I am allergic to the following things
Certain types of sugar
Carpet
Evil Sugar
Shit films
PETER JACKSON!
hahahah..i second that!!!
You guys are harsh. I loved LOTR 1 and 2, and thought Peter Jackson did a great job all in all.
Opinions are like assholes
Quote from: Michael_WilsonOpinions are like assholes
Where the hell have I heard that before?
Quote from: bonanzatazWhere the hell have I heard that before?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00005NTNV.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=6d68f79b1e5f7d20e6d15965ea851a1de599dac1)
I thought FOTR was deeply flawed in the character department, and TT had pathetic dialogue, but both are incredibly beautiful, visually.
QuotePeter Jackson did a great job all in all.
...for a New Zealander...
How exactly did he do a good job? All I remember of that movie is the countless close-ups of Elijah Wood looking disgusted...at what exactly?!
I think Peter Jackson is great.
Brett Ratner, on the other hand, is a butt pirate. He's making Superman V? fucking hell....
Quote from: TiffQuotePeter Jackson did a great job all in all.
...for a New Zealander...
How exactly did he do a good job? All I remember of that movie is the countless close-ups of Elijah Wood looking disgusted...at what exactly?!
Good god man, are you out of your mind?
Some people have a silly problem with Peter Jackson because they don't know who he is.
Dead Alive is one of the best movies of it's kind
and Beautiful Creatures? Jesus!
QuoteSome people have a silly problem with Peter Jackson because they don't know who he is.
I was judging him on his 'efforts' with LOTR. Someone needs to pull this away from him if there's a LOTR3 coming out...
Quote from: TiffI was judging him on his 'efforts' with LOTR. Someone needs to pull this away from him if there's a LOTR3 coming out...
please tell me you were aware that they filmed all three movies at the same time.
Peter Jackson has taken a very dificult task upon himself and done a good job with it. If you don't like LOTR, you don't like it, but it's not because he's a bad filmmaker.
Heavenly Creatures is a very good film so Jackson is not Brett Ratner who can better name off a few general old movies than show any of the talent applied in those movies. I'm getting bored with the excuse that Jackson is doing the best one can do for the trilogy of the book. Need I remind anyone of the fact to who before this was actually offered to do the trilogy into a movie? Stanley Kubrick, back in 1960s, who happened to have turned it down. Anyone think Jackson's efforts would succeed the potential Kubrick could have brought to it? The point for me is that the film was not even realized in any sort of way and instead of trying to bring the themes forth, it tried to bring the narrative which is not a very important thing for adapting books to movies. Sometimes the feeling of what was in the book can be even sweeter than just trying to adapt it line by line or plot point by plot point or whatever shit term someone has made up. Lord of The Rings has been made into a series of movies for the justification of creating a lifeless action movie and nothing else.
~rougerum
Apperently Brett Ratner is not going to direct Supe anymore, he'll probably do Rush Hour 3, which he was set uo to do before he signed for Supe.
I like his films, even though they're pretty much just crowd pleasers, and I think the guy's got a huge head, always bragging how Speilberg gave him money for his short, and of course who can forget the comment about how he reckognized every homage in Boogie Nights.
Yes. All you had to do was watch the commentary track.
He's a hack, but God help me I like him.
I read that interview, it kind of came off like he was insulting Boogie Nights, "He took that right from I AM CUBA"
Actually, I think that comment was more to put himself up with Paul Thomas Anderson because he thought it was so fine and dandy that he recognized the influence. Me, I'm not sure he did because nothing in that movies seems to have had influence for him, but you know, he could have read any article or review of the movie that plainly recognized where the influence came from.
~rougerum
Ratner is a studio puppet so he will always be making movies. I guarantee that the studio is going to try and tout him as the next household name director. The previews for his films won't say, "From the director of Rush Hour" or "Red Dragon," they will just say "from director Brett Ratner" and everybody will know who he is. Big name directors hardly mean anything because they're only big name if their movies make lots of money. Directors of big blockbusters are there to keep the ball rolling and the big blockbusters themselves are hardly risky for the studios. Everybody knew xXx or Lord of the Rings was going to make money because those types of movies appeal to many people. Big name directors are there so studios can market the movie better. There is a reason it's called movie "business." Unless you're rich beyond belief you can't afford to make a make a personal film that won't get picked up. I don't know what I'm saying anymore, I lost myself. There was a point in all this, but I forgot what it was. Maybe somebody can help me out?
