Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 116
  1. #41  
    Originally posted by bkbk
    No, no no Narnia -- you're right & your friends are wrong.
    It's heresy to say, I know, but the sad truth is THE COHEN BROTHERS JUST NEVER ARRIVED.
    In fact, let me list their "breakthroug film":
    "Blood Simple"
    ...as one of the worst, too.
    In fact, just stick ALL of their films on it. They SUCK. They're immature, self-centered and self-indulgent.
    (But not in a witty way, like Woody Allen when he's "on." The Cohens have NEVER been on.)
    I doubt they'll ever have a hit.
    Sorry folks, calls 'em like I sees 'em.
    (Let the flames begin.)
    hate to disagree, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

    the coens, more often then not, are master storytellers. blood simple, miller's crossing, barton fink, and raising arizona are all masterpieces and among the best of their various genres.

    without trying to sound presumptous or pretensious, i'll say you don't enjoy their films because you don't have a knowledge of film history or what makes drama work.

    for instance, blood simple. you refer to this as their breakthrough film. well, it's their first film, so i don't know what you're suggesting they're breaking through.

    regardless, there is something about this film that is not present in any other film i've ever seen. there is a concept in drama called "superior position". it's what the storyteller gives the audience but keeps from the protaganist. for instance, YOU know the bad guy is hiding in the closet. the hero does not. when he enters the room, you fear for him. the filmmaker has granted you superior position. we've seen this in thousands of movies, right?

    however, watch blood simple again and pay attention to superior position. what is unique about it? well, it is made up entirely of superior position. the audience is, at all times, aware of everything that is going on while the characters are never aware of what is going on. to be able to pull this off requires a tremendous amount of skill. why? because each of the characters' realities (what each of them thinks is happening) makes sense from their point of view. you can see what they think is happening and why they think they're happening. and, from their pov, they are "correct". and each of the characters has a different interpretation of the events. but in "reality", none of them are correct. masterful.

    miller's crossing is, in my opinion, the greatest gangster movie ever made. i've seen it easily 30 times and it keeps my interest with each viewing. the characters are complex; the plot is intricate. whenever someone tells me that this film is boring or that it sucked i always ask if they paid attention. they say yes. then i ask them to tell me the three characters who are involved in a love triangle and they say verna, tom, and leo. then i ask who the three characters involved in the other love triangle are. at which point they can't answer. cause they weren't paying attention. usually they'll watch it again, realize what is happening in the plot, and love the film.

    barton fink is a wonderful movie. in addition to having a tremendous amount to say about creativity, the film manages to communicate complex ideas with its subtle themes. layered textures about filmmaking/jews/the holocaust/art vs. commerce/responsibilities of the artist/etc... though i'll admit that this film is not for everyone, it definitely has an audience.

    though i'll admit that the coens last two efforts left me hanging (o brother where art thou and the big lebowski), to say that the coens have never arrived is to seriously underestimate their achievements in film and what will no doubt be a lasting legacy in film history.

    i find this thread kind of interesting not because people's subjectivity regarding "a good film" is so varied, but because the subjectivity of "good" is so varied. for me, for a film to be crap, it has to have potential. to call, for instance, a movie like battlefield earth or dungeons & dragons bad is stating the obvious. however, neither one of them dissapointed me cause i was expecting nothing from either and actually laughed a lot at both. however, a movie like traffic, for instance, which has, one could argue, some responsibilities, is a piece of crap because it fails on so many levels (particularly plot and character). i'd rather rewatch dungeons and dragons than traffic. however, if i have to rewatch, i'd go with miller's crossing or one of the coens' other films.

    mc
    Last edited by mensachicken; 06/10/2001 at 02:20 AM.
  2. #42  
    Originally posted by Potus
    3.)The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover
    2.)The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover
    1.)The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover
    I love this film.

    mc
  3. #43  
    Originally posted by mensachicken


    I love this film.

    mc
    I saw this one rainy evening in London, which would seem the right atmosphere for the film. However, I found it tediously slow and pretentious. I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt by imagining that it was tedious because it was about the banality of evil, but that didn't work: I simply found it boring and self-indulgent (which I guess is the same thing). Ths costumes( by Gaultier (?) were like a hologram for everything I found bad about the film.

