Ask The Gold Trumpet

Started by Gold Trumpet, April 30, 2003, 07:35:07 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 39
User actions

©brad

#45
May 02, 2003, 08:01:15 AM
i'll join in here. my main problem with many film critics is that they always deem themselves more intelligent than the filmmaker. this is probably why i quarrel with GT a lot. Its that arrogant need to 'conquer' a film, to concentrate your efforts on pinpointing all the negative aspects of it.

children with angels made some good points on emotion which to me is the most important thing with movies. i could sit here and type out this long rant of things in, say, about schmidt that i thought were off or misconstrued, but overall I enjoy the film on an emotional level. seeing nicholson at the end crying was moving, so much that it made all my fussy complaints about the film seem irrelevant in retrospect.

gt i try to resist in your relentless attempts of trying to get me to argue with you because it really boils down to a difference of opinion, which is essentially undebatable. take ur view on the royal tennenbaums. you've criticized the movie for being too cute. okay, i think you're wrong and being a bit over-analytical, but how am i suppose to argue with that? i can't really put into words what the final long shot at the wedding does to me, but it does something profound. i read ur posts and wonder why you even watch movies in the first place. it doesn't seem like you get any enjoyment out of them. you start your posts with lines like this; "A while ago, I promised in a nameless thread I was going to bash this movie coming up. Well, for the most part, I will." what kind of shit is that?

chainsmoking insomniac

#46
May 02, 2003, 10:49:17 AM
Absolutely.  GT seems to bash every film that comes his way.  I don't understand this either.  GT, what movies do you like?

And the previous post brought up a really good point.  Even though there may be technical flaws, or problems with story, or whatever, doesn't it really boil down to how a movie 'hits' you?  I know for me, there are movies that I like alot simply because they leave me feeling refreshed and renewed....I don't know, I'm starting to ramble, and I'm not half as eloquent as the previous post.  Okay, I'm done.  :-D
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote: 'The world's a fine place, and worth fighting for.'  I agree with the second part."
    --Morgan Freeman, Se7en

"Have you ever fucking seen that...? Ever seen a mistake in nature?  Have you ever seen an animal make a mistake?"
 --Paul Schneider, All the Real Girls

children with angels

#47
May 02, 2003, 01:16:11 PM
I'm not saying I think GT doesn't get emotionally moved by films (he does - he told us: Hillary and Jackie) - that would be ridiculously insulting. I'm just wondering what makes him say "I love that movie": is it the emotion or the technical/significance side of things. For example: from what I remember of your review of City Of God, GT, you made a very convincing argument for it being the most significant film for a long while based on its use of its various styles: I don't remember any comments on how it made you feel...

Again, I repeat: I'm not attacking your ability to feel emotion or calling you cold or some shit like that, I'm just asking: in your categorising of movies in your mind, if there was a film that you could totally completely relate to on a personal level (but un-noteworthy in terms of direction), and another which was the best example of cinematic technique you had ever seen (but didn't touch you so deeply), which would you reate more highly...?
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

SoNowThen

#48
May 02, 2003, 02:16:44 PM
Hey, Children With Angels, I wanna respond to something you said a couple posts ago, but I don't know how to do the quote-from-before thing, so you'll have to bear with me.

Anyway, it regards what you put about trying to say Magnolia is the BEST movie for you, in a room full of people who will think you're dumb because you're not talking about Fellini. I just love what you wrote, it sounded really nice and honest, etc. I've pondered this lots, and I thought I'd share with you. I wanna say a big "fuck off" to anybody who won't accept a 90's movie as being worthy of "best of all time". My fav film is Magnolia as well. But interestingly enough, my number two is 8 1/2!! I absolutely love Fellini, but I must maintain that I think Magnolia is the pinnacle of filmmaking so far on earth. It's just so hard to try and justify newer films' worth vs older films (I hesitate to use the words "contemporary and classic" because they usually refer to pre and post sound films). Ummm, to complete my ramble, I just wanna say Thanks for putting what you did about Magnolia & 8 1/2.

Sorry for the tangent, GT.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

SoNowThen

#49
May 02, 2003, 02:18:40 PM
I guess what I was trying to say is that Magnolia SHOULD be judged alongside the "greats". And we gotta keep defending it.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

SoNowThen

#50
May 02, 2003, 02:24:03 PM
Well.... three in a row....

While I'm at it, I should say:

kudos to you, GT. You really inspire some heavy posts. I may not always agree with you, but you force me to think. Makes us all better for it....

So here's a nice question for you. You mentioned in another post that Red Desert is looked upon as a lesser Antonioni film. Please give your opinion, comments, etc. I was deeply moved by the film, btw.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Gold Trumpet

#51
May 02, 2003, 03:15:16 PM
ChildrenwithAngels, good job on calling me out there. If you felt I didn't answer right or was being prickish, then definitely call me out on it and explain how I should answer your question. In answering your question though, I would still go for the more artistic level movie because even if I felt the movie was an advancement through style, I couldn't appreciate it for just that only. Somewhere in that film, I would have to be emotionall affected to really like it. The main example of a movie I couldn't get into though I knew it was groundbreaking, was Hirsoshima, Mon Amour. I just couldn't get into it because nothing of the story seemed inviting for it to be enjoyable as a viewing experience. Though I do love personal films that are only of personal experience, I would say the other is more important because it is obvious I am trying to make that kind of analyzing a priority for me, so personally speaking, something that would succeed on that level for me would be much more rewarding for me.

SoNowThen,
I was only reporting of what I heard from Antonioni experts and did say myself I couldn't really speak of an opinion because I had not seen the film and could enjoy it.

I do realize I am negative all the time, but it is for the purpose of pushing discussion. Discussion is only found when a disagreeing opinion comes in and others feel the need to say to that one person why it is good. More information comes out and people are able to voice their own views in saying. Thomas Jefferson was notorious for contradicting himself his entire life and was deemed by many historians as someone constantly searching for a discussion or argument in something. His great talent was writing, so it fits. Also, Kubrick was this way too. He was busy in taking care of advertisements for a certain film and someone came up and told him how good the film did at the box office and he should be happy. Kubrick looked at him and said, "Don't tell me these things. I can't do anything to fix them. Just tell me the bad." All in all, negative comments with reason is really what makes a discussion board a discussion board. If everyone came and agreed, discussion would be extinct and this place a bore. And also if you have read my comments long enough, I definitely enjoy movies as anyone else here.

cbr, In my review of Royal Tennebaums, what you said of my arguments were correct, but you failed to identify that I backed my arguments up with reasons and my argument was very much open for debate. Look at redlum, he made a great argument against me that made me concede on many things of my opinion. He argued with reasons and did fine. I don't mind if you look to films for enjoyment only, but there is a risk when throwing your hat into the middle of an argument. You are forced to back your opinions up. Actually, my biggest gripe with you is that you gave me a completely ludicrous responce in anither thread and I identified it and challenged you but you are still a no show on commenting for your words. Then there is also you being known for calling people some shit that makes them look dumb, but you never back what you say up at all. And before you ask for an example of when you did this, go to the thread in which ebes said what movies he thought were overrated and then your responce to it. I also remembering you and duck sauce getting in arguments over this too.

Disagreeing with me is great, but at least try to reason it out. And if someone says I make them think more, then even better. Best thing anyone can get someone else to do.

~rougerum

Mesh

#52
May 02, 2003, 03:19:11 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
If everyone came and agreed, discussion would be extinct and this place a bore.

That's my biggest gripe about this place, having been here less than a week.  I plan to get negative on y'all's asses regularly.

NEON MERCURY

#53
September 28, 2003, 10:34:41 PM
..What is your opinion of the film.......Outbreak

Gold Trumpet

#54
September 28, 2003, 11:38:39 PM
Randomly made up end all disease propelled, as usual, to a general thriller. Renee Russo headlines simply because her name allowed her to at the time. Dustin Hoffmann gives a performance that is another example of how he spent half his career being an actor and being Harrison Ford meaning that presence good enough. Harrison Ford here.

~rougerum

SHAFTR

#55
September 28, 2003, 11:43:35 PM
Voyage to Italy (Viaggio in Italia) by Roberto Rossellini is it...
horrible (as than current italian critics thought of it)
or
masterpiece as Cahiers du Cinema called it.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

Gold Trumpet

#56
September 28, 2003, 11:53:20 PM
Never seen it. Did see the Scorsese documentary on Italian Cinema that lifts the name of movie and reviews it and says everything about it. Out of all the Rosselini films (and a lot were reviewed) by Scorsese in this documentary post Open City, this seeemed the most interesting. Its framework was already well known in Hollywood those days but something about the movie feels epic and touching in a way that feels like it may be unique. To give my best opinion, I'd really love to see this and have been looking for it for quite some time.

~rougerum

SHAFTR

#57
September 29, 2003, 12:33:37 AM
I would say it lies somewhere in between those 2 contrasts.  It isn't horrible but it certainly has many Hollywood elements, gone is Rossellini's gritty documentary look.  I had a hard time finding any worth in the film until I read about it a little more and than noticed some important elements.

The ending is ridiculous and seems very out of place.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

SoNowThen

#58
September 29, 2003, 09:04:41 AM
Absolutely agreed. I could've been on board (it was almost faux-Antonioni most of the time), but that ending licked balls.

Why does Marty love that flick?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

©brad

#59
September 29, 2003, 09:13:57 AM
Quote from: NEON MERCURY..What is your opinion of the film.......Outbreak

why must u bump up these cursed ask me threads?

and gold trumpet, puleease explain to me what the hell this means-

Quote from: Gold TrumpetDustin Hoffmann gives a performance that is another example of how he spent half his career being an actor and being Harrison Ford meaning that presence good enough. Harrison Ford here.

~perplexed and irritated
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 39
User actions