Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Films/DVD Asylum

Hey Clark, you'll want to read this.......

216.196.176.121

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

In Reply to: Agreed, Carey was excellent and proved, when he's well posted by tinear on March 29, 2006 at 15:59:50:

Posted by tinear on 2005-12-07, 14:28:37 (4.254.154.36)
"You haven't read much about how direction works, have you?
If you think actors that are stars, such as those I mentioned, kowtow to screenwriters (hardee har har) or directors you're too far beyond the pale to educate."
I guess Jim Carrey does not qualify as a star.

Follow Ups:

Out of context alert, out of.... nt - tinear 06:55:58 03/30/06 (0)
as
Leave the film commentary to those who have a clue, thank you very kindly. - Donald 04:34:28 03/30/06 (24)
You and Clark are fuckin' idiots. Reactionaries cretins with no taste.
- "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." -- Eric Hoffer nt - clarkjohnsen 06:45:03 03/31/06 (1)
  a
  - Do you post that as an explanation for your weak missives? -nt- - Donald 20:58:36 03/31/06 (0)
    /
- Re: Cliff, leave the film commentary to those who can read - jamesgarvin 06:00:03 03/30/06 (21)
  (1) I never offered any commentary of the film
  (2) I am glad to see you are expanding your vocabulary from the big words you usually use in an attempt to convince people you are more educated than you really are. Read: The real Donald shines through.
  (3) Whatever has caused you so much pain in your life, be it lack of respect at work, socially, or educationally, I hope that it ends, and you find some balance in your life.
  (4) "Reactionaries cretins" is a double possessive, and improper gramar.
  - Re: Cliff, leave the film commentary to those who can read - Donald 07:05:40 03/30/06 (20)
    I never said you did comment on the film. I clearly meant you're ill-equipped to offer satisfactory commentary on any film, as you prove every time you post.
    And I apologize for not proof-reading my post before submitting. However, pettily pointing out such gaffes is a rather shameless way to change the topic and to disguise your lack of anything intelligent to contribute. Such an obfuscation can't mask your ineptitude and intellectual bankruptcy, which makes such a chastisement such as the one in your header all the more amusing.
    - I could ask for specifics, but then... - jamesgarvin 07:38:00 03/30/06 (15)
      "I clearly meant you're ill-equipped to offer satisfactory commentary on any film, as you prove every time you post."
      You would never supply them. Case in point. Not too long ago, you criticized Ebert for basically being a populist. I then challenged you to list critics you respected. You name two that I recall, Sarris and Rosenbaum. I then provided you statistics that demontrated each of those critics were almost identical to Ebert on the percentage of agreement in their reviews among national critics, and that for each, they praised 60% of Ebert's top ten for 2005. Your response? None.
      So please, put down your dictionary, step up to the plate, and provide specifics. You know, actual work.
      - Sorry, I missed your stats proving Ebert the aesthetic and literary equivalent of Rosenbaum. - Donald 07:44:02 03/30/06 (14)
        
        In Reply to: I could ask for specifics, but then... posted by jamesgarvin on March 30, 2006 at 07:38:00:
        
        You didn't really post such an asinine thing, did you?
        
        Re: Sorry, I missed your stats proving Ebert the aesthetic and literary equivalent of Rosenbaum. - jamesgarvin 08:47:08 03/30/06 (13)
        
        In Reply to: Sorry, I missed your stats proving Ebert the aesthetic and literary equivalent of Rosenbaum. posted by Donald on March 30, 2006 at 07:44:02:
        
        Way, way, way back in January of this year. Memory retention can be useful. You should try to increase yours rather than spend your waking hours with your nose in the dictionary. Asinine? Maybe. But I'm willing to do what is necessary to prove that your comments and statements are unsupported, and as hollow as the head from which they emanate. You seem to confuse opinions with reasoning and analysis. You know, cognitive thought. Me thinks you are the Cliff Claven of these boards. And I am still waiting your support for the declarative statement you made in your last post.....
        
        "You are the Cliff Claven of these boards." But Cliff was an amusing chap... nt - clarkjohnsen 06:47:22 03/31/06 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Sorry, I missed your stats proving Ebert the aesthetic and literary equivalent of Rosenbaum. posted by jamesgarvin on March 30, 2006 at 08:47:08:
        
        a
        
        I didn't forget your post, I never saw it to begin with. Please learn to read. - Donald 00:04:51 03/31/06 (11)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Sorry, I missed your stats proving Ebert the aesthetic and literary equivalent of Rosenbaum. posted by jamesgarvin on March 30, 2006 at 08:47:08:
        
        I remember that thread, but you must've come back to post your stats or whatever after I thought the discussion was over.
        
        Well, now you have another opportunity.nt - jamesgarvin 08:18:41 03/31/06 (10)
        
        In Reply to: I didn't forget your post, I never saw it to begin with. Please learn to read. posted by Donald on March 31, 2006 at 00:04:51:
        
        nt
        
        How so? I don't see any stats or facts, just limp assertions that Ebert's as good. - Donald 20:55:47 03/31/06 (9)
        
        In Reply to: Well, now you have another opportunity.nt posted by jamesgarvin on March 31, 2006 at 08:18:41:
        
        Of course, such matters are purely subjective and there can be no stats showing one critic is as good or better than another. I don't think either of us is likely to change his mind, our tastes are just too different. Which is perfectly fine.
        
        Weren't you the dork whining about others needing to learn to read? - Analog Scott 08:18:08 04/01/06 (8)
        
        In Reply to: How so? I don't see any stats or facts, just limp assertions that Ebert's as good. posted by Donald on March 31, 2006 at 20:55:47:
        
        Learn to read. The issue wasn't who was better but how similar their views were. That can be shown with stats. Duh.
        
        But their views are in diametric opposition, as anyone who reads them can see. - Donald 21:41:07 04/01/06 (7)
        
        In Reply to: Weren't you the dork whining about others needing to learn to read? posted by Analog Scott on April 1, 2006 at 08:18:08:
        
        There are no stats to show otherwise.
        
        Indeed, you do need to learn to read. - Analog Scott 09:47:48 04/02/06 (6)
        
        In Reply to: But their views are in diametric opposition, as anyone who reads them can see. posted by Donald on April 1, 2006 at 21:41:07:
        
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=films&n=43188&highlight=Sarris+and+Rosenbaum+Ebert&r=&session=
        
        Or maybe it is your math that is your problem. Either way you are wrong.
        
        There's no shovel big enough to haul away the amount of bullshit in James's post. - Donald 05:01:37 04/03/06 (5)
        
        In Reply to: Indeed, you do need to learn to read. posted by Analog Scott on April 2, 2006 at 09:47:48:
        
        He's even more of an intellectually dishonest asshole than I'd thought. Pointing out a handful of films that Ebert and Rosenbaum both like proves nothing. It would be more amazing if they didn't occasionally like the same thing. For every one film they agree on, one could cite many more where they don't.
        
        Let's look at some of these gems:
        Syriana - did not review. Probably not enough people in the audience for him to arrive at his own conclusions
        That's cute, implying that the most independent-minded of all film critics forms his conclusions off of audience responses. What a weak insult that alone shows James has no credibility or decency, and is not serious about making a reasoned argument.
        
        Robin Wood, James Quandt - Which obscure publication do they write for?
        Interpretation: "I've never heard of them, therefore they can't be any good." Not having heard of these two greats shows James's towering ignorance. They've both written many superb books and Wood publishes the first-rate magazine Cinema Scope. Check it out.
        
        Toni Raynes - I can find fourteen reviews she has authored. She is one of your favorites? How long does it take you to read fourteen reviews? And finally, must a professional film critic actually watch films and then commit finger to keyboard to actually be a critic?
        Oh, here James thinks he's being cute by changing Tony's y to an i and calling him a girl. Real classy. Why does James assume that because he can only find fourteen reviews that there aren't any more? Tony is a highly esteemed film scholar, who's written many books and done DVD commentaries, and most of his writing just isn't on the web for James to conveniently google. Too bad.
        
        Donald Ritchie - Mr. Obvious says that this must be you, because you like to read your own verbiage. Clue - writing perfunctory one-liners does not make you a film critic.
        This one takes the cake. Ritchie has written exhaustive, universally praised film studies like A Hundred Years of Japanese Film: A Concise History , The Films of Akira Kurosawa , Ozu , among many others, and James has the audacity to claim Ritchie writes one-liners.
        
