I despise this man…
-
deadeye2k3 — 20 years ago(May 26, 2005 04:05 AM)
How is he possibly good for the British film industry? He is representing us, and his films are awful. Americans will see Mike Leigh as making kitchin-sink dramas that have unknown actors, look cheap, have nothing particularly good about them - and think that all British films are like him. As for making filsm for 30 years, thats because he has to scrape together the cash. With 'Vera Drake' the actors couldn't hum a famous tune because they would have to pay for itan astonishing 36 for 30 seconds. Things were pretty tight, so perhaps he needs investorsbut he won't get any. His films are uncommercial, with no audience, and have no interest from other regions other than if they get oscar nomincationsand out of all the oscar nomination categories he was in, which film grossed the leastguess.
If Mike Leigh continues to stand at the forefront of the British Industry, we are doomed. We need to stop producing kitchin sink dramas and make commercial stuff (such as FF) as this will generate money, and then we can create an independent sector, where goons like Leigh and Roach can create their tripe, and leave the rest of the industry to entertain the world.
And 'Inside I'm Dancing' is vast superior to anything Leigh has done. Damien O'Donnell is much better than him, and I hope that maybe he will get more credit than the elf with a crap beard.
Goddamit, I hate Mike Leigh. -
deadeye2k3 — 20 years ago(May 26, 2005 10:50 AM)
Wow you are such a hypocrit
The only way for the British film industry to be revived is for the British public to take more notb68ice of it's own movies, instead of always watching American films.
I just looked at your favourite films, 5 British ones in the top 46. You say people should take more notice of the British industry, but you yourself appear to ignore the better films, such as Working Title products. If you prefer 'The Producers' over 'Shaun of the Dead' or 'Kill Bill' over 'Cold Mountain' then how can you be supporting the industry yourself, and so why in all your grace, are you defending Mike Leigh. Not one of his films is on your list, and hes not on your directors list, so why are you arguing with me. You just want to argue then that's fine, but accept that Mike Leigh is a dick, and he has a really crap beard. He looks like a perverted Santa Claus.
-Stu -
Farr30 — 20 years ago(June 02, 2005 12:10 PM)
I agree with deadeye - Mike Leigh is a crap director and thats putting it mildley.
I've just watched this film and couldn't believe how flat, uninspiring, predictable and (yes you guessed it) DULL it was.
As deadeye mentioned, this puts UK films in a bad light. People around the globe who happen to see this 'film' will enforce their beliefs that the only style of film the UK film industry can make is dull, depressing kitchen sink drama's that w***k over themselves far too seriously -
gparedes76 — 19 years ago(May 07, 2006 01:05 PM)
"How is he possibly good for the British film industry? He is representing us, and his films are awful. Americans will see Mike Leigh as making kitchin-sink dramas that have unknown actors, look cheap, have nothing particularly good about them - and think that all British films are like him. As for making filsm for 30 years, thats because he has to scrape together the cash. With 'Vera Drake' the actors couldn't hum a famous tune because they would have to pay for itan astonishing 36 for 30 seconds. Things were pretty tight, so perhaps he needs investorsbut he won't get any. His films are uncommercial, with no audience, and have no interest from other regions other than if they get oscar nomincationsand out of all the oscar nomination categories he was in, which film grossed the leastguess.
If Mike Leigh continues to stand at the forefront of the British Industry, we are doomed. We need to stop producing kitchin sink dramas and make commercial stuff (such as FF) as this will generate money, and then we can create an independent sector, where goons like Leigh and Roach can create their tripe, and leave the rest of the industry to entertain the world. "
So you are basically describing like Ridley Scott, who after his glorious 70s and 80s has only directed one awful Oscar-bait popcorn film after another. Thanks but no thanks. I'd much rather watch directors who will not sacrifice genuine artistic vision for the lure of $$$. One of them - thank God - is Mike Leigh. -
fabGirl — 19 years ago(May 07, 2006 07:50 PM)
I second that.
Id rather appreciate film as art than be patronized by ridiculous tripe that passes for entertainment.
I would rather want Mike Leigh to represent British film making than the likes of Mike Newell, Richard Curtis and Ridley Scott.
Nobody says films are meant to entertain, they are meant to make you think. That is the power of them, and I respect Mike Leigh for representing humanity at its most poignant. Humanity is meant to be respected and honoured for its flaws.
