Adventureland

[w/o horse]

So you like Fast and Furious for having a couple really fun parts, but you hate this one for having a couple really fun parts?

Are you serious with this statement?  I really don't think I could contrast these two movies, but maybe my experiences with each, if you're actually serious with this statement.

[Stefen]

No need to go on the defensive. I'm just saying I think it's funny that you can praise a shitty movie like Fast and Furious but dislike Adventureland and everything you've seen so far of Where The Wild Things Are. That's all.

[w/o horse]

I got that in the Fast and Furious thread.  I just think that kind of logic really impedes an appreciation for disparate and eclectic films from a vast range of existing and forthcoming cinematic experiences, you know?

[©brad]

  There are certain movies that I appreciate without liking very much, and there are certain movies that I like alright but couldn't watch again.  This movie is one or both of those.  Really graceful cinematic poetry but I think it was too authentic.

Too authentic? Reading this post reminds me of that scene in Annie Hall when Woody is standing in line at the movie theater and has to listen to that misguided know-it-all wax nonsensical on Fellini. Where's Marshall Mcluhan when you need him.

[polkablues]

I heard what you were saying!  You know nothing of my work!



admin-edit: spell-check. had to. it said "I head".

[hedwig]

what i wouldn't give for a large sock with horse manure in it..

[w/o horse]

  There are certain movies that I appreciate without liking very much, and there are certain movies that I like alright but couldn't watch again.  This movie is one or both of those.  Really graceful cinematic poetry but I think it was too authentic.

Too authentic? Reading this post reminds me of that scene in Annie Hall when Woody is standing in line at the movie theater and has to listen to that misguided know-it-all wax nonsensical on Fellini. Where's Marshall Mcluhan when you need him.

Are you fucking kidding me?  Because this is a movie message board, not a movie line.  And you don't even seem to have an opinion of the movie.  Why would you cut off the post at exactly the moment I qualify the statement and add commentary to it just to make a cheap Woody Allen joke?

The Wild Things thread was alright because I voiced my unpopular opinion and then like one or two people offered some insights into their perspective and there was kind of a dialogue that took place, amidst some admittedly Internet-typical but a-okay oneliners, and that short exchange was about the most meaningful experience I've had on this board in months.  So don't give me your pretentious bullshit and act like I'm being pretentious here, because I fucking love movies and love talking about movies and hearing you guys talking about movies.  It's the only reason I come here.  And I've always been ready to discuss a movie or my opinion about a movie, and it's not like I'm some guy in a line you don't know.  So fuck you.  And fuck dragging your sore ass over from whatever bullshit disagreement of opinion forced you to single out my post like that.

Months ago I thought I'd leave here because of a drifting interest in the movies typically talked about here.  Then I thought maybe I could come here and discuss the reasons I don't like the movies that are talked about here.  But obviously I can't.  And here's a nice final rant to make some lame-ass Internet disses at.

[SiliasRuby]

I agree wholeheartedly with W/O horse here. I'm a bit sad because this place is turning into a breeding ground for sarcastic and stupid remarks rather than actually discussing films delicately and deeply. Hey I have had my share of showing my disposing wit and since Pubrick, the king of quick quips left, stefen has taken his place. Maybe this isn't the right thread to discuss this, but fuck it. I'm on a roll. I just think its sad hat most of us can't wax more insightfully on why certain films are terrible or decent. Sure, in the past, there was some conversation but it is mostly seen by GT and in the green screen where most posters didn't go and if they did, they didn't offer up a counter agrument that was full fledged, sans the attack GT gave on 'There Will Be Blood'. Maybe the economy is making people extra cranky but seriously, can we stop the bullshit laughs before this turns into any AINT IT COOL Message Board and actually discuss films now?

I suppose I'm gonna get shit for this, just wanted to put my three cents out there.

[©brad]

Months ago I thought I'd leave here because of a drifting interest in the movies typically talked about here.  Then I thought maybe I could come here and discuss the reasons I don't like the movies that are talked about here.  But obviously I can't.

Of course you can. I didn't mean to insinuate that your critiques were asinine or without merit, because they're not. Perhaps my snarky Woody Allen joke was in poor taste, but again, it was a joke, and I don't feel the need to apologize for it. I was reacting to your argument that authenticity can be a bad thing, which I might argue is impossible, because if something is bad it's most likely due to a lack of authenticity. If you found the film (which for the record I have not seen) boring, well that has to do with how the story is structured, paced, and the overall mechanics of drama rather than the tone and style being too "authentic."

My favorite thing about the script though, was that there wasn't a real "ticking bomb" though the story took place over a summer and nothing was really at "stake" either, just relationships that mean a lot to the characters and the audience.  So fuck your proper drama structures.  Wisdom and warmth and vulgarity can sometimes drive a film beautifully.

Pete makes a nice point here, and it makes me excited to see this film. School teaches you that every story needs to have a macguffin, a ticking bomb of sorts, because otherwise you'll put your audience to sleep. I think that's bullshit. And, I think your reaction to this film is less about authenticity and more about its lacking conventional narrative stuff. Beyond anything, what a film needs is dynamic, substantive characters.

[Stefen]

To me, the best thing about the film was the characters and the way they all reacted to eachother. It all felt very genuine.

There wasn't a giant spectacle that was driving the story. Relationships between the characters drove the story and like pete said, that drove the film fine.

[Pas]

I read this page and all the good words. I went to the theater, couldn't choose a film. So I decided to go see FAST AND FURIOUS because I had thought I was on the Fast and Furious thread when I read this. So at the theater I thought ''apparently this one is really character driven and authentic, might be interesting''

[pete]

spoilers

I also really liked that moment when James went to Joel's house.  I liked the fact that they added a "real loser" in the movie.  And the moment when he sees them leaving through his broken glass is heartbreaking.

[Pozer]

I read this page and all the good words. I went to the theater, couldn't choose a film. So I decided to go see FAST AND FURIOUS because I had thought I was on the Fast and Furious thread when I read this. So at the theater I thought ''apparently this one is really character driven and authentic, might be interesting''

whatever excuse makes you feel better.

[modage]

I wasn't into this.  I'm not sure why, I didn't think it was bad, I just thought it settled toward the forgettable middle.  I'm tired of seeing Eisenberg in this role and the Hader/Wiig stuff is a little too broad for the rest of the film.  Admittedly I saw a screener of this and whenever I watch one of those I feel like it's not a "real" movie, but I feel like if I had gone to the theatre I'd be pretty meh on it as well. 

[Ghostboy]

  Soon I'll talk about how much I loved Minnie and Moskowitz and Love Streams and I'll make a point to try and expand on some of things I want to say here.

Were you at the New Beverly the other night too?