oh i’m sorry i could swear i attached the film there somehow i was talking about THE INTRUDER, Claire Denis’s L’Intrus, the title of the thread is what the film is for Denis.
i’m sorry i don’t think i understand… is somebody actually saying that Soderbergh’s Clooney Garbage is better than Tarkovsky’s???
it was the last film i would expect to be named in a forum named REMAKES THAT IMPROVED TO THE ORIGINAL.
and yes it’s an interesting point Oerkfitz about La jetee and 12 monkeys, it’s quite true and they’re both great films but my reply to Deming wil be yes, if i have to choose it’ll be 12 monkeys, even though i’m not a Gilliam fan at all. just being honest.
please somebody has to agre with me and accept that this film is EXTREMALLY OVERRATED it’s not even what is badly called by the critics “art-film” is practicly boyle’s most mainstreem film. (judging by the film itself – structure, narrative, pace, ideology etc) i don’t care if it is foreign and was made with 2000 dollars and a crew of 7 but as good as it can be is just as good and pleasant as Pineapple express, good cool and whatever but a minor film, and please just because is set in india doesn’t make it and art-film!!! i know some of you wrote overrated, but c’mon 8 oscar nominations! and all that Golden Globe bs. more than overrated.
I’m interested in knowing how alone or not am i and particulary discus Mister Lonely if you saw it.
i just saw it about 2 days ago and i was completely surprised cause i really thought that there was no korine left and as a lot of people i was not interested or expecting much from his latest film. but tomy surprise i found the same korine as always but obviously more matured but still he’s saying the same things he’s saying in his previous films. he has create a haunting-dreamlike pesimist story disguised as a strange pseudo-romantic comedy, he has created a perfect world for lost souls to live but this world is crumbling slowly until it will fall cause nothing is perfect and there is no running away from life and apparent “realism”, we see a nun miraclously surviving a fall from a plane, god save her or her faith save her, who knows? it doesn’t matter really but it’s not going to last. the film is like a contemplation of a utopian dream of a beautiful and strange world but characters like a darkly Charlie Chaplin will be part of Korine’s breaks and leaks to a world that can’t exist. i find it a poetic and beautiful statement of a dark and lonely world. it’s Korine allright but it’s suttleness and aparent positivism just makes it exquisite to find the Korine essence, it’s like looking for Bunuel in his less known mexican films restricted by the industry.
what do you guys think about this film? i know it’s sort of a particulary difficult film to apreciate by many reasons and most critics and korine followers didn’t seem to apreciate it, but for me as i’m explaining came as a beautiful piece of cinema and wasn’t expecting any of it.
Deming— couldn’t agree more with what you say about the posibilities of a remake, to distill, to interpret and in a simple way of course, i find that a beautifly and honest way to remake a film, not with the ambition to improve it or impose your new contemporary view over the classic. butthe problem for me here i gess is simply that i have very little respect for Soderbergh and was quite offended by the idea of him remaking Tarvkovsky, i felt it was wrong in so many ways, and that if indeed someone was going to homage a Tarkovsky classic in a distilled and simple way he was just the wrong man to do it.
And yes it’s a bit strange for me to choose Gilliam over Marker being the way i am, and also that being a big fan of the remake concept usually stay with the original’s, i gess that in some ways it’s very difficult to be the right person to interpret in your own way a previous film.
thank you MUSTAFA! i’m really glad i’m not the only one who see it! and YES what a good point you make with Crash, cause it’s very close to it in many ways, although Crash is practicly a Crime of a film, in part cause it takes itself too seriously were Slumdog doesn’t just look at the faces of the people who made it in those awards! Boyle knows it’s a minor film and is as surprised as me to see all that nominations.
Belmondo – you’re not quite right with Punch, it’s indeed his less ambitious film but in Punch Drunk Love Anderson’s being Godard just as his personal interpretation of the french amour-fou not necesarily the Rivette film but the whole idea of french grazy and goofy love. it’s his little homage to french cinema with a close feel to ealry Godard.
and also c’mon it’s not really like he’s trying to be some other director in his films, he has his influences but it’s always him, or wich one is his Ophuls film? or Altman is in Magnolia as in Boogie Nights or whatever… i personaly don’t think his films work that way i do believe he is a strong auteur with it’s own identity just as any of his influences, maybe his first three films are more like essays in wich he sometimes felt more comfortable being close to one particular director wich would be the case of magnolia but at the same time hismost Altman influenced film is his most personal and honest, though not his best at all. I on one hand see his pre Punch films like essays in finding himself being punch drunk love his first real full masterpiece.
and as for my favourite it’s a hard choice betwen Punch and Blood but have to go with There will be blood for it’s full power.
The day he decided to make Milk is for me the day he died, he was one of my favourite auteurs and to see him returning to mainstreem cinema in a Milky way like this just seemed like he throw all his previous work out the window… at least i’m sure he got rid of his Bela Tarr’s Collection. What do you people who respect his death trilogy feel about this?
I’m glad and interested in all opinions on this subject, just trying to express mine.
Joe Nelson and everyone:
I see this last Van Sant project as a disaster not because it is supose to be mainstreem, that’s the word to resume the bad aspects in this case of a man who directed the death trilogy and came back or whatever to do a hollywood biopic in the form of a gay-panflet, clearly i’m not underline thinking here that he’s betraying his previos last films that seemed like an incredible evolution to a man like him, an evolution to austere and naturalistic cinema that trascended mainstreem of art film or whatever.
i mean please there’s gotta be somebody there who agrees with me with the fact that you CAN’T make a film like Last Days and then one like Milk, it’s like changing form left to right, yes he made Finding Forrester and Good Will Hunting so David Fincher made Madonna’s videos but everybody starts somewer, i always thought of those films as easy money to make his real films, i guess i was wrong… and apparently his death trilogy was some art film prestige complex.
maybe my point of view is a little radical mostly cause as you see for me Gus Van Sant was the trilogy and Paranoid Park not so much his previous.
and to the “You People” responds i’m sorry, english is not my first language and that’s the way it came out, i wasn’t implying anything.
i’m sorry if im being radical but i’m never going to see Milk, the trailer was enough. it’s a hollywood gay panlfet and there’s nothing to add. that’s just not my kind of cinema, and has nothing to do with the gay-ness just in case i get attacked. Tropical Malady is one of my favourite films.
I don’t see the diference in Milk and any trash by Michael Moore and that’s quite sad to say about the guy who did Elephant instead of Bowling For Columbine… but please try to undertsand what i’m talking about it’s not a matter o gayness or mainstreem it’s the ideology of behind the film that it’s just something totally oposite to his previous films, you can pay your bills and try to make an easyer film without betraying yourself, he just thinks he’s still being honest because it’s his gayer film but the escence in the form of the expressing that biography is what’s very doubtfull.
and with all due respect we clearly are not going anywere if you say his death trilogy is a failed experiment… maybe Jonny is right and this is a silly post.
WES ANDERSON cause he’s got too many followers that it’s just stupid, and SOFIA COPPOLA cause she’s just a lie. she should be directing music videos like his brother and friends, she just writes regular screenplays that are shoot beautifully by Lance Accord with the Coppola Brand in it’s poster and eeeveryone goes crazy!
the problem with Gus is simply that he’s a minor director and he doesn’t take films serously and the problem is that i was wrong about him, I actually though we was a real filmmaker now he’s no less and no more than a man like Steven Spielberg and Milk may be his Shindler’s List. clearly i don’t see the gift in playing with cinema back and forth shiffting ideologies when convenient.
And i really hope that he’ll be able to buy his long-wanted yacht with Milk.
the problem with Gus is simply that he’s a minor director and he doesn’t take films serously and the problem is that i was wrong about him, I actually though we was a real filmmaker now he’s no less and no more than a man like Steven Spielberg and Milk may be his Shindler’s List. clearly i don’t see the gift in playing with cinema back and forth shiffting ideologies when convenient.
