Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 315

Thread: Controversial Cinema-Related Opinions

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Salinas, CA
    Posts
    403
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Controversial Cinema-Related Opinions

    I couldn't find a thread to spout controversial opinion on anything cinema-related, so, here you go: From actors, to films and directors, let us know if you have what might be deemed a "controversial" opinion regarding cinema. For starters, I have grown to strongly dislike the work of Paul Thomas Anderson: It started with "Punch Drunk Love" and grew with "There Will Be Blood." It seems that PTA has become so full of himself that he doesn't really need to be bothered with plot. Instead, he merely provides (at best) a loose narrative and (more often) random scenery on which actors can chew (see, for example, Daniel Day-Lewis). Now, with excerpts from his latest "masterpiece," "The Master," it looks like more of the same. Wow, a scene where Joaquin Phoenix takes a Rorshach test and sees pussy and cum in each image; how powerful. It's a shame as I enjoyed the quirks, and originality, of "Magnolia" and "Boogie Nights." Now it just seems like masturbatory bullshit, providing contrived "powerful" scenes in which actors can emote and garner Oscar/Golden Globe buzz and passing it off as "art."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    324
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Do we really need this? Like, separate from the 'Shitty Movies' thread, and just about every other thread in the forum? Your opinions are not controversial: they're, like, just your opinions, man.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    165
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    From what I gather, there's a thread for shitty music where people discuss what is shitty via the general consensus, whereas the "controversial music opinions" thread is where people can discuss not seeing the appeal in music that otherwise receives mass acclaim. This thread would be an analogue of the latter.
    Last edited by Aladdinsanity; 09-12-2012 at 11:00 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Salinas, CA
    Posts
    403
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Aladdinsanity View Post
    From what I gather, there's a thread for shitty music where people discuss what is shitty via the general consensus, whereas the "controversial music opinions" thread is where people can discuss not seeing the appeal in music that otherwise receives mass acclaim. This thread would be an analogue of the latter.
    Exactly: This not just for stating cinematic issues people dislike, but, also maybe things that they do like (but may not be that obvious). These are, after all, discussion forums. I take it if an admin. thought this redundant, they'd remove it. I often find it odd when people jump into a discussion forum to merely complain about its existence. If it's not your thing, simply move on and ignore. I've found some rather interesting discussions generated in the controversial music thread and was surprised that a similar cinema thread did not exist (I searched). I did not "shit on" all of PTA's work, I just don't get why he's being lauded for his more recent work which I find lacking. Hell, I'm sure there's someone out there that might think a movie like "Independence Day" was cool or that Michael Bay's work is great and might want to discuss it here. If not, move on and ignore this thread. Simple.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    324
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
    I've found some rather interesting discussions generated in the controversial music thread
    I haven't. But, okay: I'll play ball. (Did someone say you "shit on" all of PTA's work? I'm not sure how you so decisively swung back around onto that, with the quotes.)

    It seems that PTA has become so full of himself that he doesn't really need to be bothered with plot.
    What does that mean, 'so full of himself'? How is being full of himself connected to the style of plotting he used? Why should we consider a less conventionally-plotted movie as indicating that a filmmaker is 'full of himself'?

    Because while I won't see The Master until Saturday, I have seen Anderson's other work in question, and they were all definitively adorned with plot. He may have bent the rules of the three-act Hollywood formula, and it works to the films' credit. You are aware, are you, that there are other ways to tell a story, right? That the 'action leads to action leads to action' (action not as action sequence, but as characters doing and experiencing overt plot-related checkpoints) sort of thing, with protagonist is met/meets conflict/overcomes conflict being generally optional, right? Because if you're not, cinema's going to offer you omelettes and you're going to be stuck there eating Cap'n Crunch.

    What about the plot didn't work for you?

    Instead, he merely provides (at best) a loose narrative and (more often) random scenery on which actors can chew (see, for example, Daniel Day-Lewis).
    Do you have any examples of this looseness? Scenes that just seem thrown in so Daniel Day-Lewis can dominate the environment?