    It did receive some critical success tho' not uniformly.
    When I get a little money I buy books; if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
  4. #44  
    Originally posted by Bret Snyder
    Narnia, When did you finally see Shawshank Redemption? And I agree, anything with Audrey Hepburn is great.
    After our discussion last weekend, I put it in the DVD player and finally (after what? a year?) watched it. Then I watched it again. Then I watched certain chapters again. Then I watched the whole thing again. Basically, I had a Shawshank Redemption weekend
    Worst one that comes to mind is:
    Spirit of '76 (1991) w/ David Cassidy
    Ooooh, I remember that one! (Well, I kind or remember - it's been a loooong time.)Yeah, that *was* bad. I still watched the whole thing though, because it was soooo bad, I couldn't help it. I liked the part when those airhead dudes were trying to explain "Spam" to the travelers. I mostly remember happy smiley faces everywhere. ~*shudder*~
    "Attitudes are contagious... Is YOURS worth catching?"
  5. #45  
    Originally posted by mensachicken
    though i'll admit that the coens last two efforts left me hanging (o brother where art thou and the big lebowski)
    The Big Lebowski is my favorite CB film! And while I love Miller's Crossing (which loses a lot of Cohen fans), it's no match for The Godfather, Part II.

    I also loved The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover.

    Maybe it's time to start a new thread from the opposite direction . . .
  6. #46  
    Originally posted by Yorick
    Before I say anything else, I respectfully ask that you properly code your responses so I can properly quote them.
    You're wasting your breath. It'll more likely inspire worse quoting since it's now known it bugs you.

    I don't accept "stupid" as a reason a movie is bad. It's dismissive and unconstructive. You may as well be saying "bah."
    Two polar opposites, actually. Saying 'Bah.' in the Dogbert context means 'You are clearly being irrational and have demonstrated no willingness to listen to logic and reason. If anything, you have shown a tendency to refuse to listen to logic and reason. You are therefore not worth the time it would expend to refute your points logically and cogently.' Using 'it's stupid', though, usually means 'I don't really have a rational reason for the opinion I hold, but I don't want to admit that.'
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #47  
    Originally posted by Toby


    You're wasting your breath. It'll more likely inspire worse quoting since it's now known it bugs you.


    Yeah. My purpose in life is to make your life miserable


    Two polar opposites, actually. Saying 'Bah.' in the Dogbert context means 'You are clearly being irrational and have demonstrated no willingness to listen to logic and reason. If anything, you have shown a tendency to refuse to listen to logic and reason. You are therefore not worth the time it would expend to refute your points logically and cogently.' Using 'it's stupid', though, usually means 'I don't really have a rational reason for the opinion I hold, but I don't want to admit that.'
    Saying "it's stupid" in my world means I expect the reader to know basic stuff about what I am talking about, and using it to base it off of their opinions. It would be a waste going into detail, because I'm trying to prove something that can't be argued! (This is very rare. George of the Jungle is one of the few times ever!)


    ---

    Jeez toby, such cynicism.
    <b><font size=1 color=teal>"Sorry about the whole thing about losing your life savings, but that Palmpilot is property of Enron, so please give it back"
  8. #48  
    Dude, I gotta see that one, it sounds hysterical!

    My vote goes for Charlie's Angels, saw it last night and while it was better than I expected, I still thought that the studio executives owe me about an hour and 45 minutes of my life back as a refund.

    While I recognize satire, I thought NBK was unwatchable, and I have a sick sense of humor. It is probably the only movie I have seen so far that I think shouldn't have been made. And yes I get the whole point of the movie. I just think Stone has some problems.

    Oh, and who can forget waterworld. That was a colossal steaming pile. Pretty much anything costner does that has no reference to baseball is in that category as far as I am concerned...

  9. #49  
    Just thinking about costner makes me realize that just about anything with the following actors pretty much guarantees no chance whasoever of any kind of Oscar nomination lately... Think about some of their recent movies and while some are entertaining, some reeeallly suck too..

    Pauly Shore
    Stallone
    Schwarzenegger
    Travolta


    BTW, anyone else notice that Joan Rivers really looks like a praying mantis at this point? Check out her eyes... One big bug.
  10. #50  
    I'm afraid this has been kicked off by one of the entries in the 'favourite films' discussion (sorry); but 'Short Cuts' has got to be one of the worst films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through.

    Undoubtedly I have seen worst films, but this was masquerading as some great movie with no delivery on the promise. My wife and I went to see it when a group of our friends absolutely raved about how good it was, but at the end both of us agreed it was trash and we both spent most of the film watching the clock, waiting for the film to end!