Variety talked to Lord of the Rings writer & producer Fran Walsh, who sheds some light on what's next after the trilogy. "Peter's already very much engaged in 'Return of the King,' and I know he's most proud of the last movie," Walsh said.
They'll next make a small, true story in the vein of Heavenly Creatures, says the trade. One candidate is As Nature Made Him which is the true story of a New Zealand doctor who thought he'd found the perfect subject to test his theory that gender can be assigned to newborns. He switched the gender of an eight-month old who was deformed down below in a circumcision mishap.
"The boy was remade and raised as a girl, and it's the story of how that experiment ended so disastrously," Walsh said. Variety adds that Walsh and Jackson will also try to attract other films to their production and fx studios used for "Rings." They need to keep things going until they regain the energy to mount their remake of King Kong.
Columbia Pictures will develop and McG (CHARLIE'S ANGELS 1 & 2) will direct and produce a live-action film based on - you may want to sit down for this - Hot Wheels. Yes, Hot Wheels. The little cars you played with as a child are making their way to the silver screen. The picture looks to "highlight the emotional excitement and visceral experience of Hot Wheels."
Columbia Pictures president Amy Pascal went on to explain saying, "Generations of families have grown up with these beloved cars and track sets. We could not be more thrilled and challenged by the opportunity to successfully translate the Hot Wheels brand into a feature film. The goal is to create a compelling human element with a dramatic focus that will take audiences on the ride of their life." Challenge....the understatement of the new century ladies and gents.
McG himself added to the festivities by saying "we want to create a timeless story that will work for everyone - a charismatic young hero, great stakes and jeopardy, and a fantastic love story."
Is it going to be CGI or what? Im happy for the guy.
Ratner is an asshole! He became his ass full of money by his parents and that's the reason why he's making movies in Hollywood today!
Peter Jackson is a GOD in filmmaking. He fought his whole way up to the directors chair and that needs a special mention to him.
Ratner is making shit films and Jackson is directing great film! CUT!
Spike
Quote from: MacGuffinColumbia Pictures will develop and McG (CHARLIE'S ANGELS 1 & 2) will direct and produce a live-action film based on - you may want to sit down for this - Hot Wheels. Yes, Hot Wheels. The little cars you played with as a child are making their way to the silver screen. The picture looks to "highlight the emotional excitement and visceral experience of Hot Wheels."
."
why does this sound like a bad SNL skit? that could easily be the worst idea i've heard in a while. whats next? LEGOS: THE MOVIE... the hearbreaking struggle of a lonely LEGGO trying to get a "peice".
i miss my hotwheels. :(
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grantoros.com%2Fgrantoros%2Fimages%2Fredlines%2Fc_stang.jpg&hash=07673453ef3967175c974eaa6685fb1812cf9317)
remember lincoln logs? how fun were they!!
Yeah, fuck Ratner and Peter Jackson (who is better than Ratner but still sucky)...and Todd Solondz too, I'm back to hating him now. Storytelling and Happiness are horrible movies and WTTD isn't that good after a replay or two either. If any of those 3 bastards are added, I'll eat my freaking hat. Don't add any of these guys....
-brett ratner
-james cameron
-joel schumacher
-larry clark
-michael bay
-oliver stone
-peter jackson
-ron howard
-todd solondz
Finally someone who doesn't salivate over LOTR. I won't put the entire blame on Jackson however, since the screenplay had alot to do with it as well (yes I know he was one of the writers too)
There was just so much "goofiness" infused that it probably would have been better tackled by Dreamworks or something as a kid's animation movie. I realize that the books were written for children and if Jackson wanted to stay "true" to them he probably had little lattitude. But I do think he could have introduced some additional scenes and edited others down (or out) that would have made the films more compelling. As it stands now I'd rather watch a Harry Potter flick to get my "childhood escapism" fix....<gasp>
Quote from: ebeaman69Yeah, fuck Ratner and Peter Jackson (who is better than Ratner but still sucky)...and Todd Solondz too, I'm back to hating him now. Storytelling and Happiness are horrible movies and WTTD isn't that good after a replay or two either. If any of those 3 bastards are added, I'll eat my freaking hat. Don't add any of these guys....
-brett ratner
-james cameron
-joel schumacher
-larry clark
-michael bay
-oliver stone
-peter jackson
-ron howard
-todd solondz
you made a powerful enemy today my friend.
I can sort of understand your spite for Solondz if that isn't your cup of tea, but come on, Jackson? What has he done to offend you this much?
Chris Columbus
Adam Shankman
Raja Gosnell
Quote from: cbrad4dQuote from: ebeaman69Yeah, fuck Ratner and Peter Jackson (who is better than Ratner but still sucky)...and Todd Solondz too, I'm back to hating him now. Storytelling and Happiness are horrible movies and WTTD isn't that good after a replay or two either. If any of those 3 bastards are added, I'll eat my freaking hat. Don't add any of these guys....
-brett ratner
-james cameron
-joel schumacher
-larry clark
-michael bay
-oliver stone
-peter jackson
-ron howard
-todd solondz
you made a powerful enemy today my friend.
cbrad, ive got your back if you need it...
Quote from: cbrad4dQuote from: ebeaman69Yeah, fuck Ratner and Peter Jackson (who is better than Ratner but still sucky)...and Todd Solondz too, I'm back to hating him now. Storytelling and Happiness are horrible movies and WTTD isn't that good after a replay or two either. If any of those 3 bastards are added, I'll eat my freaking hat. Don't add any of these guys....
-brett ratner
-james cameron
-joel schumacher
-larry clark
-michael bay
-oliver stone
-peter jackson
-ron howard
-todd solondz
you made a powerful enemy today my friend.
Lol!
You may not want to do that. I'm crazy man. I could snap.
Don't add Kevin Smith.
Peter Jackson, Oliver Sone, Larry Clark and James Cameron are fucking great!!!
Quote from: RegularKarateDead Alive is one of the best movies of it's kind
What a forgettable movie. Can you name me even one character from that film?
and yes, sarcasm is very evident in this post. My feelings for Dead Alive and PJ can be summed up in my avatar
Quote from: SpikePeter Jackson, Oliver Sone, Larry Clark and James Cameron are fucking great!!!
totally.
glad to see the kids of germany are not as stupid as the kids of america.
Quote from: [P]Quote from: SpikePeter Jackson, Oliver Sone, Larry Clark and James Cameron are fucking great!!!
totally.
glad to see the kids of germany are not as stupid as the kids of america.
Oh yeah, cause you have to be a genius to like Larry Clark and James Cameron's films...they are just so fucking complex. I mean, just look at any of Clark's films: naked young girls, profanity, and...naked young girls...ummm, yeah. Try to understand that and then do my math homework.
Quote from: ebeaman69Quote from: [P]Quote from: SpikePeter Jackson, Oliver Sone, Larry Clark and James Cameron are fucking great!!!
totally.
glad to see the kids of germany are not as stupid as the kids of america.
Oh yeah, cause you have to be a genius to like Larry Clark and James Cameron's films...they are just so fucking complex. I mean, just look at any of Clark's films: naked young girls, profanity, and...naked young girls...ummm, yeah. Try to understand that and then do my math homework.
actually, naked young girls are complex -- you have to be pretty smart to figure them out...
Yep, I agree completely with ebeaman, Larry Clark is awful. I saw that movie Another Day In Paradise... I mean, I really enjoy James Woods, but that was just dreck!! Tried to be harsh like Scorsese a la Taxi Driver, tried to be hip like Tarantino a la Pulp Fiction. Was neither. Just plain sucked.
I don't have any problem with Stone or Jackson or Cameron, though. I think Stone and Cameron are a bit overrated, but they've both made their share of fine films. I think JFK alone warrants Stone's greatness.
But Clark... I don't get it. I like the whole nude chicks thing as much as the next guy, but his films look like ten dollar weekend shoots by some perverted hack with a zero attention span. Hmm.
Quote from: SoNowThenI don't have any problem with Stone or Jackson or Cameron, though. I think Stone and Cameron are a bit overrated, but they've both made their share of fine films. .
stone deserves all the credit he gets. hes not overrated what so ever. im not even a huge fan of his films, but i in no way denounce his brilliance as a director. i think hes one of the few modern directors that has a destinct "body" of work -- he has stuck to his guns and developed a unique style all his own -- which is MUCH easier said than done. i think theres a lot to be said about a director who gets pictures made under HIS terms -- he's as close to fitting the "autuer" mold as one can get.
yep yep yep, no burn on Stone whatsoever. Just mean to say he's not an essential director for me. Except JFK, like I said. But I agree, he must be given credit.
Quote from: ebeaman69
Oh yeah, cause you have to be a genius to like Larry Clark and James Cameron's films...they are just so fucking complex. I mean, just look at any of Clark's films: naked young girls, profanity, and...naked young girls...ummm, yeah. Try to understand that and then do my math homework.
its not so much a question of intelligence rather a question of good taste.
Quote from: coyboycurtis
stone deserves all the credit he gets. hes not overrated what so ever. im not even a huge fan of his films, but i in no way denounce his brilliance as a director. i think hes one of the few modern directors that has a destinct "body" of work -- he has stuck to his guns and developed a unique style all his own -- which is MUCH easier said than done. i think theres a lot to be said about a director who gets pictures made under HIS terms -- he's as close to fitting the "autuer" mold as one can get.
coyboy i think you're becoming my new best friend. :)
can we hold hands?
Quote from: ebeamanOh yeah, cause you have to be a genius to like Larry Clark and James Cameron's films...they are just so fucking complex. I mean, just look at any of Clark's films: naked young girls, profanity, and...naked young girls...ummm, yeah. Try to understand that and then do my math homework.
hey 69, u don't mind me calling u by ur last name, right, 69?
cya later 69.
hahaha like sex, right? hahaha
Quote from: _|P|_Quote from: ebeamanOh yeah, cause you have to be a genius to like Larry Clark and James Cameron's films...they are just so fucking complex. I mean, just look at any of Clark's films: naked young girls, profanity, and...naked young girls...ummm, yeah. Try to understand that and then do my math homework.
hey 69, u don't mind me calling u by ur last name, right, 69?
cya later 69.
Lol, he just got all pissed and snippy cause I hate james cameron and larry clark...haha...alright, good times. :)
Actually, I think it's because you act so disgusted at certain films with explicit content yet you had a sexual position as part of your username and that's just silly
I don't think he was disgusted with the content, he was just making the point that the content ain't that deep.
Which is the truth.
Hey, I don't like Larry Clark either
Don't ever add Clark
But I was thinking more of his severe hatred for Solondz.
Oh.
Hey, y'know what? I've never actually seen a Solondz film. Are they that messed up?
A little bit
Imagine a darker than usual dark comedy
Quote from: tremoloslothActually, I think it's because you act so disgusted at certain films with explicit content yet you had a sexual position as part of your username and that's just silly
So, he's saying that since I am not offended by a sexual position...I should love and embrace Solondz's films...oooook.
I didn't express any disgust for the naked young girls...I just mentioned them as one of the two running elements of larry clark's films. I didn't mention Solondz or any of his films the quote that P replied to.
And as for being disgusted by Solondz films...I'm not the only one who's a little uncomfortable watching a 11 year old kid getting drugged with intentions of rape...so whatever. And besides, I'm not disturbed by the guy's films anymore...I'm just bored of them now. Shows how complex his films are...take out the shock value and you've got: a bunch of actors channeling solondz's anger with...well, everything. Save me a fucking seat!
So, when sexual positions are as contreversial and disturbing as pedophiles and the rape of adolescent boys...I'll apologize for the
utter irony between my username and my taste. I refuse to believe that the number '69' is half as offensive as ANYTHING in a Solondz film.
Quote from: tremoloslothA little bit
Imagine a darker than usual dark comedy
Oh yeah, and then a guy fucks a couple kids...
and a bunch of other people get raped and killed and whatnot. It's all really great.
*footnote: no, I am not one of those naive people that think rape shouldn't be depicted in film and shields their eyes everytime the word is even said. It can be done right (clockwork orange). But when it's done for comedy, count me out.
who's that woman in your avatar, ebeaman?
you guys shouldn't give ebeaman such a hard time all because he doesn't like films which deal with the raping of pre-adolescent boys.
Quote from: MrBurgerKingwho's that woman in your avatar, ebeaman?
you guys shouldn't give ebeaman such a hard time all because he doesn't like films which deal with the raping of pre-adolescent boys.
Thank you. I hope your not just patronizing me, cause Todd Solondz is definitely not for everybody and people MUST realize that. He is an acquired taste.
And that beautiful angel in my avatar is Audrey Tautou.
See Amelie now if you haven't.
ebeaman gets picked on when pubrick is in a bad mood. It's just what happens.
Quote from: ebeaman
*footnote: no, I am not one of those naive people that think rape shouldn't be depicted in film and shields their eyes everytime the word is even said. It can be done right (clockwork orange). But when it's done for comedy, count me out.
Actually, this is how I viewed you, but if you say so
I think the rape in Clockwork Orange is supposed to be a little funny too (the huge modern art penis?)... Actually, I would argue that the audience is asked to identify more with the rapist in Clockwork (because he then becomes a victim of the system) than with the father in Happiness... Also, the notion of the paedophilia being 'played for laughs' is a bit strange: no one is asking you to laugh at the fact that this guy is a paedophile. It's supposed to be unbelievably sad and distressing and worrying (your reaction proves that it is this)... There are funny moments in the film, but I think they're mostly unnassociated with that storyline.
I'm not attacking you, and I guess this is pointless because you're never gonna like the film - that's cool... I found Happiness one of the most difficult films to watch I've ever seen too - I wanted to turn it off a number of times, but I stuck with it and have come to the opinion that I think it's a very important movie. I'm glad someone is doing what Todd Solondz is doing...
Quote from: children with angelsI think the rape in Clockwork Orange is supposed to be a little funny too (the huge modern art penis...
i think they may have been referring to the rape scene of the writer's wife -- i didn't find that too funny.
Quote from: cowboykurtisi think they may have been referring to the rape scene of the writer's wife -- i didn't find that too funny.
youd be surprised, ive been to showings where people do actually laugh. hes dancing and singing!
I always chuckle...
Quote from: cecil b. dementedQuote from: cowboykurtisi think they may have been referring to the rape scene of the writer's wife -- i didn't find that too funny.
youd be surprised, ive been to showings where people do actually laugh. hes dancing and singing!
when hes dancing it's amusing -- momentarily -- but, when the music dips out and we see the writer's POV of his wife getting violenty groped and fucked: i would say it's argueably one of the most disturbing scenes in cinema history -- peopel probably laugh because they're nervous, not becuase they think it's funny.
QuoteOh yeah, cause you have to be a genius to like Larry Clark and James Cameron's films...they are just so fucking complex. I mean, just look at any of Clark's films: naked young girls, profanity, and...naked young girls...ummm, yeah. Try to understand that and then do my math homework.
You dont know what your talking about man. Larry Clark is great. I didn't know you had to have a complex film to be great. Im not the biggest fan of Stranger then Paradise, but KIDS is absolutely great.
Larry Clark was an extremely bad kid when he was younger. He was an addict to every drug, carried guns at a young age, in and out of jail constantly, and served 19 months in jail for shooting a guy in the arm during a card game. This guy has been through it all, and actually came out alive.
It only makes sense, that his films would reflect heavily on his childhood.
QuoteI mean, just look at any of Clark's films: naked young girls, profanity, and...naked young girls...ummm, yeah.
Your a fool if you think his films are about this. It's like saying Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a drug movie. (Which you probly do)
KIDS is a realistic tradgedy. It's a tragic reflection on the reality that many kids face today. When you watch KIDS, its not complex, it feels like your right there with them, not thinking ahead, just living for the moment as many teens do.
But does the guy have a point to make? Or is he just reproducing horrors? I haven't seen KIDS, but I did watch Another Day... and I found it just tried to be hip, but wasn't. It was pretty graphic, and I usually like that, but in this case it just seemed stupid. Even if something reflects on our childhood (no matter how "out there" it was), it can still make for a banal film.
yeah once again ebeaman is ebeingawoman. and JB nice job in trying to know what ur talking about.. but not.
what i meant was that James Cameron is a great director, Larry Clark is good, and Solondz is unique and interesting and if ur not open to em especially Cameron, well that's a damn shame.
obviously calling u 69 was a reference to u changing ur name, no deeper meaning than that.
Quote from: _|P|_yeah once again ebeaman is ebeingawoman. and JB nice job in trying to know what ur talking about.. but not.
what i meant was that James Cameron is a great director, Larry Clark is good, and Solondz is unique and interesting and if ur not open to em especially Cameron, well that's a damn shame.
obviously calling u 69 was a reference to u changing ur name, no deeper meaning than that.
I never intended to have the 69 on there...I regreted putting it there as soon as I registered. It wasn't until recently that I realized I could change my name without re-registering. I thank mogwai for helping me realize this when he altered his name.
And, JB is probably right. I can't see any other reason for you to bitch at me all the time other than just being in a bad mood. I may not have the best taste, I don't think I know everything about film, but I'm a pretty nice guy I think...so what's the damage?
Larry Clark is a horrible filmmaker, as is Harmony Korine (as a writer, that is -- makes it clear in my mind that it's easy to make it if you scrape the bottom of the barrel). Their films are nothing but exploitative garbage. Kids, while having a valid point, went about it all wrong, and I was left feeling as if I just wasted time listening to something I already knew. It may, at least, be educational for high school students, though. But it could have done without the gratuitous nudity.
I actually admire Solondz, though, for tackling tough issues in this very tongue-in-cheek way. His best picture, IMO, is Storytelling. Happiness is a little too over the top, but still good. As Ebert said in his review of Happiness, he gets you to laugh at things you shouldn't, and catches you at it, making you see something in a new light. And that's evident a lot, especially in Storytelling.
Cameron Crowe, though. How the fuck did HE get his own forum? I must've missed something. Almost Famous was almost entertaining, but not quite. I had an ex who loved, loved, loved Say Anything..., but I could never sit through it all. Maybe I will someday. Vanilla Sky had this amazing trailer that introduced an amazing premise which he totally copped out on, then I find out that the film is a remake of a film -- and instead of improving on Abre los ojos, he just made a shot-for-shot recreation, which was pointless vanity. He could have just lobbied for the Spanish film to be released, but no. And, well, Jerry Maguire was alright, but that's not saying much, considering how formulaic it is. So yes, get rid of Crowe, I say.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaLarry Clark is a horrible filmmaker, as is Harmony Korine (as a writer, that is -- makes it clear in my mind that it's easy to make it if you scrape the bottom of the barrel). Their films are nothing but exploitative garbage. Kids, while having a valid point, went about it all wrong, and I was left feeling as if I just wasted time listening to something I already knew. It may, at least, be educational for high school students, though. But it could have done without the gratuitous nudity.
I actually admire Solondz, though, for tackling tough issues in this very tongue-in-cheek way. His best picture, IMO, is Storytelling. Happiness is a little too over the top, but still good. As Ebert said in his review of Happiness, he gets you to laugh at things you shouldn't, and catches you at it, making you see something in a new light. And that's evident a lot, especially in Storytelling.
Cameron Crowe, though. How the fuck did HE get his own forum? I must've missed something. Almost Famous was almost entertaining, but not quite. I had an ex who loved, loved, loved Say Anything..., but I could never sit through it all. Maybe I will someday. Vanilla Sky had this amazing trailer that introduced an amazing premise which he totally copped out on, then I find out that the film is a remake of a film -- and instead of improving on Abre los ojos, he just made a shot-for-shot recreation, which was pointless vanity. He could have just lobbied for the Spanish film to be released, but no. And, well, Jerry Maguire was alright, but that's not saying much, considering how formulaic it is. So yes, get rid of Crowe, I say.
Oh, you were so close to being my best friend until that last part
I agree with everything above except the useless Cameron Crowe bashing. He's the only guy I consider to make really popular mainstream movies that I think are great. Well, I know his last two didn't do so well, but whatever. The more you watch Almost Famous (Untitled), you get to slowly love it.
I don't think Harmony Korine is exploitative. I think he's actually quite fond of the people he's depicting; they're mostly the kind of people the mainstream thinks of as "trash," though. That's always sticky business; being shown these things that people ignore but that really do exist can feel like exploitation, when really it just makes us uncomfortable but does have a purer intention than just shock value and exploitation behind it. I see Gummo as a sort of commemorative tribute to the swept-under-the-rug people; that tornado is a perfect metaphor.
Clark, on the other hand... I liked Paradise and hated Bully, which I thought really was exploitative. He might be a different story. He generally has very little of the sort of tenderness Korine sometimes displays.
Cameron Crowe is sort of blah to me. I found Almost Famous entertaining, but overall, I don't think he deserves his own forum. But the apparent criteria for who gets their own director's forum here seems nonsensical to me, anyway. I mean, why do Quentin Tarantino and Steven Spielberg get their own forums, but not Jean Renoir or Alfred Hitchock or even Orson Welles? Importance and standing in the history of cinema are obviously not the deciding factors.
Well, take a look at Crowe's Director filmography:
Director - filmography
Vanilla Sky (2001)
Almost Famous (2000)
... aka Untitled: Almost Famous the Bootleg Cut (2001) (USA: director's cut (DVD title))
Jerry Maguire (1996)
Singles (1992)
Say Anything... (1989)
... aka ...Say Anything... (1989) (USA: promotional title)
Only five films. I can certainly understand why people like his work. I simply don't think it's ever going to be on the level of a PTA, Solondz, Kubrick, Tarantino, or even Lynch (whose films I don't even necessarily like, but more respect).
I haven't seen Singles, but it appears to be the weakest entry in his body of work. And don't get me wrong, when I saw Vanilla Sky in theatres, I thoroughly enjoyed it. But in learning more and more about film, I've come to realize it was simply unnecessary, considering Abre los ojos.
Watch any one of the TV spots for Vanilla Sky and take it for what it advertises, not what the movie is actually about. Note the tagline: LoveHateDreamsLifeWorkPlayFriendshipSex. I loved that tagline. I loved the TV spot. I thought "here we have a director with his head on straight, going to give us a good film with intelligent thought put in to it." Note the tones toward fidelity. Remember Cameron Diaz's character's lines in the car, as she drives Tom Cruise's character home. Here we have all the trappings of the opening of a great film. But *poof* it all vanishes into this spiral, this vortex of another film's premises. These lines don't belong here. They leave the viewer wanting you to explore those issues you've established, but once you realize this is just a mimicking of Abre los ojos, you find yourself duped, and realize that those lines belong in another film. You are left with a prettying up of a story that was decent in Spanish, simply glamourized in English. Crowe pulled every punch here, and that's what leaves me so frustrated.
Jerry Maguire was very decent for a formulaic romantic comedy, but that alone doesn't make a great movie.
And finally, the film I meet with most contention, Almost Famous. I don't get why people constantly cream their pants over this film. It's cute, it's sweet, it's based on Cameron's own experiences, but it's a little too optimistic and far-fetched for me. I watched the special features on the DVD after I was done with the movie, and admired Crowe's demeanor, his apparent rapport with the cast, and such. Not to mention, Kate Hudson is a beautiful, great actress. Also, Philip Seymour Hoffman is simply the man, and great here in what amounts to a cameo. Frances McDormand is always a joy to watch as well. But it just didn't move me any.
Perhaps, it was just because I never got in to that music scene, I don't know. You can talk technical accomplishment until the cows come home, but what it comes down to me as far as movies go are four simple words: "Did it move me?" If it did, and I liked how it affected me, great. To what extent it affected me is the extent I'll appreciate it, which is why my favorite film is Magnolia, and the films that follow all are very moving in one way or another, currently (all the movies I'd give 10/10 to): American Beauty, Donnie Darko, Fight Club, Pulp Fiction, Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain, A Clockwork Orange, Annie Hall, Punch-Drunk Love, Waking Life, The Shawshank Redemption, Eyes Wide Shut, Casablanca, When Harry Met Sally..., Groundhog Day, Contact, The Princess Bride, Dead Poets Society, Singin' in the Rain, and Requiem for a Dream. (Way too many honorable mentions (9/10) to mention, but Dancer in the Dark is one I've been debating for a while. Ditto for 12 Angry Men.)
So yeah, that's where I'm coming from. Now, I don't think my "Cameron bashing" was senseless. I could have been more tactful. But I was surprised to see him mentioned with all the other great directors you have listed, is all. Maybe after he makes a few more films. He's still young yet, and does have potential. Perhaps a forum for deceased directors would be in order as well? Kurosawa is great. I've only seen Ran, but got it with Madadayo in the Amazon.com limited edition collection, which I look forward to. I've seen over 170 films in the past year (you'd be amazed at what you can accomplish with a library card an a couple of art houses within walking distance), and have over 600 I want to see (thanks, IMDb), at least five of which are from Kurosawa. Don't want to leave it off there with just Kurosawa, but the bottom line is, there are so many great directors that constantly get overlooked, that I was surprised to see Crowe's name mentioned.
And I'll probably get flak for this too, but I find Hitchcock a bit overrated myself. North by Northwest was just CORNY and frustrating, although Psycho was interesting, and its impact is undeniable.
Tarantino and Anderson are the only two filmmakers I can think of never to have missed in the director's chair (Tarantino has had a little less success producing and writing). It seems as if PTA has the magic touch, though, which is why it's so exciting anticipating his work. Solondz is similar to that, but his films touch a nerve, so I don't know how much that would factor in. I haven't seen his earliest film, though, so I can't comment on that.
That's it for now. What a mouthful. :P
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaCameron Crowe, though. How the fuck did HE get his own forum? I must've missed something.
Yes. You missed a board called The Cigarettes & Coffee Message Board that Greg Mariotti ran on his ptanderson.com website. Greg also runs the Cameron Crowe website: The Uncool. Greg is nice enough to place banners ads up on his sites to promote this message board and bring in new members. So out of repesect to him and his followers the Crowe forum is set up. Just accept it.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaAnd I'll probably get flak for this too, but I find Hitchcock a bit overrated myself. North by Northwest was just CORNY and frustrating, although Psycho was interesting, and its impact is undeniable.
We are done talking.
Quote from: mogwaiQuote from: P™James Cameron is a great director
Quit playin'!
When I saw that, I thought it must be backwards day. James Cameron is sometimes competent and always a sub-literate asshole, but never great.
Quote from: godardianI mean, why do Quentin Tarantino and Steven Spielberg get their own forums, but not Jean Renoir or Alfred Hitchock or even Orson Welles? Importance and standing in the history of cinema are obviously not the deciding factors.
I would think it is because they don't shoot movie anymore, being dead and all . Every directors that have forum are, and should be, active, and alive.
As for Cameron, I just looked over his filmo and I can say that I can watch any of his movies (except the overly long Titanic) without falling asleep, but I cannot really say I like them. YET, I cannot say he had absolutly no importance as a film maker, at least technically.
Quote from: BoothQuote from: godardianI mean, why do Quentin Tarantino and Steven Spielberg get their own forums, but not Jean Renoir or Alfred Hitchock or even Orson Welles? Importance and standing in the history of cinema are obviously not the deciding factors.
I would think it is because they don't shoot movie anymore, being dead and all . Every directors that have forum are, and should be, active, and alive.
Right. That just seems like a really arbitrary standard of inclusion to me, but it really doesn't bother me, though it is very presumptuous to assume that there's nothing interesting to say/discuss about a great filmmaker because they're dead and merely left us a rich, rich vein of incomparable cinema.
I have no trouble finding the topics of interest to me here, though; I don't feel bad that most of the true greats don't have a forum of their own. They're probably not rolling in their graves over it, or anything. I'm just pointing out that the reasons some directors get their own forum and some don't have little to do with their actual work and more to do with some sort of popularity-contest mentality or prejudice in favor of the contemporary and current. So nobody should be bothered when their favorite director doesn't get their own forum; it's not really a relevant or meaningful judgment.
The forums are set and unless Mr. Xixax sees fit to change them, he won't. This topic was started at the beginning when xixax.com was taking suggestions and finding its footing. But there is nothing wrong with members starting their own topic to showcase other filmmakers as they see fit. In fact, I encourage you to do so instead of trying to understand and complain about why some have forums and others don't. I personally feel there would more to discuss in a James Cameron topic than a Wolfgang Peterson one.
For the most part, I like the set up going here at XIXAX. My main complaint has not to do with who or who isn't represented in their own forum, but that there should be a way to make more obscure filmmakers represented in a more important way with their films. That's why I say a foreign filmmaker forum should be started because many people here look to these filmmakers over others but see them knocked back a few pages within a few days because only a handful of people seemed to see it on those first few days and felt obligated for discussion. Having a foreign filmmaker section allows these topics to stay in light longer and promote discussion more. I'm not asking for major change here, but I also don't think this is much of a change.
~rougerum
I second that. If only to learn a little more than I'd normally have the chance to.
Yes, a very good idea, thirded, and stuff. For all the Greenaways, Breillats, Almodovars, Jeunets, and Godards of the world, and more.