|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Science Fiction as the complete opposite of Star Wars.. posted by gware on October 15, 2002 at 06:16:52:
... doesn't make Solaris high art any more than it makes Star Wars low art. They are entirely different types of films although arguably both fall within the genre of science fiction. IMHO, "art cinema" doesn't have to plod along at a snail's pace unless that's your preference. You have equated, mistakingly, my distaste for boredom as a singular preference for "action" films, which is an unfortunate stereotyping of my tastes. While I do like some action-oriented SF, there are many good science fiction films with little or no action (i.e., at least externalized action in the form of wall-to-wall explosions, chases, combat, etc.). I find good character-driven science fiction is often anything but boring.Internalized, thought provoking science fiction films, such as Charley (based on the Daniel Keyes short story "Flowers for Algernon"), Silent Running, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, A Clockwork Orange, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, etc., while definitely the exception, have managed to avoid the Sominex warning label in spite of a non-reliance on FX to carry their message; OTOH, the Russian filmed version of Solaris is a real snoozer, IMO.
But, what the hey, it's just one man's viewpoint, right?
Follow Ups:
but "AI", and I thoroughly enjoyed them all.
Totally agree, "each to his own", some Japanese films like Mizoguchi's "Ugetsu Monogotari" have such mollasses pace they make Tarkovsky's "Solaris" seem like an afternoon at Indy Raceway by comparison; Bergmanns films ain't exactly high paced action thrillers either, but surely a film can be boring regardless of pace
Thank God we are all different, "Gone with the Wind" has never done anything at all for me, kind of like a joke I just never got, so I know what you mean, no inference of stereotyping was expressed or should be implied!!
Eric
Tokyo
Saw GWTW as a child and really enjoyed it, later as a young adult,
went to see it for a second time with expectations of being
highly entertained once again,but got up and left after about an hour, no emotional
involvement at all, a complete bore for some reason. - AH
.
But quietly... there are many Americans here.Corny and superficial. Is shallow the same as superficial, or stronger?
superficial...on the surface not going deep enough
shallow...not deep
seem to be very similar
But let's ask Audiophilander for sure...he is godd with terms and meanings.I hear it often like this:
People can be superficial
but people are shallow (a personality trait)The movie is shallow because it portrayed a superficial view of the topic. (Sounds forced...I think we need an expert!)
At any rate, it is a good question
hmmm?mp
SUPERFICIAL is to SHALLOW as EGGS are to HAM? IOW, the CHICKEES
are INVOLVED, but the PIGGYS are COMMITTED! - AH
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: