 
|
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 |
68.37.240.251
She says a good friend, who is a movie buff, recommended that film. Whether it was a true recommendation, or just desire to see someone else step into it I do not know.The 1999 film tries really hard to raise above your typical high school movie. And let's be frank - given that reference group, anything that is not a complete dreck has a fighting chance.
So does the Election. I would gladly allow that among all high school films this one is by far not the worst. But that alone doesn't make it something really worth spending your money and time.
In that class of films, I still believe the Clueless is an untoucheable leader and try as hard as it might, the Election doesn't even come close to it.
I know some will find elevating things in it... morals... satire... philosophy even, but the fact remains this is a snoozer.
Follow Ups:
I agree with you on this film. I thought it was overrated. I also like Clueles but there are other "highschool" films I like better. I'd have to give American Graffiti my top nod and Fast Times at Ridgemont High my guilty pleasure nod. oh and then the was To Sir with Love for my nostalgic favorite.
You are correct, this is the best ten age coming of age film. It has aged very well and you don't have to be of that generation (though I am) to appreciate it. I remember seeing it for the first time in 1972 and marvelking how much the country and culture had changed in ten short years. Walter Mursch's (sp?) sound design is outstanding.
This is a wonderful film. I think that perhaps it would probably not appeal as much to those who did not attend high school here in the States. The humor and bite requires a certain level of familiarity with the subject to be appreciated.
...that one could not appreciate the Rules of the Game unless he's been to WWI? Or lived in Japan to appreciate the Tokyo Story.I think this is a faulty logic. As long as the work of art speaks the universal human language anyone can understand it.
Subject doesn't matter. Only the artistic means do.
If you see every single film to fulfill one purpose, then you are right. The purpose of Election was to comment, in a sarcastic way, suburban, middle class public high school education. It was not to educate you about another culture, such as that high school. It was not to provide you insight into an event, such as a war film may attempt to do.In order to appreciate the humor, you probably have some background. I am sure that you are familiar with engineer jokes that you find funny, because you get the joke, but the rest of us may not understand, and conclude the joke is stupid. All films are not made for all people, just as all jokes are not for all people. It may be you lack of familiarity with the subject matter has caused the humor to elude you. You did find "Office Space" funny, right? I recall that you commented that it was funnier to you because many of the scenes reminded you of your time at Hewlitt-Packard. The same applies here.
I think anyone who has worked in most offices can appreciate to some degree what Office Space had to say. And that film holds up to subsequent viewings. Oddly enough Election had a similar kind of feel but from the teacher's office environment and the know it all get ahead kid. I don't think one needs to be a teacher or American to get it. Election IMO is a better overall film than Office Space(which has a few plot inconsistancies and some time fillable strings that don;t leave one totally satisfied). Election loses points to right wingers because there is a Lesbian in the movie and someone smoked some pot. Which means it is immediate Kaka to Anal retentives.
Well, most us who went to high school here, and even college and graduate school, knew students who belonged to everything, tried to be elected to anything, for their resume, college application, or just to feel important. Some of those students went above and beyond what you would believe they would do. To those who did not see that behavior first hand, I suspect that they would have some scepticism. Those of us who saw that behavior would "get" the joke. Which does not necessarily mean that someone who did not go to school in that environment would not get the joke. It is only an explanation as to one possible reason, given the high marks the film received from a variety of sources. Is the problem with the two who did not like it, or the eight who did? I am simply looking for a reason beyond "the two are idiots."The teacher? Well, in graduate school, I recall one student who found it necessary to ask question after question, and after a couple of weeks the teacher became visibly annoyed whenever the student would raise his hand. I likened Broderick's performance to the same motivation, the teacher having gone over the deep end.
I too liked Election better than Office Space. Victor suggested that familiarity with the subject in evaluating a film was "faulty logic." I was simply pointing out that he used the same logic in his comments regarding "Office Space", which, I assume, was not faulty when he employed it.
Sorry I didn't read your exchange with Victor -- he speaks doublespeak and airy fairy stuff with no real content -- just airy stuff like this was good because it spoke the human languange blather blather.Election or Office Space I'm not going to defend to the bitter end -- They were fun laugh at socity and possibly thy self and thy situation you have likely experienced or know of well kind of movies. I think the "kind of" people in Election are "extreme" characatures of students and teachers and people we have gone to school with in any country -- I have been to school in Europe and Australia as well as here in Canada. Office Space is the same kind of deal where the idiot slack ass gets the promotion during the time of lay-offs -- it too is done in an extreme character kind of way. Now some audience memebers may require always "real" vibrant human characters to be able to "go with" a movie.
Neither of the films here remotely attempt to do these things - if you can not accpet what filmmakers are going for in their films then stop watching movies. I go to a horrow movie to jump and have a good time -- not for the acting ability, set design or story. There was a 1980's low budget horror film named Scarecrows with some of the lamest acting I have ever seen, an idiotic plot, and scarecrows killing people. it is one of the best horror films ever made because it created tension and scares -- that is the job of a horror film and it did its job.
Whimsical films like Election and I suppsoe American Beauty are intended to exagerate that with which it is commenting on. American Beauty had so many surface cliche's of suburbia as to be in itself shallow. The tag line of the movie said "look closer" -- if you did you would probably see what they were "really" doing. if you did not "look closer" then you did what most people I know did and walk out of the movie house.
I'm amazed some forumers here seem to hate every movie they see from hollywood that they are STUPID enough to keep watching it. Sorry i don;t like brussel Sprouts I don;t keep ordering plate after plate in the hopes that tomorrow I'm going to like it.
La Grande Illusion is one of the best films I have ever seen --it is in fact in my top ten of all time -- I have Schindler's List ahead of it -- and it is not even close Schindler's list visually is vastly superior in every way, more emotionally wrenching, it is far better acted, has a vastly superior score, is more resonating. There is not a single area of motion picture creation that La Grande Illusion beats Schindler's List. And more people will agree with me than Victor nananananana.
***La Grande Illusion is one of the best films I have ever seenSounds good, until I recall that just a few months ago you had not seen a single Fellini film and didn't know who he was... so I am just not sure what that "one of the best" means in your case.
that's irrelevant I have seen 81/2 --- All it takes is to see the two movies I mentioned. I rate the film on its merrit not on a PRE-CCONCEIVED expectation of the director. I try to be objective and rate the film on its merrit alone.
Listen, I'll give you two things.One - you can write well. Hopefully with time, as you get more and broader experience, the content will also start making more sense.
Two - I applaud you for making that admission. Most pople would simply dodge the question.
But you are way too quick to judge someone of Fellini's stature based on your assuredly limited familiarity with his work. Fellini is too complex to be judged that way - he is like the life itself. You witnessed one day... there's plenty more to come. His art is broad and multi-faceted.
If someone quite familiar with his work said he disliked him, I would not have much issue with that. But based on one film only? And even that film in the context of still limited experience?
We are not talking about toppling the pre-conceived notions here, as that should ideally be done based on deep understanding.
I think you are taking the idea of familiar experiences WAY too far. While it usually adds to the overall film impression, that element alone is never sufficient to elevate a bad movie much. In case of the Office Space it didn't, it simply made it slightly more enjoyable.Truth is you can find things that are familiar and dear to you in virtually any grade movie - even in a complete trash.
However, when evaluating movies there are other things that are far more important than familiar situation and subjects. As I mentioned, the Grand Illusion (I wrote Rules of the Game by mistake) is a perfect example how we, without any first hand experience in the events depicted, can easily see its value and beauty.
I keep mentioning the common human language, the language that has not changed much in centuries, and that is the fundamental part of our appreciation of things like movies. So a Virgin Spring can talk to you just as nicely as a movie about modern day office life.
I never wrote that familiarity with the subject matter is essential to enjoying a movie. Please re-read my posts. Only that it may help, and may explain your ambivalence to what is generally regarded, by many people of many backgrounds, as a pretty good film. I enjoy westerns, having never ridden a horse or shot at someone. Because the filmmakers are not making those films for people who have, because it is unlikely that anyone in modern day society has lived the life of a gunslinger. On the other hand, million of filmgoers in the United States have attended a school similar to that depicted in Election, and knew the types of people therein. Is it a caricature? Sure. That is what makes it funny. I am sure there were many people who saw the film and liked it not being familiar with the subject. But the filmmakers were pretty spot on in their depictions, and, using a little analysis (using the brain the look below the surface), conclude that they were filming about people they knew.I am curious. I read your posts every day. I cannot recall you writing about a comedy you enjoyed. Perhaps laughter is not your strong suit. Perhaps laughter is overrated. Maybe you could provide a list of comedies that you enjoyed. Perhaps your dislike of Election has less to do with the content than with an aversion to cracking a smile. What is that old saying? Everyone thinks they have a sense of humor, particularly those that do not have one.
Silly is is defending one's own sense of humor, so I am not gonna do that. I do love comedies, but I also do not segregate the films into categories. You have not seen me comment on comedies perhaps because you are a newcomer here. As I did a search on "comedy" under my name, or "commedy" as I sometimes misspell it, I found quite a few great hits.I simply comment on films as they come. The films I have not yet seen are pulled semi-randomly based on recommendations, etc. - my wife manages our Netflix account. I don't have any idea whether the next one will be a comedy or a disaster movie.
A different question might be - what is the proportion of comedies in films we consider great? I would admit it is not large, IMO.
I came up with fourteen films, however many hits there may have been, since January, 2000. Not too many. Many great comedies? Probably not. I have read comments from director, writers, and actors that good comedy is harder to do than any other genre of film, as the subject matter is generally more restrictive. Is it fair to compare a comedy with a drama, and conclude that one is better than the other? Well, the director intended you to laugh in the comedy, and if you found it funny, then it has succeeded. If the director of the drama intended you to cry, but you did not cry, although you may feel it better technically, is the drama better than the comedy? Or is the comedy better because it acheived the director/writer's purpose?Would you equate n A in a four credit hour upper tier engineering course the same as an A in a four credit hour home economics course? Most graduate schools do not. Well, that is what you are suggesting in your film analogy: A good film is a good film, regardless of the genre. Well, an A is an A, regardless of the course's subject. You seem comfortable taking out any appreciation of the director's intentions, the difficulty of the subject matter, and the fact that certain subjects are harder to film and write well than others. And letting your wife pick the movies? I knew this kid when I was growing up who loved to play with girl's dolls. Not a good outcome.
the fact remains that most professional film historians and critics liked Election. That means more than some hack like you on a forum spouting that because you felt it was a snoozer then it is an objective FACT that it is.It's amazing how truly arrogant you are.
I know of no noteworthy critic who was remotely receptive to this film. Payne's never done anything of significance.
Ebert gave it 3 1/2 stars out of 4.
.
Why is that because he's not as anal retentive like many on this forum?What pompous conservative right wing hack do you propose we read to get insight on anything?
Try Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader. He's the finest film critic in the English language. Robin Wood is also superb.Neither one is even remotely conservative, if that eases your mind at all. It's disturbing that you equate philistinism with liberalism.
For mwe it's Anthony Lane in the "New Yorker".
Excellent, lucid analysis. All his books make great reading; ' PlacingMovies', 'Movies as Politics' and 'Movie Wars' in particular. The latter is recommended for anyone who thinks free market forces control what films are available to us at the local cinema...well, it is guided by an invisible hand, only it's in the shape of people the likes of the Weinsteins et al.Rico, RGA, corndog et al: I'd recommend reading some of his stuff, if you haven't already. Very entertaining, and maybe it'll help those who think Donald is just being plain snotty.
Yes and he's thre most notworthy film critic in the history of film criticism. But he's hated cause he's made something of himself (if you're a nobody writing for an underground newspaper then you're a serious art historian because you can write in PHD E's (piled higher and deeper) but if you're famous then you're a sell-out or other such idiocy.You can look and see for yourself which critics liked it.
Well, Roger Ebert may be the most noteworthy film critic of the group of critics cited in your link (although I think Janet Maslin could also claim that title). But even though I enjoy reading him, I don't think he would consider himself the most noteworthy film critic in the history of film criticism. Here are some others who have written film criticism...perhaps you have read some of the following:Andre Bazin
Graham Greene
Kenneth Turan
Bela Belazs
Pauline Kael
James Agee
Andrew Sarris
Francois Truffaut
Jean-Luc Godard
Siegfried Kracauer
Molly HaskellNow, I would be hard-pressed to identify any of the above as the most noteworthy film critic in the history of film criticism, (although I love Kael and think Bazin had a little influence in his "underground" circle, LOL)(and I have included a couple because, well, it's my list and I think you should know these names!). And don't forget the hugely influential American newspaper critics before Ebert's time, such as Bosley Crowther and Walter Kerr. How influential? Has a film distributer ever refused to open a film in the United States to avoid Ebert's thumbs down? Happened in New York with Crowther more than once, right up through the 60s. There is historian/critic Jay Leyda, and my gosh, so many more!
It is one thing to call someone "the most popular" or "the best known film critic in North America", titles one could give Ebert. Quite another to call someone "the most noteworthy film critic in the history of film criticism." I don't think Ebert would take that title himself, based on his writings about film critics whom he admires. And, no, I don't think he's a sell-out at all: for example, look at his championing of Peckinpah in the mid-Seventies. It's obvious he enjoys what he does and well conveys his passion about film both in his writing and TV show. And I don't think he's "hated because he's made something of himself"; although the joy of sticking the shiv in exists in film criticism, as it exists everywhere(look at Norman Mailer's and Renata Adler's essays on Kael).
Just how familiar are you with some of the film critics I have listed and their work? They may not appear in rottentomatoes, but they have their small followings and influence :^). Very few of these writers have PhDs after their names. And if you don't know most of these authors and their works, I would be very, very careful before pronouncing anyone "the most noteworthy film critic in the history of film criticism." For example, since I am not familiar with a lot of film criticism outside English and French speaking countries, I would be hesitant making such a distinction. After all, I haven't read them all...yet!
Don't get so puffed up defending Ebert! He's doing just fine!
Take care and have fun! And read more film criticism!
Ebert is the most noteworthy because he's the only film critic to win the Pulitzer. He teaches film school and he knows film as well as anyone.This does not mean I agree with every thing he says -- But Pauline Kael had some bizzarre views on a lot of films. A film critic has to like all genres of film -- not all films but genres. Ebert cares not about what the film is about but how well the film achieved the goal it set out to achieve and THAT is the mark of a good film critic.
The best film critics are subjectively the ones we agree with the most and objectively the one's who can make their case and people can say well I disagree with you Roger on the Cronenberg Movie Crash but I can at least see WHY you liked it.
Ebert does not view himself as the best film critic but I suspect he will be viewed that way by both his peers the film industry and the public. What a few forumers, myself included, have to say is irrelevant. He's got his Star on the Walk of Fame, he's the critic chosen for the running commentary of film's like Citizen Kane not James Agee.
Again I'm not saying he is the best film critic in any objective way since that is silly. But what ebert is is not a Hack -- he is "in League" with the very best film critics and he writes in a realtively direct easy entertaining style (some may go further and call it formula style) but that does not or should not detract from "WHAT" he is saying.
I have read Janet Maslin and Kenneth Turan and many others even the self made wonder boy of the internet James Beradinelli. They all write differently some are a little more in depth than the others. Some of the art-house critics however often stick their foot in their mouth when trying to be "deep" shovelling absolute non-sensical kaka in their negative views of a hollywood film. To me it is easy to spot -- skeptics are always given more weight and more credibility because they are being skeptical (not that they are being more truthful) All tube amps suck , LP's suck, all amps sound the same because of some test. No different than eveyr hollywood movie sucks and only the no name box office failures which are forgotten in three years (except by 12 film critics)
Ebert is not viewed as an elite film critic for the simple reason that he isn't a big enough elitest snob. And he needs to live in New York.
I think instead of responding to my post you are just rephrasing your earlier comments about Ebert. It makes me wonder if you read what I wrote. But just in case..."Ebert is the most noteworthy because he's the only film critic to win the Pulitzer. He teaches film school and he knows film as well as anyone....He's got his Star on the Walk of Fame."
The Pulitzer can only be won by those who work for newspapers in the United States. This eliminates film critics who work for magazines or publish books or who live in other countries. For what its worth, Kael won the National Book Award. Other film critics teach or lecture at film schools, universities, and colleges and know film very well. And it isn't that hard to get a Star on the Walk of Fame. Do you know the criteria?
"A film critic has to like all genres of film -- not all films but genres."
Why? Would you ask a music critic to like all kinds of music or a book critic to like every kind of book (I remember the "greenback" paperbacks with some small fondness myself :^), but that's another story!)? Isn't it occasionally interesting to read someone grappling with a work in a genre they don't like?
"...he's the critic chosen for the running commentary of film's like Citizen Kane not James Agee."
But is Ebert chosen to do this not because he has done the most research on "Kane," but because he is well known and can convey what he knows about the film with passion? I'm sure you'll agree with me that perhaps scheduling plays a small part in Agee not being asked to do any DVD commentaries.
"But what ebert is is not a Hack -- he is "in League" with the very best film critics and he writes in a realtively direct easy entertaining style (some may go further and call it formula style) but that does not or should not detract from "WHAT" he is saying."
I don't think Ebert is a hack. Quite the contrary. See what I wrote in my previous post.
"Some of the art-house critics however often stick their foot in their mouth when trying to be "deep" shovelling absolute non-sensical kaka in their negative views of a hollywood film. To me it is easy to spot -- skeptics are always given more weight and more credibility because they are being skeptical (not that they are being more truthful)"
This doesn't discuss the critics I've suggested you take a look at, many of whom (Bazin, Sarris, Kael, Godard, Truffaut) had strong positive feelings about the "hollywood" film (indeed, Kael, who seems to be the other critic of this list you are familiar with, bluntly stated that Europe had only given us a handful of great films after 1972, whereas Hollywood was in a golden age in the Seventies).
"All tube amps suck , LP's suck, all amps sound the same because of some test. No different than eveyr hollywood movie sucks and only the no name box office failures which are forgotten in three years (except by 12 film critics)"
You did not arrive at your opinions about audio gear without listening, did you? Then take a look and read some of the critics I have suggested. There is a strong Anglo-Franco flavor to my list, but as I stated to Donald T., while there are many German, Russian, Japanese, Hong Kong, etc., critics that I do not know or do not know well, this will at least give you a start.
And if you hate no name box office failures that are forgotten in three years (except by 12 film critics) then I urge you to forego seeing "Greed," "The Wild Bunch", "The Wizard of Oz", "Citizen Kane", "Fear and Desire," (good luck just seeing that one!) and "The Sugarland Express," as they were all commerical failures on their release (at least bookkeeping said they were!) starring either has-beens or second-choicers or nobodies no one had ever heard of.
"Ebert is not viewed as an elite film critic for the simple reason that he isn't a big enough elitest snob. And he needs to live in New York."
You may be right about the first sentence here, LOL! But again, look at the writings of many on the list I posted, and you may be surprised by what cranks their motors! And Kael wrote in San Francisco for almost twenty years. The other film critics I name are/were been located in L.A., London, Paris, and Berlin. I know what you are trying to say there ("New York elitest snob critic") but one of the critics on my list came from Hungary! Location alone does not determine reputation.
Go back and re-read my previous post. Then try to find out one or two things about the people I name and read something by them. Try to understand why I might have them on a list to give someone who may be unfamiliar with the history of film criticism.
There is nothing wrong with you liking Ebert or thinking he is the best film critic you have ever read. But you wrote that he was the most notable film critic in the history of film criticism, and your reasons seem to be based more on the fact that he is well known and popular. Well, there are more film critics than the ones you see in rottentomatoes.com, and the views of the critics I wrote about have had a small impact here and there on what you see. I think you would be surprised at some of what they wrote (or in several happy instances, are writing).
Give them a chance, and see what you think.
And enjoy the journey! I remember the first time I read Kael and Sarris, and oh Lord, Bosley Crowther! You won't like all of them...but they may help you see film in different ways.
BTW, if you think Kael is bizarre, you may enjoy Renata Adler.
Take care and have more fun reading film criticism than you seem to have had up to this point!
I just double-checked the requirements for the Pulitzer, and while I am right about the country involved and magazine writers, I am slightly wrong about authors of books. It IS possible for the Pulitzer to be won by a reviewer whom has published a book, because it is awarded to one "general nonfiction book" per year.Perhaps you can tell me when a book that is a work of criticism or a work that is a collection of criticism won the Pulitzer. I can find nothing since at least 1993. That was the last year back that I looked.
Ebert won his 1975 Pulitzer for his newspaper criticism published during 1974.
Just clarifying a small point!
Maybe I should not say the most noteworthy - basically should have said most popular and recognized. The only one to win the Pulitzer.He said his favorite critic was Pauline Kael.
I don't even agree with him most of the time and he's not my favorite -- though he is the one who's writing style I typically remember or "go to" first if I'm debating on whether to see a suspect film.
My degree is in English literature, which you'd never guess by my grammar. One thing I learned about getting my degree in English is that the subject reduces one's own thinking to series of he said she said papers. I much preferred Philosophy and psychology buthad to select teachable subjects for the teaching degree.
I am a movie-goer not a film student or film art house person who particularly wants to analyze a film to death. I sure don't want to sit in a class to watch Ebert break down every frame of Citizen Kane.
I want my movie to work on movie going intent level. Dawn of the Dead is a gory horror movie that works on that level and movies MUST work on this level for me to enjoy it. For me music is similar. bob Dylan may have the best lyrics in the hostory of Rock musci but until he learns to eununciate I will never know what it is he is trying to say. I refuse to read liner notes -- learn to sing if you're a singer or give the song to someone who can.
I have read so many articles on Citizen Kane and have went back and seen it two more times. It's a solid film -- best ever -- well it's not in my top 100 and 1the made for TV 1985's Death of a Salesman IS. I think I have made my case for why -- but film criticism is obviously going to allude me because I refuse to fall all over myself for this film.
I will read some of the names you suggest assuming I don;t have to pay anything to read them. And hey no one has mentioned Leonard Maltin :-) At least his books get to the point :-)
Re: books by the critics, you should be able to find them in the musty shelves of your university or local library. Heck, even Bossier City has Kecrauer's "From Caligari to Hitler" and Haskell's "From Reverance to Rape"! Start with Bazin and Sarris (but you can never read too much Kael: "I Lost It at the Movies," "Reeling," and "When the Lights Go Down"). Good hunting!While I enjoy analyzing films frame by frame and sequence by sequence, I also enjoy just sitting down and watching a movie. You might be surprised at how sheerly enjoyable "Kane" is when you are a little older. Odd how a 25-year-old man's first film is basically a memory piece (the Mankiewicz script, I suppose), but like Proust, the viewer's age adds a little resonance to the work.
BTW, you're all wrong on Dylan :^). No liner notes needed to understand what he is saying in "Ballad of a Thin Man." Now, what it MEANS may be another thing....! I don't think he has a serious problem with enunciation until after the Christian phase (what was the album with "Jokerman" on it?). Too much touring and too many cigarettes? For a more relaxed Dylan singing style, check out "Basement Tapes", "John Wesley Harding" and "Nashville Skyline"; although every word of "Blood on the Tracks" is burned in my heart...no lyric sheet needed here!
An English lit major, eh? You know I am a middle-aged Secondary Education/English and Social Studies student in Louisiana! Long term goal is to be an English or Social Studies professor, but teaching high school kids about "Romeo and Juliet" and "A Separate Peace" for four or so years should not be too bad.
And if you are looking for a Leonard Maltin recommendation, I gotcha one right here! "The Great Comedy Teams" was published in 1970 or 71 in paperback by Maltin when he was just 17 or 18...his first book. Great essays on the great film comedy teams of the 20s through 50s. Best writing is on Laurel and Hardy, and Martin and Lewis, but wait til you read about (was it Clark and Johnson's, or Johnson and Clark's:) "Hellzapoppin'"! Long out of print, but if you can score a copy, I highly recommend it!
Enjoy the search! And if the reading gets a little too academic or long-winded (it won't with Bazin or Truffaut, I promise!), my advice is: See another movie!
.
Thank you! One of the reasons I enjoy this board so much is the different perspectives on film I can get. I've heard of "Tokyo Story" dozens of times, even seen it in the "Sight and Sound" poll. Never seriously thought about seeing it until it came up here a couple of weeks ago. Things like that.In my post you will notice a definite absence of German, Russian, Italian, Japanese, etc. film critics. There is still much, much more I can find on these perspectives, given time. But it is sure fun finding out more!
This is not the place where any of us is playing a professional reviewers, and most of us have our careers, jobs, families, etc. And yet I dare say so many interesting movies get mentioned here, that if one was to spend his life just following these recommendation - in American, European, Asian, who knows that else movies - one would walk away much enriched. Probably not agreeing with all the recommentations, but certainly much better off than simply visiting his muliplex every Sunday.I like the fact that after almost forty years of viewing good movies I can still come here and ask for a list of recommendations and get a long one - as was in the case of the Australian films recently. This is not a New Yorker, this is your neighborhood pub, where you meet people you like.
And of course after a while you know whose recommendations you want to trust.
I enjoy sharing what I do know with others, and I enjoy picking up information about things I do not know from everyone. It isn't that hard to read Roger Ebert, even in Shreveport! But just try to find some information on the latest Russian or French or German films! If it's not in "Film Comment", forget it! And the more personal view of films expressed here, the, as you put it "neighborhood pub, where you meet people you like"...yes, I enjoy that aspect very much.Even after a recent dustup with another inmate, I still read his posts...who knows what I can get out of them? He posted comments about a film today that makes me want to take my wife to see it!
You just never know what you can share in this asylum and from whom...if you give yourself the chance!
...I, too, didn't like it the first time. I thought it was a very dark and disturbing mood for a teen film. Then, the second time, it clicked into place. It's not intended to be a "teen" film, like Clueless (which is a wonderful, bubbly, frothy thing). Election is meant to be a very dark parody of middle America and middle aged men in particular with their lecherous habits that then ruin them (sorry about that sentence).Doug
Sorry but this film was not a teen flick nor was it targeted to teens when it was released. Victor doesn't even know what the hell the film is about.
No, the best! Though I don't much like genrefying art.Unrelentingly painful honesty of wit and vision. It's not ment to be moving, and it's not always exactly funny. But it's a continuously biting portrait of resentment and ambition and a great portrait of suburban, middle America.
...or in lower classes, or in other countries.clark
All of Payne's movies capture a slice of America, whatever their subject.
a
was superb, as was Ms. Clueless.
In fact, I thought some Oscar nominations should have been issued for both: she was an evil little thing, but made human by her positive traits, also.
Like Rico, I've seen it twice and shall re-visit it sometime again.
A very clever screenplay that keeps you guessing and entertained.
"Clueless" was a nice little piece of fluff: this is serious satire.
I have seen this twice and enjoyed it both times. It isd in my collection.
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 ]