Life isn't perfect, their is no point tryingb68 to convince yourself it is. When you get over that simple fact, you can appreciate the beauty of your own impefect life. At least Leigh does not dissolusion, reality works best on all levels. -
Nottboy — 19 years ago(November 08, 2006 01:48 AM)
modern stars, and strong actors like Hilary Swank, Julia Roberts, De Niro, Cruise, Crowe, even Charli2000e off Casualtywho wants to work with him?
From the book, 'Mike Leigh: Interviews'
"For this film (Life is Sweet), the studios suggested Bob Hoskins and Meryl Streep, because of her ability to do an English accent. "Then they said, 'We don't know if anyone's told you this, but Robert De Niro's very interested in doing an English picture.'" Leigh laughs at such suggestions."
I really don't understand how anyone could say that he's bad for the British film industry. Seriously, what else? Almodovar's bad for the Spanish film industry? -
Sleepy-Hollow — 20 years ago(June 07, 2005 04:43 AM)
Hey,deadeye2k3,read this about what Mike Leigh thinks about your beep talentless Hollywood actors:
Leigh Slams "Interfering" Hollywood
4 January 2005 (WENN)
British director Mike Leigh
refuses to compromise his artistic vision in order to satisfy the demands of Hollywood studios- because to do so would be a "nightmare". Leigh, whose latest film Vera Drake is tipped to receive Oscar nominations this year,
has turned down offers of major stars to act in his movies because their presence would be pointless
. He says,
"The reality of Hollywood is non-negotiable and non-viable. My producer comes back and says, 'They don't mind that there is no script and they know you can do it, but they will insist on a name or two.' And that means having actors imposed upon me who have no reason to be there and who are not going to be disposed to my methods. The guys in Hollywood interfere at every stage because big dosh (money) is at stake and they have to justify their a*ses
. It would be a nightmare. It's giving me the heebie-jeebies just talking about it."
-That right,he turned down offers of "major stars"! O-kay? and you why he did it?! because he is not stupid like some beep Hollywood directors.
And you know what?! if you hate him so much then stay out of this message board,and don't watch his movies. Why do you watch his movies if you so beep hate him? Just keep on watching beep Daredevil or whatever crap you like.
P.S:I'm sorry for being rude or whatever.
What are you looking at, butthead?
- because to do so would be a "nightmare". Leigh, whose latest film Vera Drake is tipped to receive Oscar nominations this year,
-
jhart999 — 20 years ago(June 25, 2005 05:59 PM)
How can you despise someone you've never met? deadeye, you represent everything that worries me about my generation. In future please consider what you're about to type before you allow your fingers to convey your boorish thoughts; "hate" is a very powerful word to use in such trivial matters
-
Nriks — 20 years ago(August 02, 2005 01:27 PM)
So, you're saying that a filmmaker can only be great if they direct comic-book adaptations with Hollywood actors? That's the general feeling I'm getting from your posts that all filmmakers should be "hired" to direct a film; that they should work with astounding (sic) actors like Julie Roberts and Brad Pitt; that they should have an explosion every ten minutes to keep the 15 year olds away from their mobile phones; and, that they should have all of their films last no more than 90 minutes, with cuts that last about 52 frames, all chopped up to a hip-hop R&B soundtrack?
God forbid someone might want to work from his or her own original idea, to present a film about everyday life, as opposed to accepting $22million to re-make the A-Team (or some similar retro-TV-classic). Kids today are so bloody self-righteous you think all films should be aimed specifically at you, with no focus on any minority of film-goers outside the populist 15-20 ranks (at 21, I'm far too old to enjoy a film like Spiderman 2, surely?) Why can't you just accept that there are films made for different people with different tastes? God, you make me sick. -
The_Lonely_Bosstone — 16 years ago(December 15, 2009 10:42 PM)
@ Oh-My-Golly
Where do you get off insulting people? You have the gall to call someone ELSE self-righteous? I've read your posts, you're the self-righteous one. You're talking down to people because they don't like the movies you like. You call them idiots and dim witted for not liking artistic movies. Get over yourself, you make me and probably tons of other people on these boards sick. -
flowers_on_the_razorwire — 20 years ago(October 01, 2005 10:41 AM)
Can't say I agree. I think he is the greatest director ever. I haven't seen all of his movies, but those I have are pure perfection. He seems to be able to get the very best performance out of all his actors and that is no mean feat.