Films/DVD Asylum

• Toby Hooper - Ted in NJ 14:50:11 03/14/02 (0)
  In Reply to: The worst directors posted by danj on March 13, 2002 at 00:04:13:

  Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn't that scary, but it's the UGLIEST movie I've ever seen.

  And I thought the beginning of Poltergeist was very good, but it just went weird and stupid in the second half. What was shaping up as a good movie ended up being trash.
  
  

  ---
• David Lynch - Bolt_Snypr 07:46:45 03/14/02 (6)
  In Reply to: The worst directors posted by danj on March 13, 2002 at 00:04:13:

  Just Joking!! hehe, sorry if I upset anyone! :P
  
  

  ---

  • Re: David Lynch - SR 09:30:42 03/14/02 (5)
    In Reply to: David Lynch posted by Bolt_Snypr on March 14, 2002 at 07:46:45:

    Frankly I think his hype far exceeds his work. I recently watched Elephant Man and Blue Velvet again. Elephant Man was much weaker than I had remembered it, and Blue Velvet was just quirky. Weird alone does not equal good. I don't think anything else he did can touch those two.

    
    Steve

    
    
    

    ---

    • Yes...one word...Dune (NT) - pcnot 08:48:57 03/19/02 (0)
      In Reply to: Re: David Lynch posted by SR on March 14, 2002 at 09:30:42:

      nt
      
      

      ---
    • Re: David Lynch - chris c 10:47:15 03/14/02 (3)
      In Reply to: Re: David Lynch posted by img on March 14, 2002 at 10:47:00:

      You may want to check and see if you have a pulse. Mullholand was excellent.
      
      

      ---

      • Re: David Lynch - SR 13:18:25 03/14/02 (2)
        In Reply to: Re: David Lynch posted by chris c on March 14, 2002 at 10:47:15:

        Actually I haven't seen Mullholand. After the Twin Peaks/Fire Walk With me rehashes ad nauseum of Blue Velvet style filmaking I lost interest in Lynch. The only reason I watched BV and EM again recently is they appeared on cable TV when I couldn't sleep.

        Steve
        
        

        ---

        • Re: David Lynch - Bolt_Snypr 14:29:22 03/14/02 (0)
          In Reply to: Re: David Lynch posted by SR on March 14, 2002 at 13:18:25:

          I agree, after watching BV about 10 times, I'm ready to give it a break for about year or two. I'm interested in checking out Mullholand. (Thanx)
          Bolt
          
          

          ---
        • Re: David Lynch - chris 13:46:10 03/14/02 (0)
          In Reply to: Re: David Lynch posted by img on March 14, 2002 at 13:45:55:

          Well, you should watch Mullholand - while retaining some recognizable traits of is previous films, it is different enough that I think you would like it - a few people I know who aren't Lynch fans really liked Mullholand.
          
          

          ---
• Re: The French Ed Wood - Max Pecas - Jeff Starrs 06:55:00 03/13/02 (1)
  In Reply to: The worst directors posted by danj on March 13, 2002 at 00:04:13:

  If you can read french, here's some commentaries on his...er...films:

  " réalisation plaie sans Invention " (Le cercle vicieux, 1960), "un film odieux, qui fait honte au cinéma " (Douce violence, 1961), " Voilà le type même du film opium, comme on en tournait il y a vingt ans sous le régime nazi " De quoi tu te mêles Daniela ? 1961), " Le seul mérite des films de Pecas demeure leur devis, très bas, au niveau même du talent du réalisateur " (Cinq filles en furie, 1964), " Banalité et médiocrité " (La baie du désir, 1964), " Jadis, Monsieur Pecas ratait ses films, Il les rate toujours aujourd'hui " (L'espion est à l'affût 1966), " Max Pecas fabrique à la chaîne et en un temps record de laborieux films de fesses tous empreints d'un identique "j'menfoutisme"... il escroque le spectateur " (Une femme aux abois, 1967), " Naïveté du regard, conformisme absolu de la mise en scène " (La main noire, 1968), " " Appuyez sur le déclencheur et le film s'impressionnera quand même " (Claude et Greta, 1969), " D'une stupidité Insigne et réactionnaire Interprété par des acteurs n'ayant visiblement pas eu le temps d'apprendre le texte " (Je suis une nymphomane, 1970), " A ce point de ridicule, le film prend une dimension nouvelle et s'offre alors comme un divertissement réjouissant " (Comment le désir vient aux filles, 1972), " L'ensemble reste au niveau de la récupération des stéréotypes et les dialogues lamentables soulignent l'absence de travail " (Club privé, 1973), " Goût douteux et niaiserie. (Sexuellement votre, 1974), " La pire convention dans ce mélange sexes-bouches . (Les mille et une perversions de Félicia 1975), " Naïf et rudimentaire (Luxure, 1976), " L'inanité de cette comédie qui a dix bonnes années de retard " (Marche pas sur mes lacets, 1977) " Mièvrerie désuète et fade pochade " (Embraye, Bidasse ça fume, 1978), " Le spectateur a été oublié ,et c'est vraiment se moquer de lui que de présenter un produit réchauffé " (On est venu là pour s'éclater, 1979)...

  
  
  

  ---

  • Re: The French Ed Wood - Max Pecas - danj 23:54:07 03/13/02 (0)
    In Reply to: Re: The French Ed Wood - Max Pecas posted by Jeff Starrs on March 13, 2002 at 06:55:00:

    My French is very rusty. I used to live in Italy but rarely spoke French there. What I did know was of the high school variety - just enough to keep me from trouble........

    I did manage to get the general meaning of the reviews. Sounds like if a Pecas film ever comes on cable, I would better spend my time waxing my automobile or taking a nap.

    Could he possibly be as inept as Ed Wood? That is a tall order as Wood is the paragon of ineptitude.
    
    

    ---
• Christopher Cain for "Gone Fishin' " nt. - highendman 05:56:50 03/13/02 (1)
  In Reply to: The worst directors posted by danj on March 13, 2002 at 00:04:13:

  .
  
  

  ---

  • Arrrrrgh, thanks for reminding me of that horrible film. - TAFKA Steve 16:56:28 03/13/02 (0)
    In Reply to: Christopher Cain for "Gone Fishin' " nt. posted by highendman on March 13, 2002 at 05:56:50:

    Thanks...for nothing!!!
    
    

    ---
• Michael Bay. - TAFKA Steve 03:30:15 03/13/02 (5)
  In Reply to: The worst directors posted by danj on March 13, 2002 at 00:04:13:

  Granted, he brings a lot of people into the theaters with his "hungry man TV dinner" style of macho entertainment. But his films give me headaches.
  
  

  ---

  • Re: he's a serious jerk too - sjb 11:29:25 03/13/02 (0)
    In Reply to: he's a serious jerk to posted by img on March 13, 2002 at 11:29:00:

    EXTREMELY abusive to crew members and EXTREMELY arrogant.
    
    

    ---
  • "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is a lot more entertaining than "Pearl Harbor" - Rob Doorack 07:20:40 03/13/02 (1)
    In Reply to: Michael Bay. posted by TAFKA Steve on March 13, 2002 at 03:30:15:

    There's so much inadvertently hilarious stuff in most Ed Wood movies that they reward multiple viewings. On the other hand watching "Pearl Harbor" twice would probably cause permanent brain damage. The half - hour of the actual attack was OK but the rest was awful.

    The difference between Wood and Bay is that Wood passionately believed in what he was doing and sincerely loved movies. He was doing the best he could with his limited budgets and miniscule talents. Bay is just a cynical hack.
    
    

    ---

    • Re: "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is a lot more entertaining than "Pearl Harbor" - danj 00:00:53 03/14/02 (0)
      In Reply to: "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is a lot more entertaining than "Pearl Harbor" posted by Rob Doorack on March 13, 2002 at 07:20:40:

      What PEARL HARBOR needed was a scriptwriter who wasn't so educated on movie cliche. I don't think there was a single cliche that movie didn't contain. I half expected Rochester to drive by in Mr. Benny's ancient, wheezing Maxwell automobile towing the Keystone Cops as directed by Roger Korman. (Actually, that would have been better than the non-attack parts of the actual movie.)

      Wanna see a good movie about Pearl Harbor? FROM HERE TO ETERNITY or TORA-TORA-TORA should fill the bill. Even the old tv miniseries PEARL, with William Devane was better.

      And my wife thinks PEARL HARBOR is one of the best films of 2000! It's pointless to argue.
      
      

      ---
  • Michael Bay is a twit - Lasermeister 04:56:06 03/13/02 (1)
    In Reply to: Michael Bay. posted by TAFKA Steve on March 13, 2002 at 03:30:15:

    I don't watch a lot of recent films but have been unlucky enough to see some of this fellow's efforts. Armageddon was one of the three worst films I have ever seen, and I don't even want to think about watching Pearl Harbor based on the ads I saw on TV (and the reviews).

    But Bay's co-collaborater in crapola, producer Jerry Bruckheimer, deserves just as much criticism for his role in the creation of these mountainous piles of garbage. Actually, he deserves more, because he is the one responsible for hiring human chimp Bay in the first place.

    Todd
    
    

    ---

    • Pretty funny editorial re: Jerry Bruckheimer - brewthunda 10:21:31 03/13/02 (0)
      In Reply to: Michael Bay is a twit posted by Lasermeister on March 13, 2002 at 04:56:06:

      Seanbaby did a couple of pieces ripping into Jerry Bruckheimer films over the last couple of years. This stuff is extremely funny: http://www.seanbaby.com/cleveland/part1.html

      and if you feel up for tolerating some true Bruckheimer-inspired insanity, check out this: http://www.seanbaby.com/stupid/comic10.htm
      

      • http://www.seanbaby.com/cleveland/part1.html

      
      

      ---
• Joel Schumacher..........nt - michael w 02:54:48 03/13/02 (0)
  In Reply to: The worst directors posted by danj on March 13, 2002 at 00:04:13:

  .
  
  

  ---
• Re: The worst directors - mikenyc 02:31:51 03/13/02 (1)
  In Reply to: The worst directors posted by danj on March 13, 2002 at 00:04:13:

  There used to be a time...and it's hard to believe...when the general public didn't know squat about a film's director life, and couldn't care less if there WAS a film director. All that was of concern to the public was The Film Experience.

  Today it's somehow very important, who is a good director or isn't, and all of the detailed, intimate and inconsequential information about their personal lives! And what they..."think" and "feel" about this or that. It's a load of crap.

  As Oliver Stone has stated The Theater used to be what Film is today in our lives, and that's what killed The Theater.

  Film Schools killed Film.

  I love the Ed Wood's and Arch Hall, Jr.'s and the John Water's.

  Their special brand of filmmaking is antithetical to, and mocks the very hypocrisy of the Personality Cult-ture, that trivializes the Film Viewing Experience...which is why we are even "talking about" this current crop of traffic cops, egomaniacs, and publicity hounds in the first place!

  
  
  
  

  ---

  • Re: The worst directors - danj 00:04:11 03/14/02 (0)
    In Reply to: Re: The worst directors posted by mikenyc on March 13, 2002 at 02:31:51:

    I'm talking only about the "quality" of a director's work. That's really all that matters, really. I could care less if some guy thinks some director is bad because he's a "jerk." That's so pointless.
    
    

    ---
• Ron Howard - Dmitry 00:23:35 03/13/02 (6)
  In Reply to: The worst directors posted by danj on March 13, 2002 at 00:04:13:

  Oh, yeah!
  
  

  ---

  • Can't agree... - SR 09:25:50 03/14/02 (0)
    In Reply to: Ron Howard posted by Dmitry on March 13, 2002 at 00:23:35:

    His track record is far from perfect(Backdraft, The Paper) but he's by no means the worst.
    I thought Coccoon was good and Apollo 13 was very good. I haven't seen Beautiful Mind but several people whose opinions I respect loved it.

    Steve
    
    

    ---
  • Re: Ron Howard - danj 00:05:49 03/14/02 (0)
    In Reply to: Ron Howard posted by Dmitry on March 13, 2002 at 00:23:35:

    I have to disagree. He's made some very fine films. Maybe he's not yet a George Stevens but his work keeps getting better. He's far from being the worst. IMHO
    
    

    ---
  • He did a really nice job with A Beautiful Mind. nt. - highendman 14:54:36 03/13/02 (1)
    In Reply to: Ron Howard posted by Dmitry on March 13, 2002 at 00:23:35:

    .
    
    

    ---

    • Re: He did a really nice job with A Beautiful Mind. nt. - michael w 21:25:50 03/13/02 (0)
      In Reply to: He did a really nice job with A Beautiful Mind. nt. posted by highendman on March 13, 2002 at 14:54:36:

      Too bad the film is typical Hollywood crap.

      Full of warm fuzzies with the darker side of the man carefully excised and banished from reality.

      Cunningly crafted with a view to winning awards ?

      The Academy always has a soft spot for disease of the week type material...

      
      cheerio

      
      
      

      ---
  • Re: Second that - chris c 06:57:28 03/13/02 (1)
    In Reply to: Ron Howard posted by Dmitry on March 13, 2002 at 00:23:35:

    !
    
    

    ---

    • Re: Second that - tHEDUKE 12:42:06 03/15/02 (0)
      In Reply to: Re: Second that posted by chris c on March 13, 2002 at 06:57:28:

      He's interminably boring. Howard's style, if one can call it that, is
      very linear, very conservative. He goes from A to B and that's it. He takes no chances. His subject matter is straight down the middle main-stream Main Street, all designed to make you feel good, fill you up with sentimentality and send you home with a smile. It's shrew, cynical Hollywood product. And he gets away with it...all the way to the bank.
      
      

      ---

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

VH Audio

---

[ 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 ]

---