<![CDATA[I personally]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Experimental and Avant-Garde

Awkward-Human — 13 years ago(March 21, 2013 03:38 PM)

I personally
hate
Andy Warhol movies.
There are pointless and to long.
Like all of Warhol's works, one does not need to see this film to understand all of it. It works better as an idea rather than a product, while lacking the boldness of, say, Duchamp's Fountain.
I am not trying to be rude but can some one please tell why are they clammed by the critics.
And If you like them , can you please explain me ?

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/188928/i-personallyRSS for NodeWed, 13 May 2026 08:17:36 GMTWed, 29 Apr 2026 03:43:51 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to I personally on Wed, 29 Apr 2026 03:43:54 GMT]]>mrpinbert — 11 years ago(January 01, 2015 04:09 PM)

I heard the films he produced with Paul Morrisey as Director are actually pretty good. They are Flesh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1585641https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1585641Wed, 29 Apr 2026 03:43:54 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to I personally on Wed, 29 Apr 2026 03:43:53 GMT]]>Madotsuki_the_Dreamer — 12 years ago(August 27, 2013 05:06 AM)

That was one of Paul Morrissey's films released under the Andy Warhol moniker. Andy Warhol himself made films that were mostly designed to be unwatchable - like, for example, a single 8-hour shot of the Empire State Building. He forced the audience to reconsider their perceptions of cinema by making even the slightest event - like the lights on the building turning off - into something thrilling. Well, either that or he was just playing a prank on people.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1585640https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1585640Wed, 29 Apr 2026 03:43:53 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to I personally on Wed, 29 Apr 2026 03:43:52 GMT]]>IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1585639https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1585639Wed, 29 Apr 2026 03:43:52 GMT