 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Please show me examples of xenophobia here. posted by RGA on March 18, 2004 at 21:45:18:
Anti-Americanism? No, anti- stupid film resoundig yes ( of course the one I think so to be for my own taste )
Hatred for Hollywood? You must be jocking! Hollywood is the place where the most part of beautiful films have been made.
You do´t think to undertstand, that when some one do some critics it is with the hopes that thinks may improve!
Are the great Hollywood and actors anti-American because the would want a war in Irak? Are they anti-Hollywood when they says that only money count?
You must accept that critics are a constructive way or are you still living in post Mc Carthy aera?
But first you must set yourself free. From inward.
I think that the feeling is getting the same from society to society world wide, thanks moder telecommunucations. for the best AND the worst.
Bashing " Erin " did I? Can´t think of. But you must make the part between " Bashing " and not liking a film...Do you allow us not to like a picture? Oh yes! Thank you..We do the same for you....
As for Brokevich I think it is a nice film, with a wonderful actor ( Finnley ) but it did fail to be more than a nice film but who is awaiting for every film to be a masterpiece?
The political force behind this one ( against big polluated compagnies, for the " small people than we are " very good and educationnal.
That would be 2/ 10 for the film and 7/ 10 for the " good example ".
"Monster Ball" was worth one good look, maybe twice, but the story as good it may have been failed to really attract me.
Well in Europe you may find more culture in every normal guy on the streets that you may find in the USA, that was anyway my impression, but the BEST culture in the world you may find in New-York.
Short, your missive has reach the wrong addressat.
But you should reflect on this as a learning process NOT to put in a too much of an hurry a stamp on every one head, a preconception made of prejudice that you may call your own.
I do hope that this is now clear between you an me. Now as nothing is forever, even less on the net, I wait for the next guy accusing me of anti-Americanism.Patrick
Follow Ups:
I can accept what you've said.Look I don't care if people hate Erin Brokevich. I posted a credible argument as to why the film despite flaws worked for me. I don't despise Julia Roberts like some people do though. She is a star, which is different from an actress. Though I think she's underrated. Her performance in Notting Hill was certainly well suited.
The issue is I have yet to see you or Victor list 10 hollywood films you would consider GREAT films since 1990 that made significant dollars.
If you can't produce 10 then I have no need to discuss film with either of you on this forum any longer because you don't know good films.
If you can't recognize good RECENT films from Hollywood then you have a bias against an industry - PERIOD.
I don't care that people on individual films disagree. I liked Goodfellas a LOT more than the GOdfather which i found to be a 3 hour mob soap opera. A lot of Godfather fans dislike my comments...though I'd still say the Godfather was "good" movie it's just not a GREAT one to me. But if that person provided me their top 50 all time list chances are there would be some mighty impressive films on the list.
You have to look at the GENRE and the filmaker's goal...and judge the film off that. I don't hold a film Like Halloween to the same standard as a serious drama. I compare Hallween or a Dawn of the Dead (1979) to horror films as far back as the original Dracula or Nosferatu and everything since.
I don't call people idiots because they like Gladiator. The fellow below made a "GOOD" case for the character development in that film. I don't agree with him - I thought it was a poor film overall - but he made a good case I just didn't FEEL it when I saw it.
Roger Ebert I read because he makes a case for his views on films. Do you disagree with Roger Ebert on EVERY single film? Do you AGREE with him on EVERY single film? I can gaurantee you that in 90%+ he makes a VERY GOOD argument for why he liked or disliked a movie...He doesn't call Roeper an idiot for disagreeing with him. Or imply that people just need to see more films.
Ebert has seen more films than anyone on this forum knows more about the filmmaking process than anyone on this forum. And wouldn't you know it...If you look at his best 100 list - start counting the Hollywood films that ARE there asopposed to the foreign films that ARE NOT there.
Sure he has the Bicycle Thief no complaint from me though I think it's grossly overrated, and 8 1/2 which I think is well kaka. But Schindler's List Jaws E.T. Raiders are all there as well.
The difference between Victor and me is I appreciate more that the medium of film offers than he could possibly dream of. He has a miniscule itsy bitsy piece and copses off to eveything else.
Ebert takes a film to the film's intent and judges that. He doesn't say well I hate all horror movies therefore all horror movies are kaka.
I dunno hate any films, I may profundly dislike them maybe like " Juden Süss " but hate? Despise Roberts? I like very much in " Noting Hill " she is a very good looking woman and nothing to hate her now if you ask me is she is a VERY good actress I wolud answer she has a small range...
Must a good film make $ to be good ? If a " good film make a lot of profit that is fine and I rejoice as the director maybe some bore in the same vein! But judging a film by the pound? That wouls be weird..Or did I get you wrong?
Now it would be of matter to define what a good film is in your eye..We may not have the same criteria on this. You say yourself..Good or great...So Godfather was only ok for the first part, I much more prefer film like the one Victor recommend me ( The Last Request )
Dawn of the Dead was actually very good. But Nosferatu in another league. As " M "
He made a good case but the film was not worse the good comment? Think about it1
Does it make it a better film?
And why did you NOT wrote that down at the time of the discussion ?
Did I call him an idiot?
Did I ?
I do not read mr. Ebert, but lately someone post one of his review on a film, and I did it found very well suited, Victor did not.
If I did wrote that Gladiator was a good film then I would have some problems with him..Genrally speaking..But did he?
Jaw is one of my prefered " action " film I like to see it. What I really dislike are the late " Spielberg " film starting with " Ryian " he did lost his touch somehow..And then you are to-ta-lly wrong Victor is ABSOLUTELY NOT like you describe him.
I think we should change and make an effort to more " comprehension " to each other.
So I will beg you to reread Victor or to try to communicate a new with him.
You may change your mind!
Actually, I probably agree with Victor's taste more than he knows. Sure there is going to be the odd one like 81/2. That film is on many best 100 lists. My point is so is Raiders, Jaws, Schindler's List, and E.T.I bet if you looked at all of the best 100 lists by all of the major review bodies you would find ALL of those Spielberg films on the list - and you would see some Fellini, Kubrick, Bergman, Scorcese, Hitchcok, Kurosawa etc.
THINK about this. If they are wrong to have Spielberg movies then they are wrong to have the others' films there as well.
My point is that there is no way to compare these VERY different filmakers. If we're going to say that Fellini and Kurosawa are the masters at introspection and the epic then Spielberg is the master of storytelling.
It's NOT about the buck...it is about the lasting nature of film. And no one can deny that Jaws a 30 year old movie has not lasted. The definition of masterpiec or classics is that they last. It has NOT lasted because of the effects. The effects are totally out of date, so is the body count and gore. The shark doesn't even look real. So why has it lasted? Because it's a great STORY that has been told as perfectly as it possibly can be.
That said you may find other stories to be more interesting as I do -- but that is not the film's fault. Jaws is as perfect as the story can be told - critics agree - the masses agree - it's a masterpiece and a classic and a major influence on the film industry.
Like all other masterpieces and classics and major influences on film history not ewveryone is going to "LIKE" them. I'm not a fan of Casablanca or Gone With the Wind. I respect that they were influential and important to film history...but neither is a particularly great movie to me.
This is why film is TOTALLY subjective. There are movies I like that I myself know are not good movies. Outland with Sean Connery is a thin story - without character development - not great effects yet I like it. There really isn't a whole lot of good things about it but a persoanl gut reaction to it. Subjective.
No nobody can be wrong all of the time...
But Spielberg aknowledge Kurusawa as a master, if I remember well.
I have, as told before nothing against " Jaw " on the contrary, and one of his first commercial tv film was not bad , the one with the car chase.
No, films are not totally subjective, are wines subjectives too?
There are culture behing them, inside and ouside.
The Mona Lisa is a piece of crap. Art critics have kept that painting alive because they are fascinated by the man NOT the work. Jackson Pollack is a prime example. I could vomit on canvas and produced his mess...yet he's a famous painter. Why? Cause he was a drunken fool who dod something different. People assume different is better - it's not. It can be but different itself is nothing.Wine is a food. Lots of very smart people out there who don't drink...It's doubtful they could tell the difference between a $4.00 red or a $150.00 bottle...or at least wouldn't know which would be considered better.
Bottom line is Jaws is a masterpiece. Because you don't like it or don't think it should be so doesn't change the fact that it meets all of the criteria. On lots of critics top 100 list and has survived 30 years...it's part of the canon of film and influenced the summer blockbuster like no other film. At that time it did what it did better than any other film in history...some would argue that it has yet to be surpassed for what it did...and the other film that one could argue surpassed it was by the same director - Raiders.
I don't get why Casablanca is considered a masterpiece I give it ***/*****. The fact is though it has done what Jaws has done(IMO to a lesser degree) but nonetheless it meets the criteria. I'm not wrong--there is no right or wrong.
It basically presumes there are no movies that are superior to it, as what could be superior to a "masterpiece"? A better masterpiece?If your scale is already pegged at Jaws, then it is indeed very limited.
You are saying that there can only be one masterpiece in the film industry - one masterpiece of music...so if we pick Beethoven then Mozart is kaka?I'm saying the Jaws has met ALL of the OBJECTIVE criteria for whatever the term means of being a masterpiece.
1) It has lasted - standing the test of time by both the masses and the critics.
2) Critical bodies are the ones who determine ART apparently and they call it a masterpiece. Art stands the test of time and is relevant to the MASSES. Jaws succeeds FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more than anything Fellini has ever made. There is no discussion of that there is a fact. Your ego can't handle facts it would seem.
3) No there is no movie superior to it for what it is. Show me one? Show me a thriller or even a summer blockbuster shark movie that's better than this one. For what it is nothing is better than Jaws. Or I should not even say that i should say - as deemed by critics and the general public...that does not mean the odd person won't like it...the odd person doesn't like 81/2. Guess what more people are going to not like 81/2 - but that's obvious.
The Exorcist is considered a masterpiece of the Horror genre...that doesn't mean there is no better movies...but for what the Exorcist is nothing is deemed better by critical ART JUDGING organizations than The Exorcist on that subject matter.
The Godfather is considered a masterpiece and I strongly disagree with the merit the film gets. I don't think it's anything better than good ***/*****. I do respect the fact however that is considered a masterpiece. Most critical bodies rave about it. Lump it Victor...sopme things are masterpieces whether you like it or not...Ana Karenina is a long snooze and no deeper than a Harlequin Romance...it's a BAD book by a BAD writer. That doesn't change the fact that people think Tolstoy has talent and that his atrocious books are actually good.
The fact that I HATE F Scott Fitgerald's "The Great Gatsby" I can bitterly argue is one of the biggest dumps of kaka ever put to paper doesn't change the fact that it's considered to be a masterpiece. I have to deal with so so do you.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
