 
|
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 |
In Reply to: "Jurassic Park III" posted by the-real-CarlEber on July 28, 2001 at 07:42:06:
SCUSE ME WHILE I DIGRESS BRIEFLY: Am I saying Jurassic 1 was better than Titanic, Braveheart, The Sixth Sense, Traffic, Fargo, or any other movie of the past 8 years that most critics "get off on"? HELL YES I AM! The First Jurassic is the number 5 movie of all time, from where I sit."
I had to read the above twice to make sure what I was reading was actually printed. Sadly, it remained clear and unwavering, even though my mind seemed to be swaying a tad bit just from the simple concluding sentence above. In fact, this rating of Jurassic Park as the number five film of all time combined with the notion that no better film has been made since the release of said blockbuster leaves me wondering about the intelligence of entering the Audio/Video Asylum for enlightened discourse on the subject of film.Obviously, the post was pure opinion...but still, I am at a loss as to how any human could state something of this notion; indeed, I can think of a few films this very YEAR that bettered Jurassic Park (pt. 1) in all ways except special effects, something that I usually rank low on the totem pole for reasons to attend a film. Besides the special effects of Jurassic Park, I felt the film to be about as deep and engaging as a trip to Coney Island for a double helping of cotton candy and box of Cracker Jacks. As said in other comments here, the film was good summer fun, much like listening to the 1812 Overture via a Krell system running on Wilson Grand Slams. For engaging the mind and soul, this movie, and the system in comparison, is likely to leave you feeling about as rewarded as sitting in a vat of flaxen seed (although there is something to be said of this).
But if you take a movie as simple as the wonderful You Can Count on Me, it makes the overstuffed Jurassic Park look like a lumbering, over-hyped, shock stick stimulii, vehicle it is, with plastic, stereotypical characters, cliche plot-line and villians, with the only redeeming features being the hapless beasts being used on the Island.
Even the little low-budget Memento, discussed below in this same forum, was a far more engaging and rewarding film that challenged the audience to use their skull contents rather than further strengthen the video game receptor zones located in the base of the skull that are excited by the Jurassic Park ilk. I will give that movie this much credit; the special effects regarding the dinosaurs were really top notch and on another level altogether. The film did rightly deserve the Academy Award (whatever that's worth) for this aspect.
It seems as if the-real-CarlEber is discounting most of the little, low budget movies that lack the real "pretentious pomposity" of the Hollywood-profit motive laden movies that inhabit most the screens across the US. Unfortunately, these are not the movies where you can test the Dolby soundtrack while hearing the roar of a Zero honing in on the USS Arizona, the explosion catapalting a car into a mid-air 360, or the howl of a Spinosaurus loping into a den of luckless fetal position humans.
Might I suggest attending a few more movies that inhabit a place slightly below the radar of the trailers previewed on Fox, TNT, and the ever-enlightening USA-Today.
kelly holsten
Follow Ups:
Not that I am surprised.As I said, I don't go to movies with dinosaurs in them, in the hopes that the beasties might play chess, dress up in Victorian costume, recite Keats, float about in the tree tops and karate chop each other, ask love advice of Oprah and Dr. Phil, or the like.
Perhaps, in questioning my intelligence, and in somehow implying that your thoughts are fact, and mine are simply a nothing opinion...you should allow yourself to mellow out a little. You could learn to be more open minded and tolerant of the views of others. I know that you will not...I'm not that stupid...I'm just pointing out the obvious.
And my knowledge of audio would supercede yours from a coma...so, yes indeed, I belong here. Wheras your pious bogotry and personal attacks do not. It's too bad that no one has taught you manners...
Contrary to your tile of post, and the misguided post of Dan G in relation to me, I actually have a fine understanding of the action-adventure genre and have loved many of that vein. Interestingly enough, I just rented Deliverance to show to my wife, who had never seen the movie. Now I admit, this is not the same catagory of action-adventure as Jurassic Park, indeed, it is heads and shoulders better in all ways, as it shows action, adventure, intrigue, human nature, horror, and yet does so without seeming trite and contrived, resorting to simple heros and villians with a wrapped up ending guaranteed to produce sequel after sequel.
Tolerent of others? I was simply expressing MY opinion and reactions to your statements concerning movies and the fact that not a decent movie (better than Jurassic Park) has been made since 93. Believe me, you made some pretty blanket statements, almost begging for a rebuttal given the nature of them. How anyone can say that Jurassic Park should rate as one of the top five films of all time is STILL a mystery to me, especially given the many other movies, even of that genre, that were far better and more developed. Yes, the special effects were good, but remove them and you have some pale leftovers. Granted, it would not be the same movie without them, but I am just pointing out the fact of how strong it really relies on this. Face it, the story was extremely weak.