    Now it just seems like masturbatory bullshit, providing contrived "powerful" scenes in which actors can emote and garner Oscar/Golden Globe buzz and passing it off as "art."
    I'VE ABANDONED MY CHILD! I'VE ABANDONED MY CHILD! I'VE ABANDONED MY— wait, what are you even saying here? Are you suggesting that he wrote his recent films specifically up to and around these oft-praised sequences because he was fishing for statues? Day-Lewis co-wrote a lot of his dialogue; did they pass the script back and forth, writing notes in the margins "THIS IS GOING TO BE MY BIG SCENE" "YOU'RE GOING TO KNOCK 'EM ALL DEAD, D." "CHA-CHING!" (etc.) There's stuff like Daniel's baptism, the derrick explosion, Daniel's explanation of milkshakes and picking up a spare on Eli, but while these are very DRAMATIC! they're also clearly fixated on forward-motion of the plot and it feels a bit off-base to damn them as some kind of elitist pandering. Of course Anderson could have written the film so it simply flowed differently, but then we're getting into the great black hole of these debates, where what we're really talking about is the director's gall—the outrageous nerve!—to have his own ideas about how to tell his story.

    The perceived power of a scene is your own, and for me (and for others I've talked to—fans—re: TWBB), a lot of the more important, affecting moments are ones that draw less attention to themselves, are more character-driven. This isn't because the major dramatic moments aren't as good, but because they create kind of focused points in the story, sort-of bottlenecks, like, that the more low-key scenes later riff on and develop into the forward movement of the picture.

    So we tend to get into some trouble when speculating for whom someone was writing their film, or why.




    Anyway, because participation was important, here's something controversial: Johnny Depp is not a great actor! (anymore)

    It's true! I know it—I've seen his movies!

    Somewhere, I'm not sure where exactly—some may put it around the time of the first Pirates, but I think it probably stretches back to Fear & Loathing—somewhere Depp decided that he'd given up on reaching for the deeper, more interesting roles he played in the past, and focused instead on caricatures, becoming a kind of critically-lauded version of Jim Carrey, doing the rubber-faced thing and playing dress-up. Johnny Depp plays weirdos! Aren't these people weirdos? Johnny Depp really feels with, like, you know, the outcasts. The outsiders. And so he's going to fit himself into every molding hole Tim Burton tries to shove him in.

    And doing the ridiculous stuff would be fine, normally. An actor's entitled to that, and when they get stuck on a streak we can often chalk it up to type-casting and the general closing of doors that sometimes happens when an actor makes a big wave in some big, eccentric role. But Depp's done more serious stuff over the past decade, too, and while he's not bad, he has lost that old sensitivity that stitched him into the heads and hearts of characters and made him real and vulnerable and present in his great movies, and even in 'okay' stuff like Benny & Joon.


    Also: CITIZEN KANE IS BORING-ASS BULLSHIT
    (I don't really believe that, but someone's going to say it eventually.)
    Last edited by Corvus T. Cosmonaut; 09-13-2012 at 01:54 AM. Reason: Charles Foster Kane demands a larger font!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Exorcist The Heretic is ten times more entertaining than The Exorcist.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    And topically Tony Scott's The Hunger is ten times more entertaining than Ridley Scott's Blade Runner.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    192
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus T. Cosmonaut;46967

    Also: [SIZE=7
    CITIZEN KANE IS BORING-ASS BULLSHIT[/SIZE]
    (I don't really believe that, but someone's going to say it eventually.)
    it's funny because we now need to reprogram ourselves to believe another film is the best movie ever, Hitchcock's Vertigo. Imagine that! Citizen Kane isn't the best movie ever made anymore! Opinions rule!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,747
    Mentioned
    117 Post(s)
    Natural Born Killers is boring. No matter how I've tried, I can't watch the whole thing because I fall asleep during it. And I'm the biggest RDJ fangirl on the planet.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    2,031
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Citizen Kane does indeed suck. I hate being told by film snobs that I have to like something because "it's a classic."

