Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by RGA (A) on January 06, 2007 at 02:12:08

In Reply to: Re: First time - Hated it, second time - respected it but didn't like it, third time - in my top ten of all time. posted by Tom Brennan on January 5, 2007 at 09:03:28:

Now in film which is really a fairly low form of art IMO a few films tend to rise above it. Still Film is at crosspurposes because they are intended as entertainments first and foremost.

A great film SHOULD do both but it must always be entertaining first IMO.

Kubrick clearly has something to say about technology and about humanity. But he lets you interpret it the way you wish -- and you could just interpret as a colossal bore. First time I saw it that is how I felt.

I am not telling anyone they must like it - art is highly subjective - tell me why Jackson Pollack is so great or Andy Warhol because I don't particularly get it.

Art like comedy are two areas that simply rely upon personal taste - I do not find Jim Carey funny but Rowan Atkinso can make me roll of the chair in hysterics (Guess which one makes 20 million per movie) -- Clearly I am in the minority.

Plenty of people rave about the Mona Lisa (big deal ho hum to me) the movie 81/2 is self indulgant meaningless tripe in my opinion - Citizen Kane IMO is trying too hard to be important and the visuals self indulgent making it a good but vastly overrated film.

You don't like 2001 - well hell I compared it a bit to Waiting for Godot -- which is blasted by a large segment of the literary community. 2001 is a classic -- but that word implies that people ought to find it "Good" -- it does not. Lord of the Rings will probably be a "Classic" down the line -- and IMO these three films are 9 hours of pure tedium.