And i really hope that he’ll be able to buy his long-wanted yacht with Milk.
i’m not objecting to a bio-pic of Harvey Milk at all. but making a gay propaganda or yes, thank you Pamphlet out of it it’s what completely enfuries me and find it a lie and a low punch to film and art. again i’m sorry
Nobody said and art film is better than a comercial film, but you don’see Bela Tarr directing a mainstreem bio-pic of mother teresa.
and to DAVID EHRENSTEIN i don’t recall ofending anybody on this thread, the point is just too expose and discuss you somehow felt deply offended don’t quite know why.
it may has somehting to do with you being gay and thinking that this discussion’s got something to to with that, and that i’m offending a fellow gay-man. cause if you’re gay you should be offended by this film and not by this post.
i’ve been completelay misunderstood again Justin, i’m not trying to make people feel bad about themselves or nor i’m a self-hating streak.
i just have strong passionate feelings towards this career move that Van Sant has made, as you can see and watching Milk won’t change a thing and also i’ve probably haven’t been explaining myself very well. this is just misunderstanding after misunderstanding.
when it comes to the way you stand as a filmaker i don’t believe in this kind of versatility, that’s why for me he has revealed himself as a minor filmaker not whorthy of saying that Bela Tarr or Chantal Akerman influenced him.
and the problem for me is not the art film or the mainstreem, i love Eastwood’s Mystic River as much as i love Sokurov’s Taurus, it’s the versatility that in this case seems fake to me, that’s all.
let’s just let this thread die, it’s turning into an offensive and hateful one and i’m the one you’re blaming, and honestly that was the least of my intentions, i’m sorry if i did. i was just offended by Gus Van Sant and wantet to share it and nobody agreed, and that’s fine we all have our own way of seeing cinema and we all have our limits, and sadly aggainst all odds Gus met mine.
The key at the beggining of course is to know who to listen or to read, if it’s a critic you usually respect or if it’s a friend who knows you enough and you know him enough etc, so their recomendations won’t be complete nonsense.
But it’s always difficult when you know a director for the first time without any references, if it’s not love at first sight it maybe difficult to find it’s real value also the refercences could work the other way around and force you to like it like the post is saying. It’ll be always difficult mostly when you’ve found a filmaker-critic that you respect TOO much, you’re most likely to love the films he likes and the films he makes, it’s a simple fanatism fase that if you love Rivette you’re gonna love every single one of his films, and the ones he loves. Though we don’t like to accept it we all have a little bit of this, wich doesn’t come from a bad place necesarily, it’s a way of trying to understand this person we admire. doing this in an honest way may help us found what distance us from them, wich is great! cause we stopped being influenced and we start being ourselves.
Another important thing is that we’re always mutating and evolving so we can hate a film we use to love and vice versa.
if i’m surprised i hate a film i feel i’m not supposed to hate: cause X critic-says it, cause it feels ans seems like the films that are close to you, cause Rivette thinks it’s the best film ever, cause in escence and ideology is just what you think cinema should be… but somehow i just didn’t like it. then maybe i should just acept the fact, there’s nothing wrong with it, there will always be a certain mistery in cinema wich is beautiful.
But if i insist on the matter i log on and find everyhting possible of that film! said and written, in favour and against then discuss it with my friends for hours and maybe, just maybe then i can find the misterious psicological and methaphisical reasons that made me find the film simply tedious.
Agreed Crap Monster, and of course you’re completely right, it’s the case of all of us i guess. But the problem stands in the extremes.
they’re people TOO academic and theoretical driven that leave no place for the sensorial mysteries of the art expression, and it’s the case of most film theorists and critics, but that’s another subject.
I’m sure you’re smarter than that Oerkfitz, Week End is a film very close to Bunuel and a guy who brags about having all of his available films sure must know that.
Tamahori is just nobody and Of course McG, Boll and Schumacher, but they’re easy targets.
For me Ron Howard and Alejandro Gonzales-Inarritu, now that he’s not going to shoot Arriaga’s Screenplays like Jonze-Kaufman we’ll see he’s not really a filmmaker, Kinda like Howard with reasonable screenplays. But i can’t think of two more flat and less-inspired filmakers working today, they really have nothing to say about anything, not even about their given screenplays, and they’re even respected by a few.
I would even dare to say that there’s some honesty and inspiration in McG, Boll, and Schumacher, but are just full of incredibly bad taste.
A lost boat drifting in the Ocean over 3 years ago
One of the most beautiful films ever made
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection over 3 years ago
MYSTERIOUS OBJECT AT NOON / BLISFULLY YOURS / BEAU TRAVAIL / THE INTRUDER /
WERCKMEISTER HARMONIES / THE MAN FROM LONDON / BOY MEETS GIRL / BAD BLOOD
and directors like RIVETTE and GARREL that have been completely overlooked and maybe a bit more contemporary like SOKUROV and TSAI-MING LIANG
Go to Comment
A lost boat drifting in the Ocean over 3 years ago
oh i’m sorry i could swear i attached the film there somehow i was talking about THE INTRUDER, Claire Denis’s L’Intrus, the title of the thread is what the film is for Denis.
Go to Comment
Remakes that improved on the original over 3 years ago
yes to THE THING and THE FLY! but also VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED, SCARFACE, CASINO ROYALE, THE THIN RED LINE,
and TWELVE MONKEYS.
Go to Comment
Remakes that improved on the original over 3 years ago
i’m sorry i don’t think i understand… is somebody actually saying that Soderbergh’s Clooney Garbage is better than Tarkovsky’s???
it was the last film i would expect to be named in a forum named REMAKES THAT IMPROVED TO THE ORIGINAL.
and yes it’s an interesting point Oerkfitz about La jetee and 12 monkeys, it’s quite true and they’re both great films but my reply to Deming wil be yes, if i have to choose it’ll be 12 monkeys, even though i’m not a Gilliam fan at all. just being honest.
Go to Comment
Why I didn't love Slumdog Millionaire. over 3 years ago
please somebody has to agre with me and accept that this film is EXTREMALLY OVERRATED it’s not even what is badly called by the critics “art-film” is practicly boyle’s most mainstreem film. (judging by the film itself – structure, narrative, pace, ideology etc) i don’t care if it is foreign and was made with 2000 dollars and a crew of 7 but as good as it can be is just as good and pleasant as Pineapple express, good cool and whatever but a minor film, and please just because is set in india doesn’t make it and art-film!!! i know some of you wrote overrated, but c’mon 8 oscar nominations! and all that Golden Globe bs. more than overrated.
Go to Comment
PEOPLE THAT RESPECT AND DEFEND HARMONY KORINE'S WORK, SHOW YOURSELF! over 3 years ago
I’m interested in knowing how alone or not am i and particulary discus Mister Lonely if you saw it.
i just saw it about 2 days ago and i was completely surprised cause i really thought that there was no korine left and as a lot of people i was not interested or expecting much from his latest film. but tomy surprise i found the same korine as always but obviously more matured but still he’s saying the same things he’s saying in his previous films. he has create a haunting-dreamlike pesimist story disguised as a strange pseudo-romantic comedy, he has created a perfect world for lost souls to live but this world is crumbling slowly until it will fall cause nothing is perfect and there is no running away from life and apparent “realism”, we see a nun miraclously surviving a fall from a plane, god save her or her faith save her, who knows? it doesn’t matter really but it’s not going to last. the film is like a contemplation of a utopian dream of a beautiful and strange world but characters like a darkly Charlie Chaplin will be part of Korine’s breaks and leaks to a world that can’t exist. i find it a poetic and beautiful statement of a dark and lonely world. it’s Korine allright but it’s suttleness and aparent positivism just makes it exquisite to find the Korine essence, it’s like looking for Bunuel in his less known mexican films restricted by the industry.
what do you guys think about this film? i know it’s sort of a particulary difficult film to apreciate by many reasons and most critics and korine followers didn’t seem to apreciate it, but for me as i’m explaining came as a beautiful piece of cinema and wasn’t expecting any of it.
Go to Comment
Why I didn't love Slumdog Millionaire. over 3 years ago
hahahaa you’re right! jesus! 8 was already TOO much, thanks anyway.
Go to Comment
Remakes that improved on the original over 3 years ago
Deming— couldn’t agree more with what you say about the posibilities of a remake, to distill, to interpret and in a simple way of course, i find that a beautifly and honest way to remake a film, not with the ambition to improve it or impose your new contemporary view over the classic. butthe problem for me here i gess is simply that i have very little respect for Soderbergh and was quite offended by the idea of him remaking Tarvkovsky, i felt it was wrong in so many ways, and that if indeed someone was going to homage a Tarkovsky classic in a distilled and simple way he was just the wrong man to do it.
And yes it’s a bit strange for me to choose Gilliam over Marker being the way i am, and also that being a big fan of the remake concept usually stay with the original’s, i gess that in some ways it’s very difficult to be the right person to interpret in your own way a previous film.
Go to Comment
Why I didn't love Slumdog Millionaire. over 3 years ago
thank you MUSTAFA! i’m really glad i’m not the only one who see it! and YES what a good point you make with Crash, cause it’s very close to it in many ways, although Crash is practicly a Crime of a film, in part cause it takes itself too seriously were Slumdog doesn’t just look at the faces of the people who made it in those awards! Boyle knows it’s a minor film and is as surprised as me to see all that nominations.
Go to Comment
P.T. Anderson's Best Film? over 3 years ago
Belmondo – you’re not quite right with Punch, it’s indeed his less ambitious film but in Punch Drunk Love Anderson’s being Godard just as his personal interpretation of the french amour-fou not necesarily the Rivette film but the whole idea of french grazy and goofy love. it’s his little homage to french cinema with a close feel to ealry Godard.
and also c’mon it’s not really like he’s trying to be some other director in his films, he has his influences but it’s always him, or wich one is his Ophuls film? or Altman is in Magnolia as in Boogie Nights or whatever… i personaly don’t think his films work that way i do believe he is a strong auteur with it’s own identity just as any of his influences, maybe his first three films are more like essays in wich he sometimes felt more comfortable being close to one particular director wich would be the case of magnolia but at the same time hismost Altman influenced film is his most personal and honest, though not his best at all. I on one hand see his pre Punch films like essays in finding himself being punch drunk love his first real full masterpiece.
and as for my favourite it’s a hard choice betwen Punch and Blood but have to go with There will be blood for it’s full power.
Go to Comment
THE DEATH OF GUS VAN SANT over 3 years ago
The day he decided to make Milk is for me the day he died, he was one of my favourite auteurs and to see him returning to mainstreem cinema in a Milky way like this just seemed like he throw all his previous work out the window… at least i’m sure he got rid of his Bela Tarr’s Collection. What do you people who respect his death trilogy feel about this?
Go to Comment
THE DEATH OF GUS VAN SANT over 3 years ago
I’m glad and interested in all opinions on this subject, just trying to express mine.
Joe Nelson and everyone:
I see this last Van Sant project as a disaster not because it is supose to be mainstreem, that’s the word to resume the bad aspects in this case of a man who directed the death trilogy and came back or whatever to do a hollywood biopic in the form of a gay-panflet, clearly i’m not underline thinking here that he’s betraying his previos last films that seemed like an incredible evolution to a man like him, an evolution to austere and naturalistic cinema that trascended mainstreem of art film or whatever.
i mean please there’s gotta be somebody there who agrees with me with the fact that you CAN’T make a film like Last Days and then one like Milk, it’s like changing form left to right, yes he made Finding Forrester and Good Will Hunting so David Fincher made Madonna’s videos but everybody starts somewer, i always thought of those films as easy money to make his real films, i guess i was wrong… and apparently his death trilogy was some art film prestige complex.
maybe my point of view is a little radical mostly cause as you see for me Gus Van Sant was the trilogy and Paranoid Park not so much his previous.
and to the “You People” responds i’m sorry, english is not my first language and that’s the way it came out, i wasn’t implying anything.
Go to Comment
THE DEATH OF GUS VAN SANT over 3 years ago
i’m sorry if im being radical but i’m never going to see Milk, the trailer was enough. it’s a hollywood gay panlfet and there’s nothing to add. that’s just not my kind of cinema, and has nothing to do with the gay-ness just in case i get attacked. Tropical Malady is one of my favourite films.
I don’t see the diference in Milk and any trash by Michael Moore and that’s quite sad to say about the guy who did Elephant instead of Bowling For Columbine… but please try to undertsand what i’m talking about it’s not a matter o gayness or mainstreem it’s the ideology of behind the film that it’s just something totally oposite to his previous films, you can pay your bills and try to make an easyer film without betraying yourself, he just thinks he’s still being honest because it’s his gayer film but the escence in the form of the expressing that biography is what’s very doubtfull.
and with all due respect we clearly are not going anywere if you say his death trilogy is a failed experiment… maybe Jonny is right and this is a silly post.
Go to Comment
Who do you think the most overrated director is? over 3 years ago
WES ANDERSON cause he’s got too many followers that it’s just stupid, and SOFIA COPPOLA cause she’s just a lie. she should be directing music videos like his brother and friends, she just writes regular screenplays that are shoot beautifully by Lance Accord with the Coppola Brand in it’s poster and eeeveryone goes crazy!
Go to Comment
THE DEATH OF GUS VAN SANT over 3 years ago
I’m sure Mother Teresa is a religious and social fugure worth memorizing in a film.
Go to Comment
THE DEATH OF GUS VAN SANT over 3 years ago
the problem with Gus is simply that he’s a minor director and he doesn’t take films serously and the problem is that i was wrong about him, I actually though we was a real filmmaker now he’s no less and no more than a man like Steven Spielberg and Milk may be his Shindler’s List. clearly i don’t see the gift in playing with cinema back and forth shiffting ideologies when convenient.
And i really hope that he’ll be able to buy his long-wanted yacht with Milk.
Go to Comment
THE DEATH OF GUS VAN SANT over 3 years ago
He already made an amazing bio-pic about a man worth memorizing in a film.
Go to Comment
THE DEATH OF GUS VAN SANT over 3 years ago
the problem with Gus is simply that he’s a minor director and he doesn’t take films serously and the problem is that i was wrong about him, I actually though we was a real filmmaker now he’s no less and no more than a man like Steven Spielberg and Milk may be his Shindler’s List. clearly i don’t see the gift in playing with cinema back and forth shiffting ideologies when convenient.
And i really hope that he’ll be able to buy his long-wanted yacht with Milk.
Go to Comment
THE DEATH OF GUS VAN SANT over 3 years ago
i’m not objecting to a bio-pic of Harvey Milk at all. but making a gay propaganda or yes, thank you Pamphlet out of it it’s what completely enfuries me and find it a lie and a low punch to film and art. again i’m sorry
Go to Comment
THE DEATH OF GUS VAN SANT over 3 years ago
YES, i’m trying to re-title it to PEOPLE WHO LOVED MILK PLEASE COME IN AND READ THIS NONSENSE by CORONEL X
Go to Comment
THE DEATH OF GUS VAN SANT over 3 years ago
Nobody said and art film is better than a comercial film, but you don’see Bela Tarr directing a mainstreem bio-pic of mother teresa.
and to DAVID EHRENSTEIN i don’t recall ofending anybody on this thread, the point is just too expose and discuss you somehow felt deply offended don’t quite know why.
it may has somehting to do with you being gay and thinking that this discussion’s got something to to with that, and that i’m offending a fellow gay-man. cause if you’re gay you should be offended by this film and not by this post.