    I don't understand the love and acclaim for 2001 either. I dig Kubrick but this is a boring movie.

    Also, in my opinion, Steven Spielberg has made three good movies (Raiders, Temple and Tintin). And the credit for The Adventures of Tintin being awesome goes to Jackson, Wright and Cornish. Before all of you even start:
    Jaws is a shark movie without a shark for 90% of the time. Jurassic Park is a movie about dinosaurs...with hardly any dinosaurs. Schindler's List is okay but much like Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg is cloying. His Native American name is OscarBaitTriesTooHard.

    If you need proof I'm not just a casual "I like it cuz shit blows up and there's tits" fan, here's my collection:
    Last edited by Swykk; 09-13-2012 at 09:54 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    2,031
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Segmentum Obscurus
    Posts
    255
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    I think The Godfather & Scarface are the two most overrated movies in all of cinema history, and I can't stand either one of them.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,829
    Mentioned
    756 Post(s)
    Okay, maybe this isn't a very "controversial" opinion, but I think Leonardo Dicaprio is a TERRIBLE actor.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Salinas, CA
    Posts
    403
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Corvus:

    You noted that we had a "shitty movie" thread and my opinion did not necessarily fit in that category: As previously mentioned, I enjoyed PTA's earlier work and I have begun to dislike his later work. Not just one movie; hell, "The Master" has yet to be released. Nonetheless, what they've chosen to release as a representation of this "powerful" new film does nothing for me: Not only does Phoenix talk about "pussy," he also trashed a toilet, wow! Rather than troll a thread dedicated to "The Master," I felt it more appropriate to have a separate thread. Again, if you don't find such discussion interesting, simply ignore. No need to feel obligated to "play." The thread will be okay without you, should you choose not to "play." As for "There Will Be Blood," it was a story that could have been told in 1/2 hour: Did we really need to see a long, drawn-out introduction of a man's obsession with an oil well (representing absolute power) by showing him break his leg and drag himself out all while going as long as possible without any dialogue? There were countless examples where scenes went overboard, establishing certain characters: Okay, we get it, Dano's preacher is a religious ham. PTA is becoming increasingly guilty of dragging out scenes, using cheap film tricks for their own sake ("look what I can do!") and is in need of a good editor. All I see from such films are actor's workshop scnearios that, again, allow said actors to over-emote, endlessly.

    As for Depp, he is hit and miss for me: His obsession with Hunter S. Thompson bores me. Wow, Depp, you met the guy and have a kinship. Great, go make two shitty movies about it. Another gripe: The first Pirates of the Caribbean was entertaining; everything after was simply a carbon copy. BTW, there should be a moratorium on another Depp/Burton collaboration.

    Finally, yes, Citizen Cane is boring...It has a lot in common with PTA flicks.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    I'm a fan of the entire franchise and hate the theme song as much as anyone, but Star Trek: Enterprise is the best TV series of the bunch, imho.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Salinas, CA
    Posts
    403
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazekiah View Post
    I'm a fan of the entire franchise and hate the theme song as much as anyone, but Star Trek: Enterprise is the best TV series of the bunch, imho.
    Heh, isn't that theme sung by Rod Stewart? Forgot about that...

    Oliver Stone is another director who left his best work in the 80's. Man, why make a sequel to Wall Street? Further, "Savages" was such crap. Wow.

    Also, as a genre, "Period Pieces/Merchant Ivory fims" bore the hell out of me. I don't think I've successfully made it through any of those.

    I dislike pretty much everything David Lynch has done. From miniature old people, to "The Wizard of Oz" metaphors: Another guy who seems like he merely wants to be weird for its own sake.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    324
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
    Phoenix talk(s) about "pussy"
    Cool, a broad judgment based on a clip shorter than 90 seconds, which represents .01% of the movie's run time and was specifically selected to play to the rambunctious audiences at the Alamo Drafthouse which would particularly appreciate such a clip. And when we get into the fact that the clip in question is reportedly both longer and different in dialogue and editing from the version of that scene that made it into the movie, we underline and highlight and bold and italicize the problem with judging the movie based on such a short clip.

    Now: we can look at this clip and see what the hell it's telling us. What we learn from the dispassionate disposition of the examiner, what we take away from Phoenix's vulgarity. Yep, he's saying 'Pussy' a lot. Why is he saying that? He's in some kind of psych exam, taking a Rorschach test or whatever. He doesn't seem into it, and his responses to the images are probably him trying to take the piss outta the whole thing. But of course that this is the way he decides to fuck around—seeing sexual imagery in everything and being so explicit about it—does in fact tell us about him, not just his attitude toward the test but what kind of person he may be that he responds this way. That's not a lot of information, nor is it even all that can be drawn from the short scene, but it's not bad for just 82 seconds.

    Or we can write it off as PTA showboating, which says more about you than it does the movie.

    As for "There Will Be Blood," it was a story that could have been told in 1/2 hour: Did we really need to see a long, drawn-out introduction of a man's obsession with an oil well (representing absolute power) by showing him break his leg and drag himself out all while going as long as possible without any dialogue?
    Yeah, certainly. One good analysis of the movie shows it as a five-act film, rather than three, with the prologue and mansion coda as existing outside the three core acts while crucially buttressing their story and structure. The opening scene shows us a decidedly un-corrupt, at this point, isolated, hard-working man in his (literally) blue-collar beginning, introduces H.W., and creates a contrast with what follows. Without this sequence, we immediately enter into Daniel Plainview, cunning businessman, and it fundamentally changes the character and how the audience approaches him.

    There were countless examples where scenes went overboard, establishing certain characters: Okay, we get it, Dano's preacher is a religious ham. PTA is becoming increasingly guilty of dragging out scenes
    Again, it's character-building, showing us not only Eli as a Charismatic, but as charismatic, with his relationship to Little Boston's people, something we don't really experience elsewhere in the film but for the baptism scene, which would without the earlier bit would play quite differently. We'd not have the contrast in setting, from the dingy chapel to this bright new one, and at that point Eli's performance would come off as strange at a moment we're intersecting story/character threads and not trying draw them out anew.

    So the scene ran too long for you? That's too bad. The whole performance is actually significant, and it's greatest weakness may be that Dano may have been trying to carry more than he could handle, as an actor, though I feel he did well enough. In fact, the sort of unconvincing performance there actually helps the scene and character by presenting him as a shyster, a detail not lost on Daniel watching from the door. Dano's not obviously 'over-emoting' if you have any experience with real tent preachers that work off essentially the same MO, today.

    using cheap film tricks for their own sake ("look what I can do!") and is in need of a good editor.
    Yeah? Examples?

    I dislike pretty much everything David Lynch has done. From miniature old people, to "The Wizard of Oz" metaphors: Another guy who seems like he merely wants to be weird for its own sake.
    He's not. He's, like, what you call an artist, and I'd direct your attention to two different but each very good (and long) write-ups on Lynch, among many:

    David Foster Wallace, writing in orbit of the production of Lost Highway, discussing, primarily, that movie, plus and especially Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks, and what it means to be 'Lynchian': http://www.lynchnet.com/lh/lhpremiere.html
    Quote Originally Posted by David Foster Wallace, tiny excerpt from near the end
    This is one of the unsettling things about a Lynch movie: You don't feel like you're entering into any of the standard unspoken and/or unconscious contracts you normally enter into with other kinds of movies. This is unsettling because in the absence of such an unconscious contract we lose some of the psychic protections we normally (and necessarily) bring to bear on a medium as powerful as film. That is, if we know on some level what a movie wants from us, we can erect certain internal defenses that let us choose how much of ourselves we give away to it. The absence of point or recognizable agenda in Lynch's films, though, strips these subliminal defenses and lets Lynch get inside your head in a way movies normally don't. This is why his best films' effects are often so emotional and nightmarish.
    Film Crit Hulk types in all-caps. It's just a thing. I'd like to say you'll get over it, but your takes on film suggest to me that you have trouble getting past the surface of material and grasping the substance beneath. So: you may not be interested in this one (not that I expect you to read either). http://badassdigest.com/2012/03/04/f...holland-drive/
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmCritHulk, excerpt from the intro
    THERE IS A POPULAR CONCEPTION THAT DAVID LYNCH JUST THINKS UP WEIRD SHIT AND PUTS IT IN HIS MOVIES. THERE IS ALSO A (FAR WORSE) POPULAR CONCEPTION THAT PEOPLE WHO LIKE HIS MOVIES EMBRACE THIS RANDOM WEIRD SHIT AS SOME SORT OF PRETENTIOUS RUSE TO SEEM SMART... IF YOU THINK EITHER OF THESE THINGS THEN HULK HEARTILY ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP READING. HOPEFULLY YOU WILL GET A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT LYNCH IS ALL ABOUT.

    THE FIRST PROBLEM IN PROVING THAT DAVID LYNCH ISN'T JUST DICKING US AROUND IS THE FACT THAT HE ACTUALLY PROPAGATES THIS "MY MOVIES ARE JUST WEIRD SHIT I THINK OF!" CONCEPTION HIMSELF. HE OFTEN TALKS ABOUT THE MOST STRANGE METHODS OF INSPIRATION AND EXTRAPOLATION. BUT THIS IS JUST BECAUSE HE NEVER, EVER WANTS TO DIVULGE HIS INTENTION. THIS SERVES THE VERY IMPORTANT PURPOSE OF LETTING HIS FILMS' INTERPRETATIONS "LIVE FOREVER" SO TO SPEAK. IT GREATLY ENCOURAGE DISCOURSE AND AFFECTATION. IT EVEN ALLOWS HULKS TO WRITE COLUMNS ABOUT IT! AND WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, HE JUST WOULD NEVER DO SOMETHING SO REDUCTIVE AS TO SAY "THIS IS WHAT I ACTUALLY MEANT."

    BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT DAVID LYNCH, FOR ALL HIS TANGIBLE WEIRDNESS, IS ACTUALLY A PRETTY SMART AND SELF-AWARE FELLOW. ONE WHO IS CLEARLY WELL-VERSED IN PSYCHOLOGY, SYMBOLOGY, DREAM INTERPRETATION AND CRAP LOAD OF SEMIOTICS. HOW DO WE KNOW THIS? WELL, FOR ONE, HE WENT TO PRESTIGIOUS PENN ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS IN PHILADELPHIA AND HULK PRETTY SURE THESE CONCEPTS MIGHT'VE COME UP A FEW TIMES.

    BUT FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE STUFF THAT ENDS UP ON SCREEN IS JUST TOO VIBRANT AND SYMBOLICALLY CONCRETE TO IGNORE. THERE IS A THROUGH-LINE OF LOGIC THAT PRESENTS ITSELF IN EARNEST. AND A MOST BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF COMMON LYNCH TROPES LENDS ITSELF ENDLESSLY TO INTERPRETATION... WHICH MEANS, NO, HIS FILMS ARE MOST DEFINITELY NOT A BUNCH OF WEIRD STUFF UP ON SCREEN.
    Last edited by Corvus T. Cosmonaut; 09-13-2012 at 07:06 PM. Reason: Dangling quote tag

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,634
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
    I dislike pretty much everything David Lynch has done. From miniature old people, to "The Wizard of Oz" metaphors: Another guy who seems like he merely wants to be weird for its own sake.
    That's a pretty generic criticism. David Lynch pretty much makes moving paintings.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    784
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Being weird just to be weird is what your goth-industrial friends do when they attempt to make art. David Lynch being "weird" is David Lynch being himself. There's a difference: one is authentic. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's fake.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Salinas, CA
    Posts
    403
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen Beach View Post
    That's a pretty generic criticism. David Lynch pretty much makes moving paintings.
    Eh, couldn't all movies be described as "moving painting?" Talk about "generic criticism."

