In Reply to: ... and you continue trying to insult my intelligence and that of other's here. posted by Audiophilander on November 5, 2001 at 16:07:09:
Like I said, '68 was a dud as far as The Academy was concerned. The fact that 2001 was not nominated (and Charly if you insist)but Rachel, Rachel, Funny Girl, Oliver, Romeo & Juliet were nominated for Best Picture says more about the Academy than the movies themselves.You did say that "Charley" won an Academy Award- but the truth is that Charly did not- the lead actor did in Charly. I never said anything about 2001 being a great film because it won an academy Award for special effects. You attempted to substantiate your claim for Charly's significance by stating that the film had won an Academy Award.
You are right about Charley- I did not read the "Venice Film Festival" part of the award title at IMDB and assumed it was the film you were talking about."but you forget that the first rule of good cinema is to entertain"
Forget ? Where can I find these rules ? Are you sure the first rule is to entertain ? Who decides what constitutes "entertainment" ?
I don't know why you would think anyone's jaw would drop when reading Wise's film credits- Sound of Music was nice, West Side Story was nice. Like I said- competent, but nothing he did makes him stand out as a director.
"You're kind of like the guy who farts in an elevator before stepping off while others are left to "ride it out." (I don't think so, there are others who often "drop" posts and never respond to replies, but I don't think that applies to you or me, slugger.)
And you're the kind of guy watching movies trying to find the feelers.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- No...I pretty much insulted you directly. - john dem 16:59:12 11/05/01 (15)
- ... with all the sophistication of Vicomte de Valvert from the well known Rostrand play. - Audiophilander 02:03:24 11/06/01 (13)
- Re: Dunno about that, 'Phlounder - Bruce from DC 07:08:25 11/06/01 (4)
- I stand by what I said about Star Trek - The 'Motionless' Picture in it's original form, ... - Audiophilander 09:15:07 11/06/01 (3)
- DVD? I don't have no stinkin' DVD. - Bruce from DC 13:19:32 11/06/01 (2)
- Letterboxing alone is worth the purchase - padreken 15:12:55 11/06/01 (0)
- Wha-? TAPE & NO DVD! [8^o] Why, you, you... infidel, you! Ye has risen from the dark abyss Outside! - Audiophilander 14:08:00 11/06/01 (0)
- If he wasn't so pedestrian, Wise would be the Checkered Cab of directors... - john dem 07:07:39 11/06/01 (1)
- Ah, but if only your Eyes weren't Wide Shut. (nt) - Audiophilander 09:20:28 11/06/01 (0)
- Not so impressive to me - orejones 05:54:48 11/06/01 (5)
- Re: Not so impressive to me - demonica 00:39:56 11/08/01 (0)
- Robert Wise supposedly was forced to re-edit and re-shoot scenes for ... - Audiophilander 10:24:51 11/06/01 (1)
- You´re right: it was Carol Reed, not Karel Reisz. My mistake - orejones 03:18:33 11/07/01 (0)
- A minor point- - john dem 06:53:10 11/06/01 (1)
- Re: A minor point - orejones 09:09:27 11/06/01 (0)
- this reminds me of an old saw about alligators and draining swamps - late 18:20:48 11/05/01 (0)