Go to Comment
THE DEATH OF GUS VAN SANT over 3 years ago
i’ve been completelay misunderstood again Justin, i’m not trying to make people feel bad about themselves or nor i’m a self-hating streak.
i just have strong passionate feelings towards this career move that Van Sant has made, as you can see and watching Milk won’t change a thing and also i’ve probably haven’t been explaining myself very well. this is just misunderstanding after misunderstanding.
when it comes to the way you stand as a filmaker i don’t believe in this kind of versatility, that’s why for me he has revealed himself as a minor filmaker not whorthy of saying that Bela Tarr or Chantal Akerman influenced him.
and the problem for me is not the art film or the mainstreem, i love Eastwood’s Mystic River as much as i love Sokurov’s Taurus, it’s the versatility that in this case seems fake to me, that’s all.
let’s just let this thread die, it’s turning into an offensive and hateful one and i’m the one you’re blaming, and honestly that was the least of my intentions, i’m sorry if i did. i was just offended by Gus Van Sant and wantet to share it and nobody agreed, and that’s fine we all have our own way of seeing cinema and we all have our limits, and sadly aggainst all odds Gus met mine.
Go to Comment
Your Favorite Godard Film? over 3 years ago
For now WEEK END and LE MEPRIS that are sort ot two extremes of the first period.
Go to Comment
Your Favorite Godard Film? over 3 years ago
Steve Oerkfitz clearly hates Bunuel films.
Go to Comment
Are you able to make up your own mind without being influenced by outside opinion? over 3 years ago
The key at the beggining of course is to know who to listen or to read, if it’s a critic you usually respect or if it’s a friend who knows you enough and you know him enough etc, so their recomendations won’t be complete nonsense.
But it’s always difficult when you know a director for the first time without any references, if it’s not love at first sight it maybe difficult to find it’s real value also the refercences could work the other way around and force you to like it like the post is saying. It’ll be always difficult mostly when you’ve found a filmaker-critic that you respect TOO much, you’re most likely to love the films he likes and the films he makes, it’s a simple fanatism fase that if you love Rivette you’re gonna love every single one of his films, and the ones he loves. Though we don’t like to accept it we all have a little bit of this, wich doesn’t come from a bad place necesarily, it’s a way of trying to understand this person we admire. doing this in an honest way may help us found what distance us from them, wich is great! cause we stopped being influenced and we start being ourselves.
Another important thing is that we’re always mutating and evolving so we can hate a film we use to love and vice versa.
if i’m surprised i hate a film i feel i’m not supposed to hate: cause X critic-says it, cause it feels ans seems like the films that are close to you, cause Rivette thinks it’s the best film ever, cause in escence and ideology is just what you think cinema should be… but somehow i just didn’t like it. then maybe i should just acept the fact, there’s nothing wrong with it, there will always be a certain mistery in cinema wich is beautiful.
But if i insist on the matter i log on and find everyhting possible of that film! said and written, in favour and against then discuss it with my friends for hours and maybe, just maybe then i can find the misterious psicological and methaphisical reasons that made me find the film simply tedious.
Go to Comment
Are you able to make up your own mind without being influenced by outside opinion? over 3 years ago
Agreed Crap Monster, and of course you’re completely right, it’s the case of all of us i guess. But the problem stands in the extremes.
they’re people TOO academic and theoretical driven that leave no place for the sensorial mysteries of the art expression, and it’s the case of most film theorists and critics, but that’s another subject.
Go to Comment
Your Favorite Godard Film? over 3 years ago
I’m sure you’re smarter than that Oerkfitz, Week End is a film very close to Bunuel and a guy who brags about having all of his available films sure must know that.
Go to Comment
Directors who should be ashamed of themselves over 3 years ago
Tamahori is just nobody and Of course McG, Boll and Schumacher, but they’re easy targets.
For me Ron Howard and Alejandro Gonzales-Inarritu, now that he’s not going to shoot Arriaga’s Screenplays like Jonze-Kaufman we’ll see he’s not really a filmmaker, Kinda like Howard with reasonable screenplays. But i can’t think of two more flat and less-inspired filmakers working today, they really have nothing to say about anything, not even about their given screenplays, and they’re even respected by a few.
I would even dare to say that there’s some honesty and inspiration in McG, Boll, and Schumacher, but are just full of incredibly bad taste.
Go to Comment
WHO IS / WAS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL FILM ACTRESS EVER? over 3 years ago
Catherine Denevue, Lauren Bacall, Charlotte Rampling, Carole Bouquet, Jacqueline Bisset and Nastassja Kinski.
Go to Comment