    Also, just because someone's personality is "weird," doesn't make it good or equate to genius. More often, than not, people often defense Lynch by simply stating, "you don't get it." So what if he has a weird personality? It doesn't mean his "vision" is good or even "deep." Too many times, critics try to put meaning into something that simply has no meaning: Sometimes an odd lady holding a log is simply an odd lady holding a log. Nothing beyond that...

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    324
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Sure, all movies are to some extent like "moving paintings". Filmmakers are artists that paint with light, cinema is called "motion picture", etc. Beach was pointing out that Lynch is a more explicitly expressionist director, more carefully composing his frames and packing them with visual information beyond the norm. He's a master of the mise en scène. (Of course he's also extremely involved with motion picture audio, so it's no surprise that he's been playing with sound as far back as his very first films, nor that in his current hiatus from the movies he's fashioned himself as a kind of recording artist.)

    EDIT: Helpful commentary from David Bordwell, one of the best professors of film working today:
    Each conception of film art harbors a good portion of truth. Each may fail to cover all of cinema, but for certain types of film, or particular movies, some are likely to be more helpful than others.

    For example, it’s useful to consider David Lynch as making audiovisual works, in which blinking lights or grooves in pine planks seem uncannily synchronized with throbs and hums and Julee Cruise vibrato. Very often story and acting seem to precipitate out of an enveloping pictorial/auditory atmosphere. This isn’t to say that you couldn’t study narrative or performance in Lynch films; it’s just that taking up the audiovisual-mix perspective will throw certain aspects into sharper relief.
    I recommend the whole piece: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/20...t-kind-of-art/
    Last edited by Corvus T. Cosmonaut; 09-13-2012 at 08:39 PM. Reason: Found link I was looking for.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Salinas, CA
    Posts
    403
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus T. Cosmonaut View Post
    Sure, all movies are to some extent like "moving paintings". Filmmakers are artists that paint with light, cinema is called "motion picture", etc. Beach was pointing out that Lynch is a more explicitly expressionist director, more carefully composing his frames and packing them with visual information beyond the norm. He's a master of the mise en scène. (Of course he's also extremely involved with motion picture audio, so it's no surprise that he's been playing with sound as far back as his very first films, nor that in his current hiatus from the movies he's fashioned himself as a kind of recording artist.)
    What's interesting is that he has shown he can tell a straight ahead story (albeit both biographies) in "The Elephant Man" and "The Straight Story." Two simple stories in which his "personality" did not overshadow. I will concede that Lynch is talented and influential in his styling. I just dislike his movies, save for those two.

    An example of Director(s) that I believe strike the fine balance between quirky/weird and story-telling prowess are the Coen Brothers. The quirks don't impede the story; but, instead, enhance in my opinion. A lot of the aesthetics of "No Country For Old Men" seemed simultaneously attempted by PTA in "There Will Be Blood." Both were basically westerns, musing upon the decay of society and/or a man's soul in which the scenery seemed to be as much of a character as the actors. In fact, I believe I read an anectdote wherein PTA and the Coen Brothers crossed paths while filming each respective film, using the same landscape. In my opinion, the Coens got it right and PTA got it wrong.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Brighton, UK
    Posts
    277
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    I love found footage movies. There are a few duds but for the most part they're really fun - Blair Witch, Rec, PA1, VHS, Cloverfield etc are all gold to me.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    293
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    I think it's time to change the name of this thread to - Ignorant Childish Intolerant Cinema-Related-Opinions.

    People should really judge a film based on how successfully it fullfills it's own premise.

    Also calling out a deliberate feature of a movie isn't an opinion - it's a moot point.
    Last edited by Lutz; 09-13-2012 at 09:21 PM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Salinas, CA
    Posts
    403
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutz View Post
    I think it's time to change the name of this thread to - Ignorant Childish Intolerant Cinema-Related-Opinions.

    People should really judge a film based on how successfully it fullfills it's own premise.

