This film is a dog
-
spindaddydad — 23 years ago(February 12, 2003 07:28 PM)
By judging a film based upon one singular element such as originality, you are missing way too much. Savng Private Ryan was not an original film, but many more film-making elements made it great.
I agree, the viewer polls are based upon popularity so let's throw that one out. Let's judge this film based upon the critique of its individual elements, i.e. film critics. ..The critics give a superior rating everywhere. But, let's not judge it by critics alone. Let's also use the critique of those in the film making industry, i.e industry awards. The industry rates it as a superior film as well. Must be a great film.
I think that the only valid comment would be something like "I didn't like this film". It is understandable that you didn't like the movie, but by saying that it is a bad movie, there is way too much going against you for your comment to hold water.
A movie is judged by all of it's individual elements (plot, characters, acting, cinematography, musical score, directing etc.). This movie's individual elements are very powerful and therefore come together to form a strong whole unit. These units are what the critics and industry use to grade the film. They must attempt to remove subjective opinion from the equation to assign a grade. The movie going public too often let's emotion, expectations and preconceived notions get in the way of being objective. The general movie going public quite often substitutes the phrase "bad movie" in the place of "I did not like this movie"
I hated Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon but I respect it as great piece of filmmaking. -
MAX-78 — 23 years ago(February 13, 2003 01:44 AM)
My argument with Lantana has always been that it is a shallow and meaningless piece of TV soap which has fooled everyone into thinking it is deep and meaningful.
It doesn't matter who you listen to. If you can't work it out for yourself, then you're just a sheep.
Time for a new sig line -
spindaddydad — 23 years ago(February 13, 2003 05:03 AM)
The point is that there is no basis for your claim other than it just didn't appeal to your preferences. Your claim says more about you than it does about the film, unless you state that you just didn't like it. You can't say that it is a structurally weak film.
I think you owe it to us to give some detailed analysis of the movie's weak points. -
MAX-78 — 23 years ago(February 13, 2003 09:56 PM)
It's structure is weak because it shifts half way through with no flagging and no drama.
Even the 'murder' itself turned out not to be a murder and so another chance for any real drama was avoided. In fact because every single issue in the film was internal, a good slap across the face to any give character whould have solved all problems.
A little balance between internal and external conflict would have fixed all structure problems.
Time for a new sig line -
spindaddydad — 23 years ago(February 14, 2003 11:27 AM)
Now I'm beginning to understand your points as we are getting some details from you.
You are correct that most of the issues were internal and emotional. Conflicts of love, hatred, betrayal etc. are definitely internal issues. This may seem uninteresting or laboured to some but to me it is what makes the film so powerful. to me, conficts of the mind are far more impactful than physical conflicts. A film can display a lot of drama by simply showing a person sitting in a chair.
Many people say that "In the Bedroom" was boring and dragged. But I think it was very powerful as we were forced to think about what was going on in their minds.
Once again, I think your comments point more to your personal preference than they do to a weak script and/or direction.
Regarding the murder/non-murder - I think that her husband should actually be held responsible for her death because he refused to answer her frantic phonecalls. It poured more grief on top of him and he was already heavily grieving his daughters death. -
MAX-78 — 21 years ago(March 23, 2005 06:30 AM)
So if you can't understand English, perhaps you had trouble with this film too!
http://www.bbc.co.u k/comedy/fastshow/wa llpaper/images/swiss _640.jpg -
Howlin Wolf — 21 years ago(March 23, 2005 07:08 AM)
(e.g. 'trite material' - as you obviously feel
) It is not used on its own, as you did
That statement is grammatically incorrect; which is what I was drawing your attention to
So, unless I'm subsequently outnumbered by evidence to the contrary; perhaps we could refrain from the snarky remarks, yes?
English is a language I have a passion for, so I'm always willing to learn; but there are ways to share information without resorting to childish back-biting
and he's a sheep because he doesn't follow what YOU'RE saying?????!
Yeah, that works
Nice 'sidestep' of this observation, BTW !
That which is not yet, but ought to be, is more real than that which merely is. -
MAX-78 — 21 years ago(March 23, 2005 07:13 AM)
And no, he's a sheep if he buys into the hype put forward over this self-indulgent nothing of a waste of film.
And you started the sidestep, sunshine!
http://www.bbc.co.u k/comedy/fastshow/wa llpaper/images/swiss _640.jpg -
Howlin Wolf — 21 years ago(March 23, 2005 07:30 AM)
English is a language which forever evolves
and you might have something there, Max!
Until then, I see it as just an idiosyncrasy of yours
no, he's a sheep if he buys into the hype put forward over this self-indulgent nothing of a waste of film.
and
you
are one of the 'blessed' people who see the light Well, praise be
you started the sidestep, sunshine!
How?
I've never knowingly dodged a point of yours (Not
yet
, in this discussion, anyway!
)
That which is not yet, but ought to be, is more real than that which merely is. -
MAX-78 — 21 years ago(March 23, 2005 07:35 AM)
No, don't bother with a reply. You are most tiresome. You took a shot at my wording and then accused me of changing the subject.
Enjoy second rate TV, please.
http://www.bbc.co.u k/comedy/fastshow/wa llpaper/images/swiss _640.jpg -
alex_v — 22 years ago(February 11, 2004 07:16 AM)
Nice post. Made me think. I agree totally on Crouching Tiger, but hadn't thought about it that way before.
I've had so many 'discussions' with folk like Max on this site - since they 'appear' to want to get absolutely nothing out of any discussion I don't see the point anymore. It's simply the thrill of making glib generalisations I suspect Max enjoys
Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks -
radicalmedia — 21 years ago(April 02, 2005 12:19 PM)
So the film is ultimately moralistic. Yep. Thats exactly right. "LOVE IS NOT ENOUGH." to get me to watch this stinker again.
Well I wish one of them would have a beep affair and go on a journey that "ultimately" leads them to question their own identity and morals rather than the filmmaker imposing morals arbitrarily onto the characters with tawdry folk music slathered on top. The ending of this film, ,ive said it before) is like a medibank private commercial. It's lazy filmmaking reliant on lazy audience members to have tokenistic reactions to the journeys of boring characters. There was no poetic dream world, No POETRY and insubstantial politics at work in this piece.
I know Jan Chapman and told her that I was disappointed in this effort. Clearly her taste has got a bit soft. Sommersault was equally bland. ShameLove Serenade, The Piano, Last Days of Chez Nous she's done some great work. -
pamela7 — 22 years ago(January 25, 2004 07:11 AM)
Max
I like the fact that you are prepared to defend your views to the death!! I did watch the film and found myself lulled by it, it seemed to go on for a long time and I was waiting for "something" to happen. Given that I found myself iking the film although I don't know why. I am glad that is it one I watched until the end. (Partly as I wanted to see Mr Rush naked, but that is another story!) So I don't really have a view on its merits, not usual for me as I either love or hate films.
anyway, maybe you and I should go out for a drink and a valium sometime.!!