Films/DVD Asylum

• Re: But Patrick, Bordeaux IS the best wine.... - Dave-A 09:23:31 01/04/07 (1)
  In Reply to: Best movie ever?--------------- posted by patrickU on January 3, 2007 at 12:27:02:

  either red or white. :)

  Later
  D
  
  

  ---

  • Re: 2005 will be oustanding! - patrickU 13:27:01 01/04/07 (0)
    In Reply to: Re: But Patrick, Bordeaux IS the best wine.... posted by Dave-A on January 4, 2007 at 09:23:31:

    But the white? Not really in Bordeaux. Their white are not that good.
    But in Burgundy....
    
    

    ---
• Tampopo (Cowboys, damsels in distress, love, food, sex, what more could you want?) NT - 4season 22:28:48 01/03/07 (2)
  In Reply to: Best movie ever?--------------- posted by patrickU on January 3, 2007 at 12:27:02:

  .
  
  

  ---

  • Loved it! The fight scene didn't have one karate or judo move to it! * - mr grits 15:42:59 01/04/07 (1)
    In Reply to: Tampopo (Cowboys, damsels in distress, love, food, sex, what more could you want?) NT posted by 4season on January 3, 2007 at 22:28:48:

    .
    Grits: "Rewarding, very, very, VERY REWARDING!"
    
    

    ---

    • Oh yes, dad to son: "Enjoy the Gestalt of the noodles". * - mr grits 15:44:55 01/04/07 (0)
      In Reply to: Loved it! The fight scene didn't have one karate or judo move to it! * posted by mr grits on January 4, 2007 at 15:42:59:

      .
      Grits: "Rewarding, very, very, VERY REWARDING!"
      
      

      ---
• Gotta be "Pretty Woman" - EBerlin 17:49:50 01/03/07 (0)
  In Reply to: Best movie ever?--------------- posted by patrickU on January 3, 2007 at 12:27:02:

  Gere and Roberts just shone together.
  
  

  ---
• I'd even argue that every "field" has many competitors. Except for sci-fi. - tinear 17:03:52 01/03/07 (10)
  In Reply to: Best movie ever?--------------- posted by patrickU on January 3, 2007 at 12:27:02:

  2001 has no peers.
  Solaris is second, not far back, but clearly not the cinematic equivalent.
  
  

  ---

  • Re: I'd even argue that every "field" has many competitors. Except for sci-fi. - patrickU 01:01:05 01/04/07 (4)
    In Reply to: I'd even argue that every "field" has many competitors. Except for sci-fi. posted by tinear on January 3, 2007 at 17:03:52:

    I would argue with you-not.
    But 2001...I never like this film, considering it a child of the seventies, a pop up for the eyes, a pseudo mysterious intellectual LSD trip.
    All my freinds, back then, loved it.
    I kinda felt frustrated to be the only one not to do so.
    Lately I catch a big part of it on TV...And it even unpleased me more than before.
    So my case is close on this one.
    
    

    ---

    • Re: I'd even argue that every "field" has many competitors. Except for sci-fi. - rico 08:26:34 01/04/07 (3)
      In Reply to: Re: I'd even argue that every "field" has many competitors. Except for sci-fi. posted by patrickU on January 4, 2007 at 01:01:05:

      Interesting that a film shot betwen 1965 and 1967 could be considered "a child of the seventies".
      
      

      ---

      • Re: I'd even argue that every "field" has many competitors. Except for sci-fi. - patrickU 09:07:32 01/04/07 (2)
        In Reply to: Re: I'd even argue that every "field" has many competitors. Except for sci-fi. posted by rico on January 4, 2007 at 08:26:34:

        Ok. Mid /Late Sixties.

        I mixe up with the date when I saw it, in France, as at the time SU production would arrive at least one year later.
        
        

        ---

        • I couldn't help but notice how that totally changed the argument... - Victor Khomenko 11:20:16 01/04/07 (1)
          In Reply to: Re: I'd even argue that every "field" has many competitors. Except for sci-fi. posted by patrickU on January 4, 2007 at 09:07:32:

          Well... not really.
          

          
          
          
          

          ---

          • Re: I couldn't help but notice how that totally changed the argument... - patrickU 13:14:17 01/04/07 (0)
            In Reply to: I couldn't help but notice how that totally changed the argument... posted by Victor Khomenko on January 4, 2007 at 11:20:16:

            Ha!
            
            

            ---
  • 2001 - 4season 21:46:40 01/03/07 (0)
    In Reply to: I'd even argue that every "field" has many competitors. Except for sci-fi. posted by tinear on January 3, 2007 at 17:03:52:

    I'm not sure where I'd put "2001" on my list, but it's certainly a standout IMO: A sort of icy beauty of a movie, and I think it's fundamental optimism still resonates.
    
    

    ---
  • "but clearly not the cinematic equivalent. " Wasn't meant to be. It is a thinker. - Victor Khomenko 17:42:53 01/03/07 (3)
    In Reply to: I'd even argue that every "field" has many competitors. Except for sci-fi. posted by tinear on January 3, 2007 at 17:03:52:

    I never get excited over the 2001... maybe forty years ago it would have been different. There is not much to think about there. The Solaris concentrates on people, it is petite Bergman set - accidentally - in a strange place.
    

    
    
    
    

    ---

    • Well, since you're anti-evolution... I can see your problem :-(. - tinear 04:53:15 01/04/07 (1)
      In Reply to: "but clearly not the cinematic equivalent. " Wasn't meant to be. It is a thinker. posted by Victor Khomenko on January 3, 2007 at 17:42:53:

      But Analog is right; in fact, 2001 gives the thoughtful viewer as great a smorgasboard of thought as any film: the origin of man, violence. The Pandora's Box of technology and science. The alienation of modern society. The threat of AI. The metaphysical sine qua non: Is there a God? What is the future of Man?
      I am astonished you'd criticize it in this regard.
      
      

      ---

      • Sorry, but the film does not go beyond a child asking some primitive questions - Victor Khomenko 05:55:37 01/04/07 (0)
        In Reply to: Well, since you're anti-evolution... I can see your problem :-(. posted by tinear on January 4, 2007 at 04:53:15:

        Both the book and film are incredibly shallow in that regard, not giving much to chew on. The mere fact those issues may be mentioned does not mean anything in itself. Their treatment is superficial, and the movie is indeed NOT about them, it is, as Patrick correctly stated, just an eye candy for the sixties crowd.

        The Solaris, OTOH, is about what makes us human, and the study is deep and tortuous, placing the film into an entirely different category.

        I stopped being fascinated with machinery in books and on screen when I left my teenage years, and instead slowly developed an appreciation for human emotions, sufferings, feelings, etc... all the things that are absent in the 2001.
        

        
        
        
        

        ---
    • Not much to think about? - Analog Scott 18:40:53 01/03/07 (0)
      In Reply to: "but clearly not the cinematic equivalent. " Wasn't meant to be. It is a thinker. posted by Victor Khomenko on January 3, 2007 at 17:42:53:

      I have to disagree with you there. arguably one of the most demanding movies of all time in that regard.
      
      

      ---
• 2046 * - mr grits 16:54:32 01/03/07 (0)
  In Reply to: Best movie ever?--------------- posted by patrickU on January 3, 2007 at 12:27:02:

  .
  Grits: "Rewarding, very, very, VERY REWARDING!"
  
  

  ---
• Blue. The Vanishing. nt - Duilawyer 14:56:38 01/03/07 (0)
  In Reply to: Best movie ever?--------------- posted by patrickU on January 3, 2007 at 12:27:02:

  .
  
  

  ---

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

Parts Connexion

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---