Stand By Me? Suck on this

Started by Ernie, June 11, 2003, 09:03:24 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions

soixante

#15
June 12, 2003, 12:58:08 AM
I totally agree that Stand By Me is bogus.  I was always pissed that such a mediocre movie got so much press and such huge box office grosses, but that was 1986, and movies sucked back then.  

A much better teen movie is Dazed and Confused.  It is totally authentic in every detail.  No bogus conflicts and/or confrontations.  In fact, I feel Dazed and Confused sets the benchmark of excellence for all teen movies.  It is neither as broad as the John Hughes comedies nor as earnest as Cameron Crowe's movies -- in order words, it is the perfect balance between comedy and drama.  In fact, I think it transcends the teen movie genre.  It reminds me of Thornton Wilder's Our Town, capturing its particular time and place (Austin, Texas, 1976) as artfully and as definitively and as poignantly as Thornton Wilder captured small town life in the early 20th Century.  Its epiphanies are not over-stressed nor rammed down your throat the way they are in Hollywood movies.
Music is your best entertainment value.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#16
June 12, 2003, 01:04:06 AM
i like dazed and cunfused, more then stand by me

but again this is way off here

im not a huge fan of stand by me, i am a huge fan of 16 candles however


and you did say that thing about john hughs films

look its ok to be fun, and every generation needs its american pies, why not they are fun and goofy

if all teen films were seriouse art films, all we would do is raise a nation of people like mesh or douce bags who name themselves " magonoliafan" or " 82" , and then nobody wins

how about this, watch a film like dazed and cunfused and also watch a film like 16 candles

get the best of both worlds

SoNowThen

#17
June 12, 2003, 01:13:15 AM
Yes. Or to use an analogy: stare at a Playboy chick for her wonderous rack, then be in awe of Tina Fey and her brilliance. Both together create a yin and yang of sexy. Best of both worlds. Or something.

It is very late, and I am way overtired, and half tipped on a brew. And all sentimental for this xixax board.

But I can see everybody's point here. I still think that The Last Picture Show is as close as it's gonna get. Well, the Last Picture Show, minus the affair with the gym teacher's wife, plus the monologue about Gang Banging Smurfs from Donnie Darko. That'll do 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.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#18
June 12, 2003, 01:15:21 AM
Quote from: SoNowThenYes. Or to use an analogy: stare at a Playboy chick for her wonderous rack, then be in awe of Tina Fey and her brilliance. Both together create a yin and yang of sexy. Best of both worlds. Or something.

It is very late, and I am way overtired, and half tipped on a brew. And all sentimental for this xixax board.

But I can see everybody's point here. I still think that The Last Picture Show is as close as it's gonna get. Well, the Last Picture Show, minus the affair with the gym teacher's wife, plus the monologue about Gang Banging Smurfs from Donnie Darko. That'll do it.

the last picture show, a young nude cybil sheapard

:: sigh:: what a film

SoNowThen

#19
June 12, 2003, 01:18:50 AM
Yeah. Peter Bogdanovich says, upon imminent casting of Cybil..."are we gonna see the stretch marks?" And I believe it was his wife who said she's only 17 or whatever, she doesn't have any, don't worry.

So what does he do? Puts her in a huge nudie scene, falls in love, and kicks up a crazy affair. What a wolf. He makes some great fucking films. And the sumbitch can do a kick ass impression of Orson Welles. He let him live in his house. How cool is that? Fucking a teenage Cybil, while the Third Man's using the extra bedroom...
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.

godardian

#20
June 12, 2003, 01:19:45 AM
I don't care for Stand By Me. It seems to me to be mere baby-boomer nostalgia for childhood. A "better... simpler.." blah blah *yawn* It's interesting that John Singleton was inspired by it, I guess. Doesn't really change my opinion of the film.

Virgin Suicides doesn't suffer from rose-colored nostalgia. Neither does Boogie Nights. I don't consider either of these films "arty," either. That's just another easy, simplistic buzzword that doesn't really mean anything. They do have much more texture and technique than Stand by Me, however. [/i]
""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.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#21
June 12, 2003, 01:20:41 AM
Quote from: SoNowThenYeah. Peter Bogdanovich says, upon immenent casting of Cybil..."are we gonna see the stretch marks?" And I believe it was his wife who said she's only 17 or whatever, she doesn't have any, don't worry.

So what does he do? Puts her in a huge nudie scene, falls in love, and kicks up a crazy affair. What a wolf. He makes some great fucking films. And the sumbitch can do a kick ass impression of Orson Welles. He let him live in his house. How cool is that? Fucking a teenage Cybil, while the Third Man's using the extra bedroom...

i was gonna post exactlly what you just said almost word for word .........fuck this

its starting to sound like i am making this shit up , i have no reason to this is fucking weird

we do this a lot

SoNowThen

#22
June 12, 2003, 01:21:29 AM
Sorry.
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.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#23
June 12, 2003, 01:23:49 AM
Quote from: godardianI don't care for Stand By Me. It seems to me to be mere baby-boomer nostalgia for childhood. A "better... simpler.." blah blah *yawn* It's interesting that John Singleton was inspired by it, I guess. Doesn't really change my opinion of the film.