I am still trying to figure out your line about the knowledge of audio. Frankly, it makes little sense even when read several times. Then again, the words "pious bigotry" derived from the content of that post of mine is a bit of a stretch as well.
What are some other action-adventure movies that I think ARE excellent? Well, stretching your interpretation of Action-Adventure, I think French Connection, Ronan, Jaws, The Great Escape, Midnight Express, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Goodfellas, Marathon Man,and even Die Hard.... all stand heads over Jurassic Park. That being said, I will say that I did find Jurassic Park at least entertaining..and a FUN SUMMER MOVIE... My contention with you was the absolute dismissal of so many movies and the rating of Jurassic Park in the Top Five of all time.
I still, despite your post, wholeheartedly disagree. Then again, it IS all opinion. Of course, some opinions can be more informed than others. And ironically enough, it is YOU that seem to be closed off to a variety of movies that you deem useless. See your quote and who is the real one that is exhibiting narrow minded pretense:
"...I like movies that avoid pretentious pomposity and excessive cuteness-for-the-sake-of-jaded-verbal-blather-for-blather's-sake...in other words, critics love these types of films, and I detest them...right along with the critics themselves. They all have the easiest jobs in the world, and yet are quite smug and unapologetic about their ill-gotten perks...and about being wrong all the time)."How do you interpret this quote as being open minded. Verbal blather? Is this what someone else might call DIALOG , one of the key factors in good drama, whether it be action, suspense, or drama? You have written off quite a few films my friend; indeed, you did not even mention the two I wrote about in my post; your post simply attacked me personally and provided no argument to support your statements.
kh
Look, if you think "Deliverance" is a better movie than Jurassic, then you're confirming what I suspected about your "lifechoice", shall we call it?...from the first sentence I read from you. It explains a lot.I don't need to waste my time justifying my words, which apparently affected you about as deeply as if YOU were the guy who had to squeel in "Deliverance", to you...because they speak for themselves.
We all like different movies, and if Jurassic is my favorite kind, then I restate my point: There's not been one since the first one that begins to approach it. Nothing YOU have said, or will say, convinces me otherwise, either.
I love the Die Hard movies, and feel the third in its series is quite good (almost as good as the first), but it does not approach the same realm as the first Jurassic.
I could have wasted several minutes and dug intellectually deeper (not that you could tell), but you are never going to see my point of view anyway, and that is fact...wheras I do see yours somewhat, and don't like it much.
Perhaps you earned a living writing for a small newspaper doing movie reviews at one time, and what I said struck a nerve? If that is the case, then get over it. Sucks to be you...
...indeed
kh
:(
You are fooling yourself if you think the goal of every film is to mentally stimulate you or wow you with fantastic dialogue or development.Some films are escapist fantasies ("fiction") designed to help us forget about "thinking" for a few hours and enjoy ourselves by living vicariously through screen characters. Their modern popularity attests to this success, and the public's desire for it.
If the goal of these films is to entertain, and they do it well, how are they any less masterworks of their genre than Art house films designed to intrigue and tease the mind that are similarly successful (and have a 95% sleep rate for me, personally)?
To filter all modern works through an elitist assumption about what a medium is or should aspire to is folly.
To see the-real-CarlEber excited about this film is great- that is exactly what any terrific film should do- excite and interest us!
Honestly I see no difference between his recommendation of this film and Victor K's recommendation of some obscure Italian art house flick from the 40's - both were inspired to recommend a film. Neither's taste should be questioned in absolute terms.
Please also remeber that the 100 or 200 Classic films people regard highly today are the product of an era that produced 10's of thousands of films (back in the day people went to the cinema several times per week, studios turned out flicks weekly). So comparing a modern movie to Rules of the Game (or some other masterwork of the past) is basically like comparing to the top .0001% of movies from that era.
Dan G.
You make very valid points, and I appreciate your objectivity here very much. Apparently, that is a rare find on this site...keep up the good work!
Yes, his review is PURE OPINION as are our responses, but to be fair isn't he as entitled to that level of enthusiasm? We should be able to share our differing viewpoints on film with greater decorum, don't you think? From my perspective, ranking movies is a VERY subjective process and I'm quite confident that everyone's lists would differ greatly. For instance, I'm a big fan of silent cinema, including the works of directors like Von Stroheim, Fritz Lang, Keaton, and Vidor, etc., and wide ranging Japanese, Chinese and European cinema of more recent vintage that's generally considered "art-house" fare, but I also like old Republic and Columbia serials from the 30's and 40's which have some of the most strained simplistic dialogue imaginable. The point is that I wouldn't want to rank genre against genre in a "best of" style run off because each form of cinema has it's own intrinsic value dependent upon the individual moods and motivations of it's audience.I'm not discounting obscure art house films by any means, but it seems like the defenders of this genre are often bitter about the lack of general public acceptance of their favorite small films. Admittedly, the major studios do little to promote these films and often they open at small venues in major metropolitan areas and then vannish within a week or two. Nevertheless, word of mouth can give a movie new life and intellectual quality needn't be sacrificed whenever elaborate effects are part of the production. IMHO, movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon prove that very point; the cream will rise to the top if it deserves to be there. Conversely, I don't know how many times I've gone to a critically acclaimed art-house film (Note: never, I mean NEVER go to a movie with the foreign pronunciation of food or attire mentioned in it's title) only to be bored to the point of nearly dozing off. Note: When you sleep through it you neither laugh nor cry, but you still kiss your bucks goodbye!