    I'd also like to nominate 'Battle beyong the Stars', Robert Vaighn, John Saxon and George Peppard in seriously dodgy 'space opera' (So bad it's good?)
  11. #51  
    Originally posted by bblue
    Yeah. My purpose in life is to make your life miserable
    I wasn't talking about mine, but if suggesting that your purpose may be to make others 'miserable' is the only way to get you to comply with their reasonable requests, I can be Machiavellian about it...

    Saying "it's stupid" in my world means I expect the reader to know basic stuff about what I am talking about, and using it to base it off of their opinions. It would be a waste going into detail, because I'm trying to prove something that can't be argued! (This is very rare. George of the Jungle is one of the few times ever!)
    If it can't be argued then it can't be proved. All you were being asked to do was elaborate on the premises for your opinions. If you had no premise (which you don't seem to have other than 'it's stupid'), then all you had to do was say so. Your opinion can then be given the proper weight for evaluation purposes. IOW, if you give specific reasons or examples as to what you thought was stupid, those might be of value to someone who thinks those same type of things things are stupid. OTOH, if someone doesn't consider such things stupid, they could safely ignore your opinion.

    Jeez toby, such cynicism.
    There was no cynicism in my statements.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #52  
    Originally posted by Toby
    You're wasting your breath. It'll more likely inspire worse quoting since it's now known it bugs you.
    I was hoping for the best; thankfully bblue got the bolding figured out so I could tell which statements were his/hers without having to look at my own previous post.
    Interestingly bblue's response does have proper quoting. May be hope yet.


    Two polar opposites, actually. Saying 'Bah.' in the Dogbert context means 'You are clearly being irrational and have demonstrated no willingness to listen to logic and reason. If anything, you have shown a tendency to refuse to listen to logic and reason. You are therefore not worth the time it would expend to refute your points logically and cogently.' Using 'it's stupid', though, usually means 'I don't really have a rational reason for the opinion I hold, but I don't want to admit that.'
    yes, true. I was thinking in terms of these being dismissive (i.e., bah = you are not worth my time and It's stupid = it's not worth my time to be specific.), though, not so much the exact meanings. I'd rather not tread on your use of the term, as it would diminish your distinctiveness here, so I'll try to stay away from it in the future.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  13. #53  
    independence day: WORST MOVIE EVER!!!

    I cant stand movies that are militarily unrealistic yet have a focus on combat in anyway, all the reasons that ID4 was screwed up in that respect boggled the mind

    I hated pearl harbor for the same reason too. And also for that fact that at the end of every scene, a high ranking or respected official had to say something memorable or poetic, it came out sounding idiotic.
  14. #54  
    My take on the worst film is that it can't be fun to watch -- "Plan 9" is extremely entertaining.

    For worst, I've got to vote for "The Creeping Terror" and "Beast of Yucca Flats," films that didn't even bother to record a soundtrack.

    It feels a little bad to vote for two films that very likely had a combined budget of less than $50,000, but their badness transcends their mere cheapness.
  15. #55  
    Originally posted by bblue
    Here's my list.

    3) George of the Jungle
    Everything about this movie BLOWS worse than Clinton.
    I loved this movie. 'cause it was literally a live action version of the TV series and I still watch old episodes when I get the chance. This level of stupidity must be preserved for future generations.
    4) Space Oddesy 2001
    Not bad, but uh... they stretched 10 minutes of plot to cover a few hours. (prepares for flames) If you're going to see it, make sure you have your remote control. Ruined an otherwise excellent movie.
    Actually, I can't comment on how this movie appeared to the uninitiated. When it came out (I was about 10 years old), my older brother went to see it. When he came home, he said that it would have made no sense if he hadn't read the book. I immediately struggled through the novel (tough read for a fifth grader). When I went to see the movie, it was wonderful and made perfect sense 'cause the movie followed the book very closely.

    Through the years, I have given this same advice to many people. I have never heard anyone who had read the book make the same criticisms as people who haven't read it.

    I'm not sure in itself, if this should be taken as praise, criticism or just observation.
    Last edited by bradhaak; 06/11/2001 at 08:23 PM.
  16.    #56  
    Originally posted by narnia_77
    No flames, but I really liked Fargo with William H. Macy, Frances McDormand and Steve Buscemi. Directed by Joel Coen.
    FLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME!!! (Just hadda do it.)
    Man, I think I'm getting more immature w/age -- I just can't seem to go though all the posts before starting to respond like I used to.
    ("Ah, but I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now. B.Dylan [right?] Figures he'd be way ahead of me. I swore that lyric had no meaning when I 1st heard it.)
    I never saw "Fargo." (But, yeah, I'm aware it was the Cohens.) I know it got some awards and was the "darling" of a number of film fests -- but I almost feel like that's all the Cohens ever go for.
    Not that just because J. Park did $600M [right?] it AUTO. MAKES it a "better film" -- but I think you DO have to ask: "If it SUCKS, why did so many ppl. pay $9 to see it?" These are (usu.) HARD-EARNED $$$, eh?

    A film (I think) I can "wholeheartedly recommend" that I think may be "just like" this film I've never seen, which you may like (okay, okay -- whether or not it's "just like" it) is:
    "A Simple Plan"
    I was really surprised by how much they got out of this simple film about simple folks and simple greed (uh, and -- oh yeah, a place where just about every household has a shotgun to "resolve disputes" w/?).
    (I think B.B. Thornton just kicks **** in this one, in a perfectly understated, yet pretty hilarious role. Go Billy-Bob!!!)
    "Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein
  17.    #57  
    Originally posted by b1lanceman
    independence day: WORST MOVIE EVER!!!

    I cant stand movies that are militarily unrealistic yet have a focus on combat in anyway, all the reasons that ID4 was screwed up in that respect boggled the mind <snip>
    C'mon, c'mon -- it wasn't that bad. I know, I know -- I wanted to hate it, too (and did the parts you did, for much the same reasons). And the part where Will Smith just punches the alien creature in the face ... give me a break. But, take heart: it was quickly written off as an un-serious, check-your-brain-at-the-door flick, and rightfully so. But I took it on its own merits.
    I had to ask myself, did they deliver me $9 worth of entertainment (in the other parts, that weren't stupid, sensationalistic, or self-serving)? ... and I thought they did. Yeah, they had a little fun at my expense. But it was pretty big-scale FX, done reasonably well for people who aren't G. Lucas; its nice to have more of them in the form competing.

    I haven't seen P.H. yet.
    "Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein
  18.    #58  
    Originally posted by bblue
    Oh yes....
    bkbk, I'm sorry, but I didn't get your joke!
    My IQ level is dropping I guess
    Oh yes, this thread is dyn-o-myte , and I'm voting it a "5!"
    Joke? Did I make a joke?
    Was it the bingo-bango-stingo-stango (or whatever it was) one?
    Yeah, I like the way this thread is running -- but I still don't feel people are really reaching deep down for the absolute stinkers; some of these films are reasonably watchable!
    Two come to mind:
    "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" (a relatively dramatic, slice-of-life film ... that spawned the sit-com!); and
    "The Last Waltz"
    by another of my otherwise-usually-glad-he-made-the-film filmmakers, M. Scorsese

    I think I remember mustering exactly 1 grin in the whole of "Alice...."
    And, it's true, I've never been much of a fan of The Band ... but I thought I would at least be able to relate to it on SOME level (esp. if Marty thought enough of them to shoot the film).... But, man, was I glad when that film was over! And I've never even THOUGHT about trying to see it twice!
    "Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein
  19.    #59  
    Originally posted by icthus
    <snip>1) (too bad they had to ruin that by focusing on the two losers, er, I mean, um, heros).<snip>
    2) Being an American, and being in the service; that's the kind of scene in any movie <snip>
    3) Another movie comes to mind with good WWII sceens but not worth buying. The Thin Red Line. <snip>
    4) I think one of he worst movies I ever saw (other than Clueless, which I ended up watching against my will; twice.<snip>
    1) Too funny.
    2) I wonder if you saw that recent made-for-TV thing w/Sam Neill, about the only successful sub rescue? (Forgot the name of it; something else was on, too, and I had to channel-surf all night that night -- but you'd prob. like it if you didn't see it; pretty well made.)
    3) I thought "The Thin Red Line" was better than most people gave it credit for. It just suffered from killer competition "Saving Private Ryan" [right?] / a case of bad timing. Still when made, people talked about Terrence Malick (writer / dir.) as if he walked on water. But few ppl. do like S. Spielberg, who doesn't even brag (or allow himself to be bragged) about it.
    4) I find it hard to fault "Clueless," due to Alicia's many costume changes. If you really hated it, don't see "The Crush," made a few yrs. earlier, when she was even more nubile ... uh, I mean, had even fewer costume changes ... or something....
    "Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein
  20.    #60  
    Okay, okay, signing off now -- gotta give some other people time to respond, I know....
    "Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds." -- Albert Einstein
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions