This film is a dog
-
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.!! -
MAX-78 — 22 years ago(February 08, 2004 11:41 PM)
You've really thought this out.
When is your new book on film criticism coming out?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/fastshow/wallpaper/images/swiss_640.jpg -
its_a_GeoffreyRush_thing — 19 years ago(June 30, 2006 12:10 AM)
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But there is no need to blatantly bash a film, just because YOU didn't find it appealing or it didn't live up to your expectations.
For me, it was an incredibly powerful film, and I absolutelty loved it, even though it's not the type of film that I usually go for. Plus, I thought the acting was amazing; so natural and realistic. I loved the complexity of the film itself and the entangled lives of the characters. I found the whole film fascinating. Very unique. As I said, not a film I would usually see myself enjoying, but I was pleasantly surprisedI was hooked.
It's a Geoffrey Rush thing, you wouldn't understand! -
ne211 — 19 years ago(December 21, 2006 05:17 AM)
max 78 - its called anti-narrative you idiot.
Also I am baffled to how its homophobic and your comment on how it is only the gay guy who is sad and alone baffles me, because i was under the impression that Geoffrey Rush's character didnt have a fairytale happy ending and nor did Rachel Blakes and i feel it goes with out saying, but i will say it anyway, that Barbara Hershys ending wasnt happy. So it was infact two couples that were left happy then not ever straight character.
Also i feel your comment about how you have no time for someone who likes a film you dont pathetic and pretentious.