        Scott, your posting the link to this ill-informed trash reveals a lot about you. Do you really think James makes a strong case? He comes across as even more of snot-nosed philistine, wallowing in his ignorance and hurling childish insults against people whose work he doesn't have the slightest clue about. The man clearly knows nothing about about film or film criticism and I fear debating such a person is a waste of time. Feel free to align yourself with this hopeless middlebrow if you must.
        
        Re: There's no shovel big enough to haul away the amount of bullshit in James's post. - jamesgarvin 06:39:06 04/03/06 (4)
        
        In Reply to: There's no shovel big enough to haul away the amount of bullshit in James's post. posted by Donald on April 3, 2006 at 05:01:37:
        
        Now that I am back in town, I'll respond. As Scott states, you have difficulty reading. This thread was about Rosenbaum and Sarris. The numbers I posted were about Rosenbaum and Sarris. Digressing, my comments about the obscurity of the other critics you referenced was not meant to be disparaging toward them. Rather, how can anyone assess their credibility and/or abilities if the critics writings are not widely disseminated? I inadvertantly changed a "y" to an "i". It was an accident. I feel sorry for you that your life is such that you constantly focus on the negative. You need to relieve some aggression.
        Now, to Rosenbaum and Sarris. You alleged that Ebert was low-brown, etc., in his film recommendations. Predictably, you did not cite any specific evidence to support your argument. Because, Donald, you never do. You confuse use of big words with intelligence. Intelligence comes from being able to analyze. It is what separates us from animals.
        So I chose to analyze for you. I demonstrated that Sarris and Rosenbaum agreed with the "mass market" almost as much as Ebert, and that they agreed more often than not. I even pointed out that Rosenbaum sang the virtues of "The Bad News Bears." High-brown entertainment, that is. Which leads to the conclusion (there I go thinking again) that you either do not read Rosenbaum and Sarris, or you do not like Ebert for reasons that having nothing to do with films, or you read Rosenbaum and Sarris but do not comprehend or remember their reviews.
        And guess what? You have now had a second opportunity to provide evidence to support your arguments, and, for a second time, failed to do so. The statistics bear out, once again, that Rosenbaum and Sarris are as mass market as Ebert. To this, Donald, you have yet to reply. And before you begin the next time to submit a critics resume', you should read Ebert's resume. Significantly more impressive.
        
        Saying they're mass market is meaningless. - Donald 06:48:12 04/03/06 (3)
        
        In Reply to: Re: There's no shovel big enough to haul away the amount of bullshit in James's post. posted by jamesgarvin on April 3, 2006 at 06:39:06:
        
        The fact is Rosenbaum, Sarris, et al. write considerably more intelligently and with more insight than the average critic, Ebert included. One need only to actually read their reviews to see that. Citing stats observed on freakin' Rotten Tomatoes demonstrates nothing of significance.
        You've spent an inordinate amount of time looking at the things that don't matter. The actual reviews and ideas of the people we're discussing do. Now, there's nothing wrong in liking a middlebrow like Ebert. More power to you. Just don't get so bent out of shape that his middling efforts don't suit everyone else.
        
        Re: Saying they're mass market is meaningless. - jamesgarvin 10:11:20 04/03/06 (2)
        
        In Reply to: Saying they're mass market is meaningless. posted by Donald on April 3, 2006 at 06:48:12:
        
        Well, we seem to have made progress. You now admit (after seeing some numbers) that it is not Ebert's opinions of films that you disagree with, it is the way he writes. The purpose of writing is to communicate ideas, not to try to appeal to your intelligentsia friends. But we have made progress.
        Specifically: "it would be more amazing if they didn't occasionally like the same thing. For every one film they agree on, one could cite many more where they don't."
        Well, wrong again. First, as the numbers show, they agree far more than they disagree. Even when confronted with the numbers, you still make incorrect statements. One could cite many where they don't agree? Care to be specific? But then, why start now? Pontificating is easy, proving allegations is work. Why work when you can be a blowhard?
        Although, have now made progress: Donald : "He's not getting soft, he's always been a philistine and a champion of mediocrity."
        When confronted with the facts, you have now modified your tune. How about we play a game of logic, a class that many people who have college degrees were required to take: If Ebert champions mediocrity, and if Sarris and Rosenbaum generally champion the same films as Ebert, then Rosenbaum and Sarris also champion mediocrity. See. That was easy. Which explains why you still have yet to demonstrate why Ebert champions mediocrity. Because you cannot.
        Donald writes: "Giving a thumbs-up to a genuinely deserving film once in a blue moon scores him few bonus points. He's a hopeless middle-brow, respected only by others with similarly undemanding sensibilities and questionable critical faculties."
        Questionable critical faculties? Does this also apply to the same films Rosenbaum and Sarris review in which they agree? Or are the approximate 70% of the time they agree inconsequential in comparison to the 30% they do not agree?
        "The fact is Rosenbaum, Sarris, et al. write considerably more intelligently and with more insight than the average critic,"
        Odd you would use "fact" in a sentence, in that you would not know a "fact" if it jumped up and bit you on the petard. I know I am setting myself up for disappointment (not really, but it is more dramatic), how about providing some facts which support your argument (chuckles as he types, muttering "yea, right" under his breath)?
        "You've spent an inordinate amount of time looking at the things that don't matter."
        Well, it mattered enough for you to comment twice in your posts that Ebert champions mediocrity, then when I point out that Rosenbaum and Sarris generally champion the same mediocrity, you then claim that these things do not matter. We call that backtracking where I come from. I have spent time on this little topic. When I make an allegation, and cloak it as a fact, I generally feel I should provide evidence to support my statements. It is work. You should learn the meaning of the word.
        
        I certainly do disagree with his opinions, not just with the way he writes. - Donald 12:19:12 04/03/06 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Saying they're mass market is meaningless. posted by jamesgarvin on April 3, 2006 at 10:11:20:
        
        You can't look at a few reviews by both of them and conclude they have the same opinion. How many of Rosenbaum's reviews have you actually read? I've read hundreds, perhaps thousands by both of them, and it's overwhelmingly evident that they have very different tastes and attitudes. Which, again, is fine.
        Reading the reviews tells the story, not stats for randomly sampled reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Rosenbaum's reviews give me pleasure and offer insights into the medium, whereas Ebert's reviews do not. It's as simple as that.
        
        Re: I certainly do disagree with his opinions, not just with the way he writes. - jamesgarvin 15:34:30 04/03/06 (0)
        
        In Reply to: I certainly do disagree with his opinions, not just with the way he writes. posted by Donald on April 3, 2006 at 12:19:12:
        
        "You can't look at a few reviews by both of them and conclude they have the same opinion."
        Opinions and conclusions are two different animals. Their opinions may be different, but their conclusions, which are either to recommend the film or not, are, approximately 70% of the time, the same. Consequently, all three generally recommend the same films, most of the time. So I do not understand how Ebert recommends "mediocrity", and Rosenbaum and Sarris do not, when the latter two critics generally recommend the same films as Ebert.
        I do not read Rosenbaum or Sarris with regularity, though I do read them on occasion. I have found that their conclusions generally agree with Ebert's.
    - Dude, you are a joke. Is the comicbook guy your role model? - Analog Scott 07:28:52 03/30/06 (3)
      Pretentious wannabes are a dime a dozen. Get over yourself. Posturing doesn't make you look smarter.
      - Consider changing your monicker to JGD. - tinear 04:31:47 03/31/06 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Dude, you are a joke. Is the comicbook guy your role model? posted by Analog Scott on March 30, 2006 at 07:28:52:
        
        You know, James Garvin's Dingleberry.
        
        Still waiting for an intelligent reply.nt - jamesgarvin 08:19:44 03/31/06 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Consider changing your monicker to JGD. posted by tinear on March 31, 2006 at 04:31:47:
        
        nt
      - Worst. Flame. Ever. -nt- - Donald 00:05:32 03/31/06 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Dude, you are a joke. Is the comicbook guy your role model? posted by Analog Scott on March 30, 2006 at 07:28:52:
        
        /

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

You can not post to an archived thread.