|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: Re: The masses are too dumb, not smart enough to know what is good and not good. posted by jamesgarvin on March 16, 2005 at 15:55:18:
d
Follow Ups:
I don't know what the fixation on the truth-value of the word 'high' is here. All that means to me is that it achieves an exceptional standard of quality relative to other works, such that it may be called exemplary--or 'high.' Isn't that the argument being made here, that Mystic River so excels?So what's the problem? I don't think Mystic River is exceptional. I think it pretends to be the sort of movie that should be exceptional by dressing itself in all manner of affected gravitas. What is not to understand about that? Why are you both hung up on this term in exclusion to the rest of the argument?
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
...(essentially) -- SO BLAME THE BOOK! Or Dennis Lehane. Why Eastwood?
Because I picked it up and flipped through it and I must say, the movie is a definite improvement on the book. Maybe the overall story is compelling, but the guy cannot write a decent sentence to save his life...and I'm not asking for Chandler here, just something that gets above a fourth grade composition assignment.I guess I'm 'blaming' Eastwood because the movie feels so self-indulgently ponderous. I think it probably could have been a much better movie, actually, with the exact same cast even, if it hadn't been for the leaden hand of its director, who, like I've said, seemed to be very concerned that the weightiness of the situation might escape us...
______________________________
Stranger than that, we're alive!Whatever you think it's more than that, more than that.
Who said that, anyway? Kubrick? Was he dissing on Stephen King and Thackeray?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: