Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Great Gawd-Awful Movies...

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jhc68
    replied
    It's all good.

    No matter how idiotic or offensive movies, may be they represent pure market capitalism -- producers make what they think people want to see -- so whatever criticisms we have about movies are implicit evaluations of the culture we live in (and us).

    So it all comes down to a viewers paradigm. Someone here hated "Being There" and I've heard others say that "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" was unwatchable... yet those are two of my favorite films. Likewise, I thought "Legends of the Fall" was horrendous, but lots of people loved it.

    And then there are films like "The Killer Shrews" and all the Ed Wood productions that are so jaw-dropping in their stupidity that I never tire of them.

    Sooner or later they all end up on TV and as the Couch Potato Handbook declares: There is no such thing as too much TV !

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by marknhj
    You owe me two hours of my life for that damn Die Hard movie
    Ha! Another sucker fleeced!

    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    I think when everything is boiled down and all the chips are in we probably all agree. Marlow is, as always, too nice and trying to be fair and even handed and what not and nothin makes me more crazy. Blow Me.
    I see my work here is done . . .

    Originally posted by lonewolf
    I hereby grant everyone permission to love or loathe any movie for any reason and enjoin them from maliscously criticizing the taste of others.
    The wise man speaketh!

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    Y'all may have heard the expression, "Different strokes for different folks"?

    Applies to movies. The basic reason for making movies, as in any business, is to make a profit. To tht end, movie makers must "entertain" a certain minimum of the movie going public. The trick is to balance "art" and "business" while offering a smorgasbord of genres of movies.

    Despite their narcissism, actors/artists are not important. It is just what they do. No movie is an "important" piece of work in the grand plan of the universe and the "messages" are not world shattering. They are destined to please/offend half the people whatever they do..

    I hereby grant everyone permission to love or loathe any movie for any reason and enjoin them from maliscously criticizing the taste of others.

    Now, wasn't that simple?

    It is, after all, only two frightenly short weeks until Christmas.

    And time to start rounding up tax stuff. :cry:

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by marknhj
    So, you stick to comic-book movies Marlow. I’ll keep enjoying every genre of movie making available and praise and critique as I see fit. Entertainment, for me, involves enjoying multi-faceted experiences; not one-dimensional escapism. Deal?
    No deal! :twisted: I like ALL sorts of movies. Benj Button is on the opposite end of the spectrum, yet I enjoyed it immensely! It may have even satisfied your 'artistic' cravings. Alas, you'll never know, because you certainly wouldn't go see a film I liked! :shock:
    I think when everything is boiled down and all the chips are in we probably all agree. Marlow is, as always, too nice and trying to be fair and even handed and what not and nothin makes me more crazy. :P

    I judge everyone and everything based on my own subjective reasoning and i love it. I dont feel bad or guilty at all. I look at something and then like Caeser i give it a thumbs up or down and i believe everyone else does the same.

    If i say a movie is bad it is bad in my world. Why would i care if someone else liked it?

    Warning Hitler reference. I hate Hitler some people love him. Who am i to judge? In the end i always use this retort....Blow Me.

    Leave a comment:


  • marknhj
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by marknhj
    So, you stick to comic-book movies Marlow. I’ll keep enjoying every genre of movie making available and praise and critique as I see fit. Entertainment, for me, involves enjoying multi-faceted experiences; not one-dimensional escapism. Deal?
    No deal! :twisted: I like ALL sorts of movies. Benj Button is on the opposite end of the spectrum, yet I enjoyed it immensely! It may have even satisfied your 'artistic' cravings. Alas, you'll never know, because you certainly wouldn't go see a film I liked! :shock:
    What a pathetic response! I saved half my ammo on the assumption you'd compose a decent comeback, what a waste! And, your last premise is incorrect as I have watched most of movies you mention. You owe me two hours of my life for that damn Die Hard movie :shock:

    We have some common ground though. I don't like Thomas Kinkade's art either. Actually, I think it's puke-inspiring...

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by marknhj
    So, you stick to comic-book movies Marlow. I’ll keep enjoying every genre of movie making available and praise and critique as I see fit. Entertainment, for me, involves enjoying multi-faceted experiences; not one-dimensional escapism. Deal?
    No deal! :twisted: I like ALL sorts of movies. Benj Button is on the opposite end of the spectrum, yet I enjoyed it immensely! It may have even satisfied your 'artistic' cravings. Alas, you'll never know, because you certainly wouldn't go see a film I liked! :shock:

    Leave a comment:


  • marknhj
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    The movie-maker has one, and only one, obligation - turn a profit, so s/he lives to fight again another day. If you make 'art' (WeverTF that is!) also, more power to ya! I go to be entertained. Period. If I am also enlightened, moved, or otherwise 'reached', so be it. Guess why Transformers and Iron Man made a zillion dollars? Answer: they successfully entertained people. A whole lot of them. I'm happy for you that all those people are beneath your dignity. Twilight is below my dignity to go see - and it's making a truckload of coinage, but I would never say it's a 'bad' movie. Obviously it's not if it's making good money. Moviemaking is a business, first and foremost, and you and I can totally disagree with whether we like something or not (oh wait, we always do!), but I fail to see how you can decide what is good movie-making or not. Yours is merely ONE perspective, representing .000000001% of the available audience. Deal with it!
    Yes, I agree, movie making is first and foremost a business. However, I'm curious about your statement that those who don't share my taste are, “beneath my dignity". Please explain.

    I’m even more curious that you believe a person can’t come to the conclusion that a movie is “bad” because it made a lot of money. That’s pure nonsense and to me suggests a one dimensional view of staggering proportions. As you know, one of the conundrums Hollywood has faced for several decades is box office ruling, first-and-foremost. I’d suggest that many in the business would prefer to make movies where substance, creativity and meaning rule; most do regard themselves as artists. However, most can’t because of the significant fiscal exposure involved in producing a movie, with no guarantee of return and the potential for significant losses. That is where “business” overwhelms “art”. So, they produce movies using the lowest common dominators: sequels; action movies, brand extensions from other media, star-driven vehicles and so on. On occasion a well-crafted movie comes along that does make a ton of money: My Big Fat Greek wedding would be an example. But, as the executive producer, who I went to school with, told me at the Mt SAC Relays, “It was a fluke. I knew it was funny when I read Nia’s script, but we had no idea it would do so well. I wanted to make it because it was so well written”.

    My taste is movies in very broad. Yours is apparently incredibly narrow. For me there are times when I enjoy an action movie and not be asked to think; others when a slasher movie entertains me; times when I enjoy being drawn into a drama which stimulates an emotional response. I enjoy those which can be admired and celebrated because of the brilliance of the script, acting, direction and production values; times when I want to have a good laugh at a comedy.

    I fully accept that how one defines “good movie making” is a personal opinion. And, indeed, what is a “good movie”. What I do not accept is the specious attitude that populism defines “good” or the pseudo-intellectualizing of a narrow genre of movies. That you believe I do not have the right to decide what is good movie making to me, and to disagree with others about what is a good movie, is quite surprising. As is someone who positions himself as a reviewer, yet will not see movies which could stimulate an emotional response or feelings he’s possibly not comfortable with.

    So, you stick to comic-book movies Marlow. I’ll keep enjoying every genre of movie making available and praise and critique as I see fit. Entertainment, for me, involves enjoying multi-faceted experiences; not one-dimensional escapism. Deal?

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    Most of what Hollywood puts out is drivel, pure and simple. It does not surprise me that Marlow is entertained by this stuff
    Look at it this way: I and the other proles are easily entertained, i.e., we all live in ignorant bliss with no aesthetic sensibility whatsoever. You, on the other hand, are continuously disappointed by that which is presented to you. In summary - we proles are happy - you aesthetes are not. I would rather be happy than cynical. I will continue to wallow gleefully in my plebian slop trough. You and the rest of the bourgeoisie can turn up your noses and sniff at your truffles. Good luck with that! :roll: :twisted:
    I dont think it has to be a either / or situation. I enjoy mindless entertainment as long as its done well.

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    I . . . are . . .ignorant . . .
    We are in complete agreement . . .

    :P

    Leave a comment:


  • Dietmar239
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    Most of what Hollywood puts out is drivel, pure and simple. It does not surprise me that Marlow is entertained by this stuff
    Look at it this way: I and the other proles are easily entertained, i.e., we all live in ignorant bliss with no aesthetic sensibility whatsoever. You, on the other hand, are continuously disappointed by that which is presented to you. In summary - we proles are happy - you aesthetes are not. I would rather be happy than cynical. I will continue to wallow gleefully in my plebian slop trough. You and the rest of the bourgeoisie can turn up your noses and sniff at your truffles. Good luck with that! :roll: :twisted:
    "What the hell did you just say?" - Chris Tucker (Rush Hour)

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    I would rather be happy than cynical.
    But we can be both. I'm happy as i don't go to the movies and my cynicism lives strong.

    And my wallet is happy too

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    Most of what Hollywood puts out is drivel, pure and simple. It does not surprise me that Marlow is entertained by this stuff
    Look at it this way: I and the other proles are easily entertained, i.e., we all live in ignorant bliss with no aesthetic sensibility whatsoever. You, on the other hand, are continuously disappointed by that which is presented to you. In summary - we proles are happy - you aesthetes are not. I would rather be happy than cynical. I will continue to wallow gleefully in my plebian slop trough. You and the rest of the bourgeoisie can turn up your noses and sniff at your truffles. Good luck with that! :roll: :twisted:

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    Sooooo a good movie is a movie that makes a lot of money and a bad movie is a movie that makes little money? So why review a movie, just look at the box office?
    Or just listen to the propaganda. I made the big mistake of going to see Independance Day after seeing all the hype.

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by marknhj
    I think you're being too generous. I'd say the percentage of Hollywood made, to suck-your-cash-out-of-your-wallet, movies is more like 95%...
    something I posted earlier seems apropos here:

    Originally posted by Marlow
    proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the writer [poster] simply doesn't like to be entertained very much at all. If you really think ALL those movies are bad, there's something wrong with you, not the movies.
    The movie-maker has one, and only one, obligation - turn a profit, so s/he lives to fight again another day. If you make 'art' (WeverTF that is!) also, more power to ya! I go to be entertained. Period. If I am also enlightened, moved, or otherwise 'reached', so be it. Guess why Transformers and Iron Man made a zillion dollars? Answer: they successfully entertained people. A whole lot of them. I'm happy for you that all those people are beneath your dignity. Twilight is below my dignity to go see - and it's making a truckload of coinage, but I would never say it's a 'bad' movie. Obviously it's not if it's making good money. Moviemaking is a business, first and foremost, and you and I can totally disagree with whether we like something or not (oh wait, we always do!), but I fail to see how you can decide what is good movie-making or not. Yours is merely ONE perspective, representing .000000001% of the available audience. Deal with it! :twisted:

    BTW, I hate Thomas Kincade's art and Josh Groban's singing, yet they are two of the most popular 'artists' in the world. Oh well.

    Sooooo a good movie is a movie that makes a lot of money and a bad movie is a movie that makes little money? So why review a movie, just look at the box office?

    We cant call a movie a "bad movie" and we cant call someone who mows down hundreds of tourists with a machine gun a terrorist......can make any judgement on amything? Im soooooo confused!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dietmar239
    replied
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    Most of what Hollywood puts out is drivel, pure and simple. It does not surprise me that Marlow is entertained by this stuff . . .

    :twisted:
    Wow, I actually liked Iron Man though. Dark Knight was good, just very....dare I say.....Dark.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X