The Brown Bunny

Started by meatwad, May 09, 2003, 07:49:32 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 ... 25
User actions

children with angels

#45
May 27, 2003, 05:34:06 AM
I'm kind of worried. Gallo's a depressive - I'm surpised he hasn't committed suicide yet actually, and I really really hope this event doesn't push him over the edge somehow - I could see it happen... Hopefully he'll fight back soon with ridiculous Gallo venom, defending his movie as the greatest film since Citizen Kane (a title previously held by Buffalo 66 in his mind). I feel so sorry for the guy. I don't know how audiences can be so cruel... The Cannes audience seems to be the most vocal, conservative audience a filmmaker can possibly have: you constantly hear of walkouts in screenings - what is that shit...?! These people are supposed to be film-lovers! I never walk out of a film even if I hate it - I don't think you can really make your mind on a movie till the end - and I certainly would never vocalize my opinion out loud - not even if (in fact: especially if) the director was there...
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

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

soixante

#46
May 27, 2003, 10:00:10 PM
I liked Buffalo 66 enough, I'll see anything else Gallo does.  At least he's trying something different.  I remember a lot of critics dumped on Gummo, called it boring and self-indulgent, but I loved it.
Music is your best entertainment value.

Cecil

#47
May 27, 2003, 10:02:48 PM
didnt the people at cannes boo fear and loathing?

soixante

#48
May 28, 2003, 01:19:34 AM
Sometimes movies that get hostile initial reactions go on to become classics.  Rare, but it happens.  Maybe Brown Bunny is so far ahead of its time, and over the head of critics, that it will take 10 years to appreciate it.  Taxi Driver was panned by a number of critics upon its initial release.  So was Clockwork Orange.  The critical reacton to Full Metal Jacket on first release was mostly negative, now it's considered a classic (I remember Ebert gave it a thumbs down originally).  In 1979, Apocalypse Now was considered a disappointment, while Kramer vs. Kramer was acclaimed as an instant classic.  Now, which film is considered a classic? Conversely, The Turning Point and Julia got great reviews across the board when they came out in 1977, now does anyone even remember either one of them?

In other words, time will tell...
Music is your best entertainment value.

Pubrick

#49
May 28, 2003, 01:24:15 AM
if gallo himself has admitted that the film is a piece of shit, i think it's safe to let go of notions that it will miraculously become great over time. i'll watch it for sevigny, but i don't expect much.
under the paving stones.

soixante

#50
May 28, 2003, 01:26:37 AM
In early 1979, China Syndrome and Norma Rae got rave reviews.  One critic said that China Syndrome was the thriller of the decade.  These films got better reviews than Apocalypse Now.  So here we are in 2003, does anyone know or care about China Syndrome or Norma Rae?
Music is your best entertainment value.

Pozer

#51
May 28, 2003, 01:27:23 AM
yeah, that movie's gotta be crap. I'd still watch it too, cuz sometimes I like to look at crap

lamas

#52
May 28, 2003, 04:08:42 AM
Yeah, I just can't possibly understand why Gallo would call his own film a piece of crap after critics gave their opinion of it.  Half of what he says in interviews seems like it's said just to get anyone to take notice.  I still want to see the movie very badly.  Those still shots look pretty impressive to me.

children with angels

#53
May 28, 2003, 05:48:43 AM
Like I said, he's a depressive. I think he's only called his own movie a piece of shit becasue the initial reaction to it has been so bad (it has been seriously fucking bad) that it's made him depressed and made him want to give himself a hard time over it too. I think (/hope) soon we'll see Gallo bouncing back to his own arrogant self claiming that no one understands true art anymore and asking how can his movie get panned when some piece of shit by a no-talent hack like Paul Thomas Anderson gets lauded at Cannes the previous year.
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

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

Raikus

#54
May 28, 2003, 09:27:12 AM
I think a lot of you are overlooking the possibility that Brown Bunny might just in fact be a piece of shit.

Sounds like Gallo wanted an on screen blowjob from a starlet at the cost of his investors, and when that fell through, got his ex to fill in.
Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free, silhouetted by the sea, circled by the circus sands, with all memory and fate driven deep beneath the waves, let me forget about today until tomorrow.

Cecil

#55
May 28, 2003, 09:47:21 AM
heres an interview with gallo at cannes (well theres like 8 1/2 minutes of arcand first, then gallo) http://www.festival-cannes.org/video/video.asx?uid=69612

he says in it that hes never moved by his own films, that hes bored to death. so i guess he "cant tell" if his own film would suck or not. then he talks about winona

godardian

#56
May 28, 2003, 01:13:20 PM
Quote from: RaikusI think a lot of you are overlooking the possibility that Brown Bunny might just in fact be a piece of shit.

It is possible, but it's not guaranteed just because it's disowned by its creator and some loud critical voices.

All this hype is tiresome and useless... none of us have seen the film yet. I'm just as fascinated by all the back and forth and celebrity and glamorous debauchery of the whole Cannes mess, but I still have to see the movie with my own eyes and faculties to know what it is and how I feel about it.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

MrBurgerKing

#57
May 28, 2003, 01:44:47 PM
I still want to see this film too. Sounds like something I would like (not for the oral sex.. well, maybe, but I enjoy long boring movies where nothing happens). I liked that Gerry, and that got horrible remarks from Sundance.

It's time to jump on the bandwagon and go to McDonalds, though, right?  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll: :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll: :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:

godardian

#58
May 28, 2003, 02:59:06 PM
Quote from: cecil b. dementedheres an interview with gallo at cannes (well theres like 8 1/2 minutes of arcand first, then gallo) http://www.festival-cannes.org/video/video.asx?uid=69612

he says in it that hes never moved by his own films, that hes bored to death. so i guess he "cant tell" if his own film would suck or not. then he talks about winona

Watching this made me much more excited for Arcand's film than for Gallo's (I'm predisposed to that anyway), but still... not what I expected at all. Gallo was very light-hearted and actually fairly sincere in his answers, I thought. He was really no more vicious than Jon Stewart is on The Daily Show. Was this interview before the big stink about how supposedly terrible the film is?

And seeing Sevigny reminded me of another good reason to give Brown Bunny a try: She's really a captivating presence, and I also happen to think she's a damn fine actor. I'll go see it if it ever opens.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

lamas

#59
May 28, 2003, 08:15:20 PM
Quote from: MrBurgerKingI still want to see this film too. Sounds like something I would like (not for the oral sex.. well, maybe, but I enjoy long boring movies where nothing happens). I liked that Gerry, and that got horrible remarks from Sundance.

It's time to jump on the bandwagon and go to McDonalds, though, right?  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll: :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll: :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:

Seriously, what's your obsession with fast-food?  Do you make yourself laugh with these retarded comments you make?
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 25
User actions