official MovieNavigator thread

[mutinyco]

I keep posting links this all over the place, so from now on I'll just use this thread. We have 2 new Fun Pics up. One for Spy Kids 3-D the other for Gigli. Choose your poison.

http://movienavigator.org/giglifun.htm
http://movienavigator.org/slyspy.htm

[Pubrick]

havn't u already made one of these.

[mutinyco]

No. I've just done different threads for different things. Let em die. I'll just use this one from now on.

[Pubrick]

ok but if u do one more about this goddamn site i'm deleting it.

[modage]

wait, maybe i'm behind the ball here, but you dont like PTA?

I thought it was an interesting juxtaposition by playing Auto Focus before Paul Thomas Anderson's latest. This film was what PTA's Boogie Nights aspired to be, but failed. The difference is that the former was made by a mature man in his mid-50s, who actually experienced the world portrayed on film, while the latter was the work of a young hotshot with a geeky fascination for porn.

Prior to Punch-Drunk Love, I'd never liked anything PTA had done. I've always felt that his movies were unfinished -- a jumble of interesting ideas and great visuals that never really gelled. I enjoyed Punch Drunk Love. However, my complaints remain. Only this effort was 95 minutes, not 3 1/2 hours like Magnolia.

Fortunately, the visuals and gentle, though skewed tone, kept me content, despite my objections. It's fun to watch, but doesn't hold together with further thought. It's basically plotless. An empty shell, like most of PTA's work. It's an idea for a story, but not a finished story. It blows away like a cloud sculpture. Perhaps, that was the point.

Paul Thomas Anderson's talent isn't in question. One day he will make a great film. I don't think he has yet. He needs to mature. He's been making features with accolades since his early 20's -- not nearly enough time for him to have matured as a person before attaining such responsibility. His films are formally and technically ambitious, but I don't feel like they ever add up to a whole lot.

[Pubrick]

wait, maybe i'm behind the ball here, but you dont like PTA?

we already had that argument with him over several pages, right here.

and here's what i had to say about it..

I actually thought what I said about PTA was a compliment. I was underrating him. Thom Yorke said the best compliment he received with regard to OK Computer was that it was an excellent album, but not the best thing Radiohead will ever make.

that's not the same as what u said.

what u said meant "paul's movies so far hav been less than great"

what the thom yorke critic meant, from what u wrote, "ok computer is ekzellent, and future works will be more than excellent, i love u thom".

either ur a bad writer, or u don't know what u mean.

[Ernie]

Oh my god...thinking Auto Focus is good is one thing but thinking PTA is bad is quite another my friend.

In all seriousness...call me cynical, but I'm surprised you weren't banned just for disliking PTA, really though.

[mutinyco]

Go P!

[modage]

thanks P.  yeah, like i said, i guess i was behind the ball on that one.  (most likely because i dont read any threads that are called "Whoops" or "Ummm...", or "Hey".)  wow, i didnt realize anyone who was here was anything other than a PTA freak.  eeeenteresting.

[mutinyco]

Here we go again. I don't dislike PTA. I met him. He's cool. I just think that for all the talk about how the 1970s produced great films -- many of which have inspired him -- nobody's really gotten it yet. It used to be that what made those films so good was what they were saying. The height of artistry was to combine personal integrity with social observation and commentary. I don't see the latter in his films. I think he starts going in that direction sometimes, but ultimately pulls toward his characters' emotions instead. I don't find that as interesting. Most directors are lucky to have one masterpiece in their careers. He'll definitely have one, probably more. I still feel like his films are made for people in their 20s, whereas '70s films were more mature. I don't know. Just my opinion. Like I said before somewhere else, misquoting Janet Maslin, just because a film was made by a great filmmaker doesn't necessarily mean he's made a great film.

[modage]

I met him.

wait, i just want to point out this statement for all the other PTA freaks on this board who have not met him and would probably die to do so.

[Pubrick]

I still feel like his films are made for people in their 20s, whereas '70s films were more mature.

what makes u feel that, are u over 30? i think that's a very irrational statement to make, making assumptions about ppl in their 20s, about who he makes his films for, and who was really affected by films in the 70s.

also ur taking it as law that everyone or at least PTA wants to recreate that era, social commentary has its place, and i think it's quite clear the current politically conscious and socially aware members of this generation are not the same as 70s audience. are u saying 20+yr olds in the 70s were more mature than now? or that films in the 70s were made for old ppl? or.. wtf? i mean, do u realise how large those assumptions are and how they destroy ur argument?

wait, i just want to point out this statement for all the other PTA freaks on this board who have not met him and would probably die to do so.

and with this PTA freak business, who are u talking about? once again sumone's assuming a false identity of the majority of ppl here, u may be talking about sumone like ebeaman who can't control himself (tho it's not his fault), and i'll admit there are many ppl who think too highly of PTA, but they're the minority. this inaccurate labelling has got to stop, shit how imperceptive are u ppl?

[modage]

well, i was just taking the near 300 threads in his folder where every minutiae of his 4 movies and everything else is discussed, while many of the other folders remain mostly dormant, as a cue that mainly everyone in this board came through their love of PTA.  it is an assumption, although i could be wrong.

[mutinyco]

Actually, no. I think people back then were MUCH more socially conscious. They were. No doubt about it. Today, I find people don't care as much about that stuff. But, personally, I find the act of being socially conscious an act of maturity.

Films like The Godfather or Nashville or A Clockwork Orange or The Deer Hunter are great because they offer both intimate characters AND social observation. People today tend to talk more about the style of those films as opposed to what was actually going on in them. That's dangerous. The reason those directors had balls was because they took on the powers that be. That's exhilarating to me.

My point about his movies being made for younger audiences is true, I think. With a few exceptions, I think the directors of his generation are all in that boat. How many films have featured adult families in them? A few, to be sure, but primarily, the main characters are young. But this is easily attributable to the directors' ages. They're making films about what they know. I also think the studios are in large part responsible too. They know the youth market sells better.

I think their films will get better as they become the veterans. Once they don't have anything to prove anymore their work will get better.

[Pubrick]

so, are u like 50?