Films/DVD Asylum

It's a matter of TASTE!

12.73.207.142

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

grhughes

(M)

In Reply to: Re: You got that RIGHT! posted by jamesgarvin on September 17, 2004 at 10:00:15:

Personally, IMHO anyone who thinks PULP FICTION is one of the better films of the past twenty years needs to get a cinema education. If I had the power I wouldn't ever let him do another film. I haven't found anything worth going to see in years. I can't find anything on television to watch. The great cinastes are all dead with the exception of Milos Foreman and Terry Gilliam and the director is now nothing more than an employee.

Follow Ups:

Re: It's a matter of TASTE! - jamesgarvin 17:39:39 09/17/04 (3)
Well, what I actually wrote was that Pulp Fiction has been the most influential film (regardless of taste) of the last twenty years. Anyone who would dispute that statement needs to see more films.
Whether it is a good, very good, or great film, is left to taste. But according to Rottentomatoes.com, 94% of the critics favorably reviewd the film. And such excellent reviewers as Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin of the New York Times gave it superior reviews. I'll accept their cinema credentials, thank you. And with respect to Gilliam, please see "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" for an example of a jumbled mess (though I admit I did not watch the film while on L.S.D.)
- You let critics suggest? - grhughes 20:42:10 09/17/04 (2)
  Critics are paracites. They have gotten so many films wrong. There simply are too many bean counters and MBAs in charge of the film industry to ever produce anything serious. Too much marketing research and consultants dictating what sells. If one film is successful then "you can't argue with success" mentalities take over and off we go on a genre tyrade which floods the market with more of the same. I was once serious about film in my youth. Basically films are made for the young. David Lean and Stanley Jubrick were my idols and I think no one today even comes close. Critics were only marginal to both of them. Kubrick was exiled by Hollywood and Lean was played as a director too difficult to work with. The two greatest directors of the last 20 years were treated as almost untouchables by the industry. The industry doesn't want directors in control. They want a sellable commodity and they only care about the bottom line. Ray Hughes
  - Re: You let critics suggest? - jamesgarvin 14:24:53 09/19/04 (1)
    You complain about critics, then go off on a tirade against Hollywood. Critics are parasites? That is a conclusion devoid of any analysis. How are they parasites? Specifically, which critics are parasites? Are ALL critics parasites? Or only those with whom you disagree (which seem to be numerous)? And who says that they have gotten so many films wrong? You? Specifically, which films did they get wrong?
    No serious films? Have you seen "The Fast Runner", filmed entirely in the Artic, entirely with native peoples? Have you seen "Rabbit Proof Fence" about three grade school age girls victims of the Australian program of taking aborigines from their families to train them to be domestics which continued until 1967, who trekked more than 1000 miles across Australia to be back with their family (and the actual persons shown at the end of the film)? Have you seen the documentary "Hoop Dreams" about the lives of inner city children who are gifted in basketball, and the coaches who coach them, and the recruiters who recruit them? You admit that you have stopped watching films, then proceed to disparage films that you admit you do not see.
    I never saw Stanley Kubrick as a victim. I suspect that he did not see himself that way. He made the movies that he wanted to make, the way he wanted to make them, and most critics actually have praised his work. And the fact is that today's film scene is much more generous to independent film makers than Hollywood was in it's glory day because there are many more outlets for film makers to get films made. So I fail to see your point that critics are parasites because they failed to support Kubrick. And directors who are difficult to work with may have difficulty finding work for a variety of reasons. Such as actors refusing to work with them. Other crew members refusing to work with them. Again, if a director is a problem, and Hollywood refuses to hire them, I fail to see how that is it the fault of critics.
    Your statement that critics blasted Kubrick is simply incorrect. From Rottentomates, the only site that I am aware which groups critics opinions: Eyes Wide Shut (80%), Full Metal Jacket (97%), The Shining (93%), Barry Lyndon (95%), Clockwork Orange (100%), 2001 (94%), Dr. Strangelove (100%), Lolita (100%), Spartacus (95%), Path of Glory (89%), The Killing (92%), Killer's Kiss (80%). So, specifically who were the mass of critics who were unkind to Kubrick?
    You are also incorrect with respect to David Lean: A Passage to India (80%), Dr. Zhivago (94%), Lawrence of of Arabia (97%), Bridge on the River Kwai (100%), Oliver Twist (100%), Brief Encounter (100%), Great Expectations (100%).
    - I'm not in a TYRADE? But you certainly are! - grhughes 08:42:42 09/20/04 (0)
      I go to movies to be uplifted, to be tranformed, and yes reborn again in a different place and time RICH in culture, music, art. I believe that by and large the movie producers are in a stagnant period where the mediocre is heralded as good. I don't believe in rewarding mediocrity. Most of the film producers today have no more artistic sensibility than a dung beatle. They are in the entertainment industry on the same par with professional wrestling and pornography and organized crime. The movie industry is virtually a closed fraternity and they want to keep it that way. Critics are paracitic in nature. They feed off the creative work of others and their mouthing off can make or break a film. Most are "ELSWORTH TOOHEYS" a character from Ayn Rand's novel, THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Pauline Kael would have served humanity more if she had sold shoes at Sears. She virtually ruined Lean's film RYAN'S DAUGHTER, a fine film and one of my favorites. Kubrick fell from grace after A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and as far as I'M concerned only made boring films thereafter. There is little sardonic wit and comedy after CLOCKWORK. BARRY LYNDON is nothing but Marissa Barenson staring off into space and taking great sighs although very well dressed and amid antiquity. The most beautiful thing in the film is the wallpaper on the walls. The heart attack scene is one of the best dying scenes I've ever seen. Cordially Ray Hughes

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Sonic Craft

You can not post to an archived thread.