As far as "rewarding" movies, I would like to reiterate, for most people I have to believe that it depends on one's mood and tastes at the time. I would no more want to eat rich gourmet cuisine at every meal than I would want to chow down on an Egg McMuffin every day. Variety and different flavors are what makes food as well as movies a treat. At least that's my opinion. YMMV.
AuPh
***Conversely, I don't know how many times I've gone to a critically acclaimed art-house film (Note: never, I mean NEVER go to a movie with the foreign pronunciation of food or attire mentioned in it's title) only to be bored to the point of nearly dozing off.***Yeah, they need more predictability, violence, killing, car chases, special effects, and explosions...then you'll stay awake.
I like good plots as much as anyone perhaps more than most, but some of the highly rated heavily relationship-oriented melodramas are like 35mm doses of Sominex (i.e., in rare cases, major films like The English Patient and Altman's Pret-a-Porter, were undoubtably shot and released in 70mm Sominex)! Fortunately, my wife prefers action flicks over some of the bogus fare which passes for romantic intrigue or intellectual stimulation (i.e., for instance, we'd both rather see a lively Jackie Chan or Jet Li production than anything Merchant Ivory ever released).FWIW, I was hoping that my previous comment about "...movies with the foreign pronunciation of food or attire ..." would appear facetious; many foreign films are quite good in fact. However, a bad foreign movie is no better than a bad American movie and in the long run it still all boils down to personal taste.
AuPh
Meanwhile, this person has now resorted to personal attack after personal attack, calling me "stupid" and an "idiot." I find this highly ironic given the nature of the posts between the two of us and what he found unappealing about my original post.
By the way, I detest nothing more than a pretentious movie that rests on the shock and laurels of the art mystique without having any real substance. I have seen many that suffer from this malady. Then again, I do not write of the entire genre. It's many of the small independent film makers that have kept cinema alive. The Sundance Film festival award winners and honorees in the last 10 years are excellent examples of low budget movies that still have some honesty without pretense.
the-real-CarlEber has written off quite a lot of films with the simple application and push of SUBMIT. Indeed, it is his opinion. But an opinion so ground in stone deserves a rebuttal. My apologies to those that I offended.
kh
I am proud to be in the company of someone as articulate and open minded as you, Audiophilander. I don't appreciate Crouching Tiger the way you do, but I do appreciate the points you make, and they are well taken. You hit the nail right one the head!I agree, anyone who is miopic in their support of "art house" movies will be perpetually angry (because most people "don't get" that genre, and like you, might sleep through them), and I feel such an obsession does indeed stem from a false sense of superiority...from elitism, from bigotry.
If one craves intellectual stimulation from their entertainment, to the point that it must all be "high art", then I suggest that one is not being intellectually stimulated in the rest of their lives...thus their lives are a complete waste of space on this planet!
One should use intellect to contribute to society through producing something. One should not use intellect to impose self isolation by obsessing over such a small genre of cinema (as "art house" films), and then being angry that most people do not agree with them.
This is misguided and contrary. There's nothing honorable about being contrarian for the sake of being so, and then allowing it to breed anger and bigotry as Kelly does.
I once ran across another Kelly who was just as much of an idiot...but that must be a coincidence, right?
his Jurassic Park views are consistent with his inability to spell, punctuate, and write correctly.
piss judgement on me how? Cause you use spell check? As I've pointed out elsewhere, only little old ladies whine about spelling errors...and besides, I'd take you on any day of the week in any spelling contest you like, you little wuss. Pipe your pompousity back up where it came from!
not my fault that you can't spell, punctuate or write correctly. In addition, it's not my fault that these are some of the characteristics which define the imbecile, idiot and moron.
...is what epitomizes the whiner, the wuss, the pansy. I notice you had to get your little dig in only 10 minutes after I replied....GET A FU****G LIFE!I could write better than you from a coma, you little weener...and your own inadequacy is the source of your rage here...refill your thorazine prescription, before the other half of your pathetic excuse for a brain hemorrhages!
Why don't you stop while you're ahead here? Most of your retorts really damage your own position; you were far better off with more mystery surrounding your persona. In comparison, the unknown and unsaid speaks volumes more than the misspoken and ill-conceived. Of course, I am not saying to hold your tongue, as this forum should be open to all comers; yet must the tongue (keyboard) paint such a broad stroke, with the subtlety of a Stegosaurus floundering about in a bog?
When your blood pressure rises, the quality of the content, not to mention the spelling and grammar, goes further into the depths of mediocrity. You are right in that the occasional typo and misplaced word should go overlooked, especially in a forum such as this; yet when sentence structure, syntax, spelling, usage, and content all become riddled with misuse and errors, it starts to convey an inability to express yourself in a lucid fashion, something that does speak for intellectual capabilities, if not take-home salary.
Your insults become more petty and less creative, and just delve into personal attacks of the nature of a third grader on a playground who is not let on the Whirligig during the 10 O clock recess.
Yes, opinion counts for much, but there are some objective standards that pertain to even films that are in less stringent categories, designed only to entertain or bring in the ducats. Granted, I have been entertained by a few of this type, perhaps even Jurassic Park in some ways, but to lambaste the entire "art house" genre, simply because it fails to excite your senses, is really overstepping the lines of good reason.
I could imagine you watching Jim Jarmusch's first feature, "Stranger Than Paradise," and falling sound asleep, due to the one shot takes and sparse dialogue. Still, this is no reason to plow over all who appreciate the wit and deadpan script and production. My bet is you have seen very few films of this nature to pass a learned opinion on the entire genre. Still, it is your every right to do so and so you do.
Frankly, I dont know why I wandered in here (this thread) again. Maybe I saw ole Rich's name and wondered what succinct morsel he had let fly. After reading another one of your responses, I found myself drawn in yet again.
I guess I should have learned something in the last exchange.
kh
pontificating that I somehow don't earn enough money to be intelligent? Gee mr. mobile homeless, I thought it was you who evolved from a trailer park (what with your name and all).Could it be that you are envious that my thread has gotten more responses than any of yours have ever gotten? Nahh, you're not that shallow...
"Of course, I am not saying to hold your tongue"...oh really? Bullshit...you're a liar.
OH, AND MY BLOOD PRESSURE IS LOWER THAN YOURS OR ANYONE'S HERE...but thanks anyway for appearing to pretend to be concerned about my health.
And btw, mr. Lucid, what's a "Whirligig"...is that a merry-go-round, but in fairyland?
The idea that you would imply that I am illiterate, that I don't know how to use syntax....this is all simply an attack on me personally, and has nothing to do with anything I have said about films. You know it, I know it, and the American people know it!
And besides, who in hell are you to criticize me personally, or to hint that I should hold my tongue (whenever someone like you says, "not that you should do such and such"...the last thing you mean is "not")?
I bet if we were standing face to face, you would not be so inclined to make such observations aloud...(And if you can't follow THAT syntax...perhaps natural selection will come knocking at your door soon, you never know!)
Both you and your bed buddy Rich are pathetic. When either of you (not that I don't know you're the same little fool) have something that's actually substantive to say about the Jurassic Park series, it might be worth reading...but I doubt it. Slither back to your small town newspaper, where you feel more comfortable talking about film with whomever might be interested in what you have to say.
Criticize my syntax and spelling all you like, I welcome it, I'm not perfect...it's your way of coping with the fact that you can't adequately dispute my thoughts about films...I understand, really.
So go dream your "Deliverance" butt-rape dreams, and be happy, my little super freak.
You might have noticed that my responces to you contained alot of sexual references and inuendos. The reason is and I'll be the first to admit this is that I'm sexually confused. I admit it, when you first signed your name I thought you were a girl. Kelly is a girls name afterall. The thing is now I don't care. I find myself strangely attracted to you. You are smarter than me and I am going to assume that you make more money then I do.That pretty much means you could support me both financially and emotionally.
If you're interested, please email me privately. Maybe I could kick your ass and maybe I don't care anymore. I want you and that matters the most to me. My hope and dream is that you feel the same way.
And that's something the two people above won't do. Why? Who knows. Who is the imposter? Only a real hacker, or a moderator, could know. I do not.My mistake was not checking the little box (like I just now did when I changed my moniker) so that no one could pose as me (not that some Asylum insider couldn't skirt their rules as they wish...I have a history of pushing them into such behaviour at other sites.)
I admit, the above is quite humerous, and I did find it funny. It does almost look like something I could have posted, so bravo, mr. or miz imposter. However, IT'S THE LAST TIME YOU CAN IMPERSONATE ME...and I apologize to the dozens of others who I am sure would have also loved to try, but now you won't "officially" get your chance.
So true as well. There is no absolute reference for what is good or bad music/film etc. But I wish there where more films inbetween the joke a minute/pop culture/slick Hollywood film and the often boring "Art"/Pretentious movies. Music on this planet has enough diversity. Film however is not representative of the talent that is around. I suppose this is primarily caused by the high costs?
(nt)
From my point of view that is ofcourse.
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 ]