Virgin Suicides doesn't suffer from rose-colored nostalgia. Neither does Boogie Nights. I don't consider either of these films "arty," either. That's just another easy, simplistic buzzword that doesn't really mean anything. They do have much more texture and technique than Stand by Me, however. [/i]

the fact that you would connect BN With the virgin suicide is further proof that you have no clue what BN Is about

gee yeah BN Is not nostalgic at all  :roll:

part of the reason why it is so great is that its a love letter to that era

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#24
June 12, 2003, 01:26:30 AM
Quote from: SoNowThenSorry.

no no its just so weird, if i were to look at this from the outside i would say

" ok maybe once or twice, but now he is making this up"


but now its so funny and weird

this is what i said , " And bogdavich picked her cast her, and then got to fuck her, what a man"

of course my post was more ya know profane

i edited it, because i didnt want to drag this on

Redlum

#25
June 12, 2003, 03:49:49 AM
Well everyones childhood experiences are different, plus in a market (particularly in the summer) whose audience is largely made up of young people, the majority is obviously going to be a better target. For example I'm sure a lot of people who love the American Pie movies would think that Max Fischer is a complete loser, and wouldn't understand why the story focuses around him.

Stand By Me is a combination of some of Dreyfuss, Reiner and Kings youths and its a pretty faithful adaptation of The Body. I really like it, although much more when I was younger. To me though I dont think that the film was trying to say anything about the 'life of a teen' (that crap makes me sick) it was highlighting this one moment, where people go their different ways. They have this intimate adventure together, and then they practically never see each other again, and I can relate to that. They dont 'come of age' at all really, they just share one last adventure.

I just think trying to label something as teen movie is a bunchacrap anyway. To me, once you get out of your teens nothing suddenly changes. To focus on one age group rarely seems like a good idea. Thats why I think Ghost World is so great, many charcters wide ranging in age, and yet at the heart of it is a teenager trying to find a place in the world and whether she actually wants a place in the world.
But as a teenager - who wants to take all that so seriously? Why not just watch some fun entertainment - stupid gross out comedy, or some no- brains action movie. Dont need some movie to tell the finer points of how being a teenager can be tough.
\"I wanted to make a film for kids, something that would present them with a kind of elementary morality. Because nowadays nobody bothers to tell those kids, \'Hey, this is right and this is wrong\'.\"
  -  George Lucas

chainsmoking insomniac

#26
June 12, 2003, 07:16:13 AM
I'm glad someone came to the defense of Stand By Me.  I wish I had come upon this thread a little earlier (or to come to its defense first).  But you put it quite succinctly.  I don't see any "rose-colored" nostalgia attatched to the movie.  It really is about people going their seperate ways, and learning something about themselves and their friends, and that, IMO, makes a great fucking movie.   :)
"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

Gold Trumpet

#27
June 12, 2003, 12:23:13 PM
I'm sorry, but even though the original post has passion and all, it really is typical. Nothing more than commercialism vs. art and how all the good movies supposebly fit into the latter. Playing the dividing game is a bad thing because it in no way determines the quality of the movie. Stand By Me is the film getting bashed here, but I'll believe that film over Rushmore any day in being sincere about the characters. Rushmore has so much gloss around it story that it can look at any of them straight unless something cute is being attributed to their actions. In my mind, Rushmore is far the weaker movie. I really like Stand By Me and I do see the nostalgic argument in it, but nostalgia is a part of our lives. That determines nothing for the movie and considering the fact I think the movie has an even handed approach much more than others like it, I can't really lay fault in the movie. The identity of the movie does lie in that category though, but it doesn't over play its hand in bringing too much of something. Stand By Me has a good story and seems more interested in just telling that and being a good movie for what it is. Rushmore, on the other hand, is based on a world of contrivance not interesting it becomes compromise to what could have been a better and more "honest" movie.

~rougerum

Duck Sauce

#28
June 12, 2003, 12:26:16 PM
Quote from: AlguienEstolamiPantalones
he wasnt trying to look cool and deep , he cant help but to be cool and deep

I agree. Those are the movies I like best. I dont fall for that shit where somebody goes out to make a deep and moving movie, I go for the ones where they make a good interesting story and as long as that is secure it can be meaningfull or lifeless

modage

#29
June 12, 2003, 12:40:23 PM
i think this is a really interesting thread because people seem to be divided into two camps about it.  a lot of people like stand by me.  i agree with the gold trumpet where its the art/commercializm argument, easier said than done.  "im going to make an honest movie".  (ps. have you seen cq, funny).  if you had picked an easier target like umm A Walk To Remember or something that everybody here didnt grow up with there would have been less resistance. whats funny is that there may be huge similarities in those movies but since we grew up with the one, we like it, or hold the memory of liking it.  because, like it or not, people like movies like stand by me.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions