of his movie roles) and am not a pig myself.
It's not mutually exclusive. You CAN like Belushi AND not be a cretin.
I really think it's a language barrier. Either you are incredibly callous and mean-spirited or you don't really understand what you're saying to the people on this board with opinions that differ from yours.
Listen, I don't give a kaka over all those jackass and other similar comments (do you know how many such insults I received recently?), but please don't then play a nice schoolgirl with me... you want to talk dirty - do so, but then don't run back crying for mommy.
So all the people recently aguing with you over the same points as the ones I'm arguing with you over today, and you still don't get it? Is everyone else wrong and you are right? Well, that fits with everything else in your history too, doesn't it?
I'm not playing "schoolgirl" with you. I'm not "running home to mommy". Thanks for the further insults.
I'm telling you as a AA film board compatriot that you're alienating anyone here that doesn't agree with your views. New blood comes in sees the bloodbath and never comes back. That is going to make for a very quiet board except for you and your select friends. Is THIS what you want?
Troy, you finally bored me to death with your repeatitive nagging.Continue all you want, I will stay with movies. You - whatever your true calling is... cesspool?
You - whatever your true calling is... cesspool?Hey look, another personal attack!
Although "this forum has become a backwater" is nearly as funny.I do wonder though, where Doug Schneider has gone...
clark
There's a difference between saying, "I don't like "X" because the script is awful, the acting is unconvincing, etc." and saying something along the lines of, "This movie is Hollywood kaka that only an uneducated fool such as yourself would enjoy." Somehow Siskel and Ebert managed to disagree on films without calling each other's taste and intelligence into question.As far as calling this place a "backwater", I stand by that. If you delete the posts made by just two like-minded individuals, what are you left with?
s
***This movie is Hollywood kaka that only an uneducated fool such as yourself would enjoy."Provide one example of such statement, you despecable liar!
I new it would come to that - people behaving like complete neanderthals.
I apologize for implying that you frequently stoop to personal insults.
!
No one forced you to lie about other people - so eat your medicine.And yes, resorting to outright lies is neanderthal behavior.
When you show me the source of your "quote" I shall take my words back.
Your move.
Not my style, so I don't feel good about it.You might want to think about your statement and rephrase it perhaps.
.
Well, I guess so much for my trying to be the creature from the backwater of Delaware... and I even went to the AMC 16 multiplex ... once... I guess all that popcorn didn't rub on me too much.
As it maybe never was before. Changing the rule would be detrimental. What we have to change is personal attacks, for the sake and love of our hobby. And be glad to learn from each other. And yet there is something called " quality. "
We should respect that.
HERE is the free debate on ALL films, and not only on " popular " ( for who? ) ones.
Nobody is challanging that you should not praised or discussed the movies you like, but as we are on a forum you should be able to accept that not every one shares your views. That is one of the reason we are at it.
Letīs just talk about movies.
is what they like. You see you are at a disadvantage as are most people because most people have seen mostly Hollywood films. These people who are presumably from the backwater world of Russia or France saw all those dreadful art house films and now also see a lot of Hollywood films(which are mostly dreadful as well).The problem is that most people have seen the hollywood film so they can take pot shots at what you like. Most people have not seen what they hold dear because it was a nothing film that most video stores don't carry.
Go see what they like. Some of it is pretty good actually and you may like it. Some of it is FAR worse than most good Hollywood films.
And here is soemthing...if they're so intelligent and Hollywood is so bad for the reasons they list then they are awfully STUPID individuals to keep going to see Hollywood movies aren't they. If every Hollywood movie has stunk for the last 20 years and if you've seen 10 in their opinion Lousy movies in a row from say Spielberg - then WHY would they go and see number 11? Pretty dim witted thing to do...so why would their opinion on film would matter to you?
People need to feel superior...some buy expensive cars, some buy expensive stereos t show off...some try to pretend they're more intelligent. Of course all three groups are self-deluded...the best thing for you to do is to see right through it.
Of course all this post of yours is just a bitter hollow smoke - seems like only those who believe that Hollywood is the Holy Grail of movie making do divide the world into two parts - as you are doing it here.I would love to remind you that there are probably at least fifty more countries where movies, both good and bad, are being made. So Hollywood is really just one of twenty or more places that deserve consideration.
Unlike you, I am not stuck on any such division - I watch all sorts of movies, and then I say what I feel - without paying any attention to my special attachments. So I just as routinely call a French or a Rusasian film a kaka as I do an American one. You, OTOH, have that heavy bias, one I used to see in the Soviet leaders, paranoid about any criticism of their land. And I thought I left that mindset behind twenty five years ago. I guess people are people everywhere.
What I do is the only honest approach - call them ALL as they are. I don't have particular attachment to any one country or continent. Modern Russian movies mostly suck these days - I have no problem with stating this. You apparently do.
"Now" see Hollywood films? I shall let you in on one secret - I have been watching American films since I was about five... or four... we bought our TV in 1954. Great many I saw while still in Russia - surprisingly, they also are not stuck on their own as the world best - take your hint from them. American and European films have always been shown there, old classics to smaller audience, of course.
My wife and I brought our love for good American films with us here, and we never lost it. But we also never lost the quest for quality in films. So while we dearly love many American films (true, fewer and fewer from the later years - not our fault), we are also naturally more exposed to the tremendous volume of trash that Hollywood produces every year.
Living in Russia we were largely sheltered from that trash. Now we have to swim in it.
So all your ranting shows one thing - that you have no idea of what you are talking about, but posturing and beating your chest.
I said before that I often watch ten or twelve movies a week - most of them American, natch.
Finding good films from elsewhere is hard here - thank to the narrow-minded approach many Americans take. Unfortunately, if you talk to many young people here they don't know the rest of the world even exists. Like it or not, that tendency is far less pronounced in say, Europe.
Lot of hot air in your post. Lot is simply not true.
If I were a movie lover not able to discover the rest of the world on my own, I would be grateful to someone taking time to bring us the information about the world out there. As I stated before, you may attack me personally, and my posts all you want, but one thing is certain - if someone simply blindly followed all my recommendations, he would end up quite well versed in the wonderful world of movies, the movies from all over the world. He woudl end up seeing things he didn't even know existed... like Finish films (thank Patrick for taking a lead in that area).
He would most likely disagree with some of my choices, but there is no doubt he would be much better off than if he simply ignored all my recommendations and stuck to Hollywood production.
What should I say about your silly dismissal of the movies from the rest of the world as "dreadful art house films"? I presume you simply wrote it without thinking.
Kukushka a dreadful art house movie? Beay Travail? Closey Watched Trains? Maelstrom? Mirror? Are you trying to show us how missguided you are?
one I don't know where you get the idea that I'm an American?Two, I have too much of a life to watch 12 movies a week.
Three, Roger Ebert, thank you very much, I'll take over some pretentious nobody on a film forum. (Of Course Roger also liked 81/2 so he gets duped by pretentious films sometimes too - then maybe it takes one to know one).
Four, perhaps your age is a reason why new films you dislike -- not that THEY are bad - but because YOU are out of touch with what is relevant to younger people.
That is the same stupid attitude that older people tend to have with young people's music. You don't "get it" so therefore it is the music or the art or the film that's lousy -- or your out of date term ... kaka.
You remember a film when growing up you hold dear. Someone today sees a film - I'l use Casablanca as an example. That film is revered by every critical oganization going and most of the boomers. And younger sheep going through film school are taught to believe their 60 year old instructor's beliefs. If anyone was being truly hoonest that rented that fiolm yeasterday for the first time would have to laugh at its totally stilted performances and ridiculous dialogue. It's a product of its period it deserves merit historically and possibly thematically but good? By today's standard it's a total joke.
Maelstrom was a fine film - There are probably 200 Hollywoiod films since 1980 that are superior films. Maelstrom is artsy - but unlike you I actually like storytelling in movies not JUST camara work and anal rejects like Fellini whining for 2 hours to the audience that he's no longer a capable director. Other than proving it.
We have a gold mine of a video store that carries all this stuff. I have a hit list of about 50 "artsy" films not from North Aemrica that I intend to wade my way through. You may be correct and maybe it's dumb luck that I keep renting supposed classics that are rubbish after rubbish after totally outdated rubbish. The Third Man was quite good if they completely removed the score which is one of the worst in the history of film. Still manages to be great.
Kurosawa seems to know something so I give him first dibs.
Your age separation is naive at best. While there is a gap, you are taking it to ridiculous extreme. To deny that a person is actually supposed to know better as he grows up is indefensible silliness.Casablanca? I wrote something close to what you are saying a while ago, and the stench here was unbearable - some apparently shall never forget the lesson they got during that Film 101.
I wish you could name those 200 superior to Maelstrom Hollywood films since the 1980, as I think you put your foot in your mouth firmly over that one.
Let us first know which Maelstrom we are talking about. I am referring to the one narrated by a Salmon out of Canada. Which one are you talking about?
And that is incompetant. TO be expected from you.
You brought it up in a completely silly way, now eat your lumps.Maybe you didn't exactly wtire it they way you meant... I mean - being an English Major?
. . . whether you want to admit it or not.Of course all this post of yours is just a bitter hollow smoke - seems like only those who believe that Hollywood is the Holy Grail of movie making do divide the world into two parts - as you are doing it here.
This is the crux of the problem right here.
You seem to always speak in absolutes. You think that if we disagree with your fnatical assessments that we must be fanatical in the opposite direction. If we don't want to watch an Afgani romantic drama that YOU deem to be great, that doesn't mean that we all want to watch "Tomcats", you know?
Don't you realize that YOU are divisive one? YOU are the one making posters with more populist taste uncomfortable prompting them to want to have a board where they won't be insulted for making a positive post about "Monster" or "Lost in Translation" or "Caddshack". It's YOUR fault Victor.
Unlike you, I am not stuck on any such division - I watch all sorts of movies, and then I say what I feel - without paying any attention to my special attachments. So I just as routinely call a French or a Rusasian film a kaka as I do an American one. You, OTOH, have that heavy bias, one I used to see in the Soviet leaders, paranoid about any criticism of their land.
You used this same line on me too. It doesn't hold any water. I watch foreign films too. I just watched "Le Grande Bouff" and have "Tokyo Story" on deck. Big deal. No one is debating whether or not you dislike movies from anyplace other than the US, but you DO have a special bias against American Hwood movies. And you have a special bias against anyone that COULD like modern Hwood movies. We're all desperately tired of your insults and your demeaning tone. To the point where some of us want a board where you won't post.
We're not overly paraniod about anyone criticising America at all. I criticize America every day. Most Americans do. I AM tired of your constant harping on this subject Victor. You seem to get into one of these same fights with someone every week. When are you going to understand that everyone else is right and you are wrong?
What I do is the only honest approach - call them ALL as they are. I don't have particular attachment to any one country or continent. Modern Russian movies mostly suck these days - I have no problem with stating this. You apparently do.
Fine. Most movies from every country suck. The problem is that when someone tries to debate the merits of something you call Kaka, you resort to insulting them, basically telling them that they must be cretins, philistines and animals for liking these films. It's fine to dislike a movie, but you are NOT better or more educated or sophisticated that someone that does like it. Stop acting like it.
Kukushka a dreadful art house movie? Beay Travail? Closey Watched Trains? Maelstrom? Mirror? Are you trying to show us how missguided you are?
See what I mean? I one doesn't have any desire to watch "Maelstrom" we are "Misguided". An demeaning insult.
This board is big enough for people to come in there and post threads about stuff like "School of Rock" if they want. You don't like it? You say it's bad and explain your points. You move on. You are NOT supposed to make these people feel inferior because YOU think it's a stupid and bad movie. It's just mean spirited.
May you post on it, a very interesting film.....
***Kukushka a dreadful art house movie? Beay Travail? Closey Watched Trains? Maelstrom? Mirror? Are you trying to show us how missguided you are?***See what I mean? I one doesn't have any desire to watch "Maelstrom" we are "Misguided". An demeaning insult.
Since you are not having much traction with your post, here is just one point:
It is OK with me that you don't want to watch them. But it moronic to call them "dreadful art house movies" if you refuse to see them.
See the diff?
Your "dreadful art house movies" line is probably the worst you have ever written, and you have written many bad ones.
I didn't say that.That was quoted from another poster.
It is OK with me that you don't want to watch them. But it moronic to call them "dreadful art house movies" if you refuse to see them.
See the diff?
Your "dreadful art house movies" line is probably the worst you have ever written, and you have written many bad ones.
The dif I see is that the above quote is just another series of personal insults from you Victor.
I'm not sure if it's the fact that English is not your 1st language, but you need to realize that your tone with me, and anyone else is unacceptable.
That will be my only consise comment.
I wonder if on some of those posts ( not particulary this one ) there is not on underlying kind of racism...France...Russia.......I wonder...
The reasons for the fracture were discussed ad nauseum.
Racism isn't one of them and you know it.
Is Xenophobe.
When I write something it is because I think thas way rightly or wrongly is another story.
So, please donīt tell it is not so. If you would read all the posts you may change your mind.
And know I donīt know it.
And persist, with or without your approval.
This is a *very* serious accusation and I cannot let it stand without proof.Please provide it.
Victor did. I said more " avec precaution "that it might be! It is shimmering though the words...It is in the spirit, it is not out of the closet, for most.....
This is in regards to my comments no doubt. It is clear there are several anti-Americanism posts with the hatred for Hollywood films. If one is going to generalize that Hollywood sucks why can't someone else generalize that French and Russian films suck?Hollywood is about entertainment - a roller coaster as an ESCAPE from reality. Much ART HOUSE films are geared for audience to re-interpret their world. Many are cerebral exercises...they're work more than they are fun. Reading Stephen King is not as deep as a Shakespeare tragedy...but King is a mental diversion that in today's world is no less valid.
When you and some of the pretentious art thumpers clue into the reason people go to movies you might actually get it.
Films like Monster are not handled as prestinely as I would hope but they serve to highlight social issues in the NORTH AMERICAN society. The fact that that it doesn't ring true because the hookers in France or Russia are different is not THIS film's fault.
I noticed some Erin Brokevich bashing earlier. Once again far from from perfect but it was on my best 10 list that year...doesn't say much for the year I grant you. However, if you people actually knew THING ONE about the REAL Erin Brokevich then you will know this film paints her very accurately. What Seems over the top ridicuolous is because YOU don't know the way a lot of people in the U.S. act.
Here is a low educated woman who dressed like a hooker and was loud and had a biting attitude. Nothing about the film presented her any different than the way she really was. You may not LIKE her, you may not like the general story. BUT the fact is the story is a matter of history and the filmmakers tried to get the real Erin Brokevich's personality across. They DID just that.
That doesn't mean I don't have certain problems with the process or the melodrama - but it's certainly an interesting story of corporate America screwing over the people. This was a 7/10 for me.
Monster's Ball and In the Bedroom were two of the best films over the last 5 years. Neither one is perfect again... All of these are VASTLY superior to 81/2 in every conceivable way except for the whining Ego of the director...nothing is bigger than that. Europeans are closer to a hierarchy system or CLASS system and they tend to feel superior to everyone else...at least from my year in Europe that is the sense I get.
How can all those stupid Americans be making so much more money. I'm not American nor do I live there. I am however tired of everyone blaming their lot in life artiscally, financially etc on Americans.
Anti-Americanism? No, anti- stupid film resoundig yes ( of course the one I think so to be for my own taste )
Hatred for Hollywood? You must be jocking! Hollywood is the place where the most part of beautiful films have been made.
You doīt think to undertstand, that when some one do some critics it is with the hopes that thinks may improve!
Are the great Hollywood and actors anti-American because the would want a war in Irak? Are they anti-Hollywood when they says that only money count?
You must accept that critics are a constructive way or are you still living in post Mc Carthy aera?
But first you must set yourself free. From inward.
I think that the feeling is getting the same from society to society world wide, thanks moder telecommunucations. for the best AND the worst.
Bashing " Erin " did I? Canīt think of. But you must make the part between " Bashing " and not liking a film...Do you allow us not to like a picture? Oh yes! Thank you..We do the same for you....
As for Brokevich I think it is a nice film, with a wonderful actor ( Finnley ) but it did fail to be more than a nice film but who is awaiting for every film to be a masterpiece?
The political force behind this one ( against big polluated compagnies, for the " small people than we are " very good and educationnal.
That would be 2/ 10 for the film and 7/ 10 for the " good example ".
"Monster Ball" was worth one good look, maybe twice, but the story as good it may have been failed to really attract me.
Well in Europe you may find more culture in every normal guy on the streets that you may find in the USA, that was anyway my impression, but the BEST culture in the world you may find in New-York.
Short, your missive has reach the wrong addressat.
But you should reflect on this as a learning process NOT to put in a too much of an hurry a stamp on every one head, a preconception made of prejudice that you may call your own.
I do hope that this is now clear between you an me. Now as nothing is forever, even less on the net, I wait for the next guy accusing me of anti-Americanism.Patrick
I can accept what you've said.Look I don't care if people hate Erin Brokevich. I posted a credible argument as to why the film despite flaws worked for me. I don't despise Julia Roberts like some people do though. She is a star, which is different from an actress. Though I think she's underrated. Her performance in Notting Hill was certainly well suited.
The issue is I have yet to see you or Victor list 10 hollywood films you would consider GREAT films since 1990 that made significant dollars.
If you can't produce 10 then I have no need to discuss film with either of you on this forum any longer because you don't know good films.
If you can't recognize good RECENT films from Hollywood then you have a bias against an industry - PERIOD.
I don't care that people on individual films disagree. I liked Goodfellas a LOT more than the GOdfather which i found to be a 3 hour mob soap opera. A lot of Godfather fans dislike my comments...though I'd still say the Godfather was "good" movie it's just not a GREAT one to me. But if that person provided me their top 50 all time list chances are there would be some mighty impressive films on the list.
You have to look at the GENRE and the filmaker's goal...and judge the film off that. I don't hold a film Like Halloween to the same standard as a serious drama. I compare Hallween or a Dawn of the Dead (1979) to horror films as far back as the original Dracula or Nosferatu and everything since.
I don't call people idiots because they like Gladiator. The fellow below made a "GOOD" case for the character development in that film. I don't agree with him - I thought it was a poor film overall - but he made a good case I just didn't FEEL it when I saw it.
Roger Ebert I read because he makes a case for his views on films. Do you disagree with Roger Ebert on EVERY single film? Do you AGREE with him on EVERY single film? I can gaurantee you that in 90%+ he makes a VERY GOOD argument for why he liked or disliked a movie...He doesn't call Roeper an idiot for disagreeing with him. Or imply that people just need to see more films.
Ebert has seen more films than anyone on this forum knows more about the filmmaking process than anyone on this forum. And wouldn't you know it...If you look at his best 100 list - start counting the Hollywood films that ARE there asopposed to the foreign films that ARE NOT there.
Sure he has the Bicycle Thief no complaint from me though I think it's grossly overrated, and 8 1/2 which I think is well kaka. But Schindler's List Jaws E.T. Raiders are all there as well.
The difference between Victor and me is I appreciate more that the medium of film offers than he could possibly dream of. He has a miniscule itsy bitsy piece and copses off to eveything else.
Ebert takes a film to the film's intent and judges that. He doesn't say well I hate all horror movies therefore all horror movies are kaka.
I dunno hate any films, I may profundly dislike them maybe like " Juden Süss " but hate? Despise Roberts? I like very much in " Noting Hill " she is a very good looking woman and nothing to hate her now if you ask me is she is a VERY good actress I wolud answer she has a small range...
Must a good film make $ to be good ? If a " good film make a lot of profit that is fine and I rejoice as the director maybe some bore in the same vein! But judging a film by the pound? That wouls be weird..Or did I get you wrong?
Now it would be of matter to define what a good film is in your eye..We may not have the same criteria on this. You say yourself..Good or great...So Godfather was only ok for the first part, I much more prefer film like the one Victor recommend me ( The Last Request )
Dawn of the Dead was actually very good. But Nosferatu in another league. As " M "
He made a good case but the film was not worse the good comment? Think about it1
Does it make it a better film?
And why did you NOT wrote that down at the time of the discussion ?
Did I call him an idiot?
Did I ?
I do not read mr. Ebert, but lately someone post one of his review on a film, and I did it found very well suited, Victor did not.
If I did wrote that Gladiator was a good film then I would have some problems with him..Genrally speaking..But did he?
Jaw is one of my prefered " action " film I like to see it. What I really dislike are the late " Spielberg " film starting with " Ryian " he did lost his touch somehow..And then you are to-ta-lly wrong Victor is ABSOLUTELY NOT like you describe him.
I think we should change and make an effort to more " comprehension " to each other.
So I will beg you to reread Victor or to try to communicate a new with him.
You may change your mind!
Actually, I probably agree with Victor's taste more than he knows. Sure there is going to be the odd one like 81/2. That film is on many best 100 lists. My point is so is Raiders, Jaws, Schindler's List, and E.T.I bet if you looked at all of the best 100 lists by all of the major review bodies you would find ALL of those Spielberg films on the list - and you would see some Fellini, Kubrick, Bergman, Scorcese, Hitchcok, Kurosawa etc.
THINK about this. If they are wrong to have Spielberg movies then they are wrong to have the others' films there as well.
My point is that there is no way to compare these VERY different filmakers. If we're going to say that Fellini and Kurosawa are the masters at introspection and the epic then Spielberg is the master of storytelling.
It's NOT about the buck...it is about the lasting nature of film. And no one can deny that Jaws a 30 year old movie has not lasted. The definition of masterpiec or classics is that they last. It has NOT lasted because of the effects. The effects are totally out of date, so is the body count and gore. The shark doesn't even look real. So why has it lasted? Because it's a great STORY that has been told as perfectly as it possibly can be.
That said you may find other stories to be more interesting as I do -- but that is not the film's fault. Jaws is as perfect as the story can be told - critics agree - the masses agree - it's a masterpiece and a classic and a major influence on the film industry.
Like all other masterpieces and classics and major influences on film history not ewveryone is going to "LIKE" them. I'm not a fan of Casablanca or Gone With the Wind. I respect that they were influential and important to film history...but neither is a particularly great movie to me.
This is why film is TOTALLY subjective. There are movies I like that I myself know are not good movies. Outland with Sean Connery is a thin story - without character development - not great effects yet I like it. There really isn't a whole lot of good things about it but a persoanl gut reaction to it. Subjective.
No nobody can be wrong all of the time...
But Spielberg aknowledge Kurusawa as a master, if I remember well.
I have, as told before nothing against " Jaw " on the contrary, and one of his first commercial tv film was not bad , the one with the car chase.
No, films are not totally subjective, are wines subjectives too?
There are culture behing them, inside and ouside.
The Mona Lisa is a piece of crap. Art critics have kept that painting alive because they are fascinated by the man NOT the work. Jackson Pollack is a prime example. I could vomit on canvas and produced his mess...yet he's a famous painter. Why? Cause he was a drunken fool who dod something different. People assume different is better - it's not. It can be but different itself is nothing.Wine is a food. Lots of very smart people out there who don't drink...It's doubtful they could tell the difference between a $4.00 red or a $150.00 bottle...or at least wouldn't know which would be considered better.
Bottom line is Jaws is a masterpiece. Because you don't like it or don't think it should be so doesn't change the fact that it meets all of the criteria. On lots of critics top 100 list and has survived 30 years...it's part of the canon of film and influenced the summer blockbuster like no other film. At that time it did what it did better than any other film in history...some would argue that it has yet to be surpassed for what it did...and the other film that one could argue surpassed it was by the same director - Raiders.
I don't get why Casablanca is considered a masterpiece I give it ***/*****. The fact is though it has done what Jaws has done(IMO to a lesser degree) but nonetheless it meets the criteria. I'm not wrong--there is no right or wrong.
It basically presumes there are no movies that are superior to it, as what could be superior to a "masterpiece"? A better masterpiece?If your scale is already pegged at Jaws, then it is indeed very limited.
You are saying that there can only be one masterpiece in the film industry - one masterpiece of music...so if we pick Beethoven then Mozart is kaka?I'm saying the Jaws has met ALL of the OBJECTIVE criteria for whatever the term means of being a masterpiece.
1) It has lasted - standing the test of time by both the masses and the critics.
2) Critical bodies are the ones who determine ART apparently and they call it a masterpiece. Art stands the test of time and is relevant to the MASSES. Jaws succeeds FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more than anything Fellini has ever made. There is no discussion of that there is a fact. Your ego can't handle facts it would seem.
3) No there is no movie superior to it for what it is. Show me one? Show me a thriller or even a summer blockbuster shark movie that's better than this one. For what it is nothing is better than Jaws. Or I should not even say that i should say - as deemed by critics and the general public...that does not mean the odd person won't like it...the odd person doesn't like 81/2. Guess what more people are going to not like 81/2 - but that's obvious.
The Exorcist is considered a masterpiece of the Horror genre...that doesn't mean there is no better movies...but for what the Exorcist is nothing is deemed better by critical ART JUDGING organizations than The Exorcist on that subject matter.
The Godfather is considered a masterpiece and I strongly disagree with the merit the film gets. I don't think it's anything better than good ***/*****. I do respect the fact however that is considered a masterpiece. Most critical bodies rave about it. Lump it Victor...sopme things are masterpieces whether you like it or not...Ana Karenina is a long snooze and no deeper than a Harlequin Romance...it's a BAD book by a BAD writer. That doesn't change the fact that people think Tolstoy has talent and that his atrocious books are actually good.
The fact that I HATE F Scott Fitgerald's "The Great Gatsby" I can bitterly argue is one of the biggest dumps of kaka ever put to paper doesn't change the fact that it's considered to be a masterpiece. I have to deal with so so do you.
--I wonder if on some of those posts ( not particulary this one ) there is not on underlying kind of racism...France...Russia.......I wonder...I asked for proof and you are hesitant to provide it. If you find it somehow comforting to accuse someonehere[who?] of xenophobia and racism, you better come up with some factual evidence. That's how it goes with honorable people.
I don't like this turn of discussion here. If you want a proof, you can simply scan a couple pages down - I am certainly not looking forward to reliving those wonderful Norman Rockwell moments. If you don't agree after that - that is your right, but let's not bring that garbage here again, let's talk about movies.
I join you, but Dimitry is very rude. But I will stop for the sake of your post any further comment.
Am I being rude because I asked you for evidence of racism and xenophobia on this forum, the very things you accuse someone here of harboring?
I want to know the truth because I frequent this place sporadically and I don't want to reply to posts of people whose xenophobic feelings I missed.
So please take a minute and point me to the ones I should avoid.
Your rudness consist in your inquisatory tone. I donīt like to be " Gestapoté ".
I thought we had some kind of ..How do you say " Gentleman agreement " and you are just like some one who throw stones before asking...
I wrote " I have the feeling " , in the mean time Victor confirm this. Well if you want more " pooves " please read all the posts, you may or may not cocure to the same judgement ( feeling, you remember? ) than we do.
But what is so important with that? Is this not " normal " to find this kind of xenophoby all around us? I mean with important of course not what you are thinking at the moment.
Got it?
So now letīs talk films!PS: Victor point out A post with what you are looking, maybe he has this particulary one still fresh in mind and can give you the link. As for myself beside to tell you in was more in a context, I am through with this matter.
d
--If you want a proof, you can simply scan a couple pages down - I am certainly not looking forward to reliving those wonderful Norman Rockwell moments.I am afraid I wasn't present when the alleged xenophobic/racist incidents took place, consequently I don't want to unknowingly correspond with people who harbor such feelings, that why I asked Patrick to provide proof.
I still would very much like to see it.
It would be naive to deny that.
a
x
s
Sooner of later they will come out of the closet...
The way he talked about us being basically dirty foreigners was exactly the way some would say "dirty pacos" or else.Movies are capabel of bringing out the best and the worst in people.
I am always careful as sometimes my English is more than weak and not long ago on another forum I miss a point but the guy was really kind and helpful ( why are not the people ALL like this? )
I wonder wha Dim ( ! ) wrote that I knew that is is not true..Make me wonder ( with horror ) what he thinks of me....
Any way you know what is missing in a lot of persons ? Freedom. Freedom from inside..They havve been badly raised up and never understood the way to get ride of the chains..So one little oppressed give an oppressor...And so the circle is closing.
Freedom in mind & spirit that is what really are missing.
Actually SOME people are superior*! Donīt you think?
The important is the same sharing and respect of each other ..on the same level.
The human touch.* Superior in different things and inferiors to other....Some have a nobler soul, donīt they?
Nah. One forum is enough. It isn't like this one is moving too fast. You may find a movie recomendation that you might have otherwise missed.
Limit Victor to one dump a day; this goes for variations on "kaka" such as crap, shisa, sh*t, feces, poop, diarhea, turd, excrement, etc.; if we can do this, we'll make him a reg'lar feller yet! ;^)AuPh
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 ]