    Also calling out a deliberate feature of a movie isn't an opinion - it's a moot point.

    Wow, intolerant to contrary opinion, much? A discussion isn't childish merely because you disagree with the opinions expressed. Your post, on the other hand is the epitome of childish. If you don't want to participate, then simply ignore. Spewing your disgust in a thread in which you clearly disagree is a truly moot point. The opinions of others are no more or less valid than yours; deal with it.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    784
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
    Also, just because someone's personality is "weird," doesn't make it good or equate to genius.
    Yes, but you implied it was disingenuous.

    More often, than not, people often defense Lynch by simply stating, "you don't get it."
    What are we some generalized mass to you? How about addressing the actual statements and people in this thread instead of whatever caricatures are in your head.

    Too many times, critics try to put meaning into something that simply has no meaning: Sometimes an odd lady holding a log is simply an odd lady holding a log. Nothing beyond that...
    Yeah, nothing beyond that except her late husband being a lumberjack who found the gateways to the white and black lodges in the woods where he was said to have "met the devil" and a deputy that said the wood in the forest was full of spirits.

    Two simple stories in which his "personality" did not overshadow.

    There you go again; why the fuck is personality in quotes? Your myopic assessment of legitimacy paints anything you don't like as fake or shallow.
    Last edited by Magtig; 09-13-2012 at 10:03 PM. Reason: awkward sentence structure

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Salinas, CA
    Posts
    403
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Magtig View Post
    Yes, but you implied it was disingenuous.


    What are we some generalized mass to you? How about addressing the actual statements and people in this thread instead of whatever caricatures are in your head.


    Yeah, nothing beyond that except her late husband being a lumberjack who found the gateways to the white and black lodges in the woods where he was said to have "met the devil" and a deputy that said the wood in the forest was full of spirits.


    There you go again; why the fuck is personality in quotes? Your myopic assessment of legitimacy paints anything you don't like as fake or shallow.
    You noted earlier that Lynch was "being himself," which is one's "personality" right? You used those words, not me. So, I wasn't being condescending or trying insult you. I merely was pointing out that particular point. I don't need to provide an extensive dissertation, going line-by-line, countering all of your points. I'm not looking to convince or be convinced. I'm merely stating my opinion and will defend it however I might. Hell, some people merely state that they liked "x" movie and that was it. There was no demand to make them defend their opinion. By the way, how do you know whether or not Lynch is "being himself?" Do you know him personally? How do you know when it's genuine and when it's contrived? You can't really know; therefore, all you can do is opine. That is what I did: His movies, IN MY OPINION, seem contrived and trying too hard to be weird for its own sake. If you disagree, fine; no skin off my back. However, when you start getting into a Director's actual mind and actual intent, you begin to go off the reservation. Your post made a definitive statement as if it were fact; how the hell do you know? At most, a more accurate statement would be "I believe" or "Maybe." But to make statements about Lynch's state of mind, as fact, is a baseless argument.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    784
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Do you breath through a straw when your head's buried so far up your ass? That's what my next movie is about. It's a 'boy in a bubble' story that will make you feel shitty, and it's definitely not colored with any annoying personality quirks.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Salinas, CA
    Posts
    403
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Magtig View Post
    Do you breath through a straw when your head's buried so far up your ass? That's what my next movie is about. It's a 'boy in a bubble' story that will make you feel shitty, and it's definitely not colored with any annoying personality quirks.
    I love it when people make their arguments for me. Res ipsa loquitur.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Monterey Bay, Ca
    Posts
    1,991
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    You know, I find it odd that people are reacting the way they are. It's the controversial movie opinion thread, no the popular movie opinion thread. That said are you ready for this one?

    I hate Indiana Jones movies. They are all trash.... the Last Crusade was alright. But I just find them boring. And, you know what? The fourth one isn't any different than the others. It's over the top kitsch just like the others. But at least Crystal Skull has a way of embracing it's kitschiness that the others don't. I never got what everyone hated so much about that one versus liked about the others.

    James Bond: Way better.

Posting Permissions