Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:03 pm
Yes. The movie is absolute rubbish.Murrin wrote:You disagree with it having won "Best Picture" in the year it was released?
Kevin's Watch
Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
Vote for the best Best Picture ever
Page 2 of 5
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:15 am
LOTR's quality (the entire trilogy) was right up there with any of the films that were nominated for Oscars at the time, and I think ROTK winning 11 Oscars was the final, long-awaited nod after having ignored the previous two films. There's a bit of overlook (or a lot) when it comes to fantasy films in the Academy. And yes, much of the book was transmuted to swords and sorcery, but I still think it was tasteful and captured the spirit of the book. It could've been much worse, had Jackson and Co. not gotten a hold of it from the Hollywood machine.
OKAY, maybe Legolas shouldn't have slid down a fucking shield like a surf board. But other than that I didn't feel tainted while watching any of it. Maybe even invigorated and chills at the time, seeing parts of the movie surpassing my imagination of the book.
OKAY, maybe Legolas shouldn't have slid down a fucking shield like a surf board. But other than that I didn't feel tainted while watching any of it. Maybe even invigorated and chills at the time, seeing parts of the movie surpassing my imagination of the book.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:52 am
I think it's gross overstatement to call ROTK rubbish. You may not have liked it, and you are entitled to feel that way, but from a purely cinematic perspective, those movies were absolute marvels. Watching fellowship, I actually got a taste of what it must have been like to see Star Wars in the 70s. Independent of the books, you have a stupendous vision brought to life, and it certainly didn't mangle the books any more than the average historical epic mangles history.
That's the way we need to think of the movies. LOTR, the novels, were a feigned history. The movies are the big budget historical epic based on that feigned history.
That's the way we need to think of the movies. LOTR, the novels, were a feigned history. The movies are the big budget historical epic based on that feigned history.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:02 am
That's all I needed to hear.The Dreaming wrote:You may not have liked it, and you are entitled to feel that way,
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:33 pm
Dreaming, I voted for Amadeus, too.
I think LOTR is not only the best movie(s) of this decade, but of all time. Granted, I still haven't seen (for instance) The Godfather series. Most of the movies on this list were just downright boring. Casablanca? Gone With the Wind? 2001 Space Odyssey? I'd rather slit my wrists than sit through such overrated bullshit. No other movie on this list involved so many people working at the top of their game for so many years as a labor of love to produce something we have never seen before--I could not have ever imagined that LOTR would look this good. Even years later, it still takes my breath away. LOTR is a masterpiece, and we'll never see anything like it again.
(But the script could have used some tightening up.)
I think LOTR is not only the best movie(s) of this decade, but of all time. Granted, I still haven't seen (for instance) The Godfather series. Most of the movies on this list were just downright boring. Casablanca? Gone With the Wind? 2001 Space Odyssey? I'd rather slit my wrists than sit through such overrated bullshit. No other movie on this list involved so many people working at the top of their game for so many years as a labor of love to produce something we have never seen before--I could not have ever imagined that LOTR would look this good. Even years later, it still takes my breath away. LOTR is a masterpiece, and we'll never see anything like it again.
(But the script could have used some tightening up.)
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:47 pm
You're nuts. Casablanca and 2001 are amazing. I'll never forget my first viewing of them; or repeated viewings; or the time I wanted to hit you with a large vase for disparaging their greatness. The fact that you've never seen Godfather Part 1 or 2 also confirms that you are a wrong on this earth. Gone with the Wind; all right; that was boring.Malik23 wrote:Most of the movies on this list were just downright boring. Casablanca? Gone With the Wind? 2001 Space Odyssey? I'd rather slit my wrists than sit through such overrated bullshit.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:56 pm
What did you like about these movies? The first time I watched them, I could barely make it all the way through. I certainly had the opposite experience you did. I'm honestly curious why you think they are great.
There have been complaints about acting tossed around for movies like Sunshine lately. Have you really watched the acting in Casablanca? I've seen better acting (and more chemistry) in a Friends episode.
There have been complaints about acting tossed around for movies like Sunshine lately. Have you really watched the acting in Casablanca? I've seen better acting (and more chemistry) in a Friends episode.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:37 pm
While we can find bad reviews for any movie, I thought these were funny. From Wikipedia:
Casablanca:
And, while the recent debate about logical/technical problems with Sunshine is fresh on my mind, I'd like to point out that there are all kinds of scientific inaccuracies in 2001, which are especially notable considering that Arthur C. Clarke worked closely on the film, and this film is held to a higher standard specifically for its "scientific accuracy":
Casablanca:
2001:There are a few dissenting reviewers. According to Pauline Kael, "It's far from a great film, but it has a special appealingly schlocky romanticism..."[53] Umberto Eco wrote that "by any strict critical standards... Casablanca is a very mediocre film." He viewed the changes the characters undergo as inconsistent rather than complex: "It is a comic strip, a hotch-potch, low on psychological credibility, and with little continuity in its dramatic effects."[54]
However, Pauline Kael said it was "a monumentally unimaginative movie,"[31] and Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic called it "a film that is so dull, it even dulls our interest in the technical ingenuity for the sake of which Kubrick has allowed it to become dull."[32] Renata Adler of The New York Times wrote that it was "somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring."[33] Variety's 'Robe' believed the film was a "Big, beautiful, but plodding sci-fi epic…A major achievement in cinematography and special effects, 2001 lacks dramatic appeal to a large degree and only conveys suspense after the halfway mark."[34] Andrew Sarris called it "one of the grimmest films I have ever seen in my life…2001 is a disaster because it is much too abstract to make its abstract points."[35] (Sarris reversed his opinion upon a second viewing of the film, and declared "2001 is indeed a major work by a major artist."[36]) John Simon felt it was "a regrettable failure, although not a total one. This film is fascinating when it concentrates on apes or machines…and dreadful when it deals with the in-betweens: humans...2001, for all its lively visual and mechanical spectacle, is a kind of space-Spartacus and, more pretentious still, a shaggy God story."[37]
And, while the recent debate about logical/technical problems with Sunshine is fresh on my mind, I'd like to point out that there are all kinds of scientific inaccuracies in 2001, which are especially notable considering that Arthur C. Clarke worked closely on the film, and this film is held to a higher standard specifically for its "scientific accuracy":
The appearance of outer space is problematical both in terms of lighting and the alignment of astronomical bodies. With no atmosphere in outer space, stars do not twinkle, and light does not spread out to become ambient. The side of the Discovery spacecraft unlit by the sun would be virtually pitch-black. Nor would the stars appear to move in relationship to Discovery as it traveled towards Jupiter. Proportionally, the sun, moon, and earth would not visually line up at the size ratios as shown in the opening shot. Nor would the moons of Jupiter in the shot just before Bowman enters the Star Gate. (In fact, due to the perfect Laplace resonance of the orbits of the 4 large moons of Jupiter, the first three will never align, and the third moon Ganymede will always be exactly 90 degrees further around the planet whenever the two inmost moons are in perfect alignment.) The first two appearances of the monolith, one on the Earth and one on the moon, conclude with the sun rising over the top of the monolith at the zenith of the sky. While this could happen in an African veldt, it is questionable if this could happen anywhere near the crater Tycho (where the monolith is found) as it is 45 degrees south of the lunar equator. Also, seen from space, the edge of the Earth seems sharp in the movie, but actually it should be slightly blurry due to the scattering of the sunlight by the atmosphere, as we can see in many photos taken from space today.
The entire sequence in which Dave Bowman re-enters Discovery through the emergency airlock has problems. Bowman apparently holds his breath just before ejecting from the pod into the airlock. Before exposure to a vacuum, NASA states, one must exhale, because holding in the breath would rupture the lungs. [47] On the DVD edition of the film released in 2007, Arthur C. Clarke states in an interview that had he been on the set the day they filmed this, he would have caught this error. After Bowman ejects from the pod, the pod is shown to remain stationary. However, the air escaping the pod's rear door that propels Bowman into the hatch would have also propelled the pod away from the spaceship. Finally, the blown pod hatch simply vanishes while concealed behind a puff of smoke.[48]
While the film's portrayal of reduced or zero gravity is unusually realistic, problems remain. When spacecraft land on the Moon, dust is incorrectly shown billowing as it would in an atmosphere, not the vacuum of the Lunar surface.[48]While on the moon, all actors move as if in normal Earth gravity, not the 1/6 G of the moon. Similarly, the behavior of Dave and Frank in the pod bay is not fully consistent with zero-Gs, as it should be since the pod bay is not in a centrifuge. The astronauts could be wearing magnetic boots, but their leaning on the table when they try to diagnose the AE-35 unit is especially peculiar. Earlier in the film, while en route to the space station, Dr. Floyd's pen floats out of his pocket, to be retrieved by the stewardess. The pen moves in a circular arc (actually stuck to the edge of a rotating plastic disc), but it would more likely move in a straight line through the cabin. The circular arc would be consistent with the plane rotating, but that might generate some degree of artificial gravity in the environment. It is also generally held that when drinking through a straw in zero gravity, liquid would not sink down after one stopped sucking.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:21 pm
I liked Bogart's acting, the camera work of the film, the story, its whole aesthetic...and Claude Rains's performance was one of his best. It also captured the darkness and tone of the 1942-era, Germany's hold over Vichy France and the seeming inescapability of it all. The unrequited love, the flashbacks that enhanced it, and of course the climax at the air field. If anything, it felt like a genuinely touching movie during an era where films were produced like assembly lines.
As for 2001, I suppose it's easy to find it boring if one doesn't enjoy Kubrick's style of filming or its imagery. The film speaks through what it shows, rather than actual dialogue, and it's a dense film that often takes the average viewer repeated viewings. It uses an abundance of music and sound where one would expect traditional narrative. To me it’s beautiful, as it captures the isolation and poetry of the spacecraft floating through space, as well as the long eons of time and movement presaging each part of the film. It’s a film that deals with existence on a macro level we aren’t accustomed to look at, and I think it’s done with lots of style and an easily-digestible manner. Because, to be honest, the story is very simple.
Then again, maybe I'll agree with you one day and go "Durrr, it's boring." Or quote critics rather than showing my own knowledge. Most of what they're saying, anyway, is filled with declaratives and broad statements with nothing backing it. That’s why some people write peer-reviewed articles and others become journalists. Bing. But yes, I think both of us can go without saying it's all personal when it comes to movies; one's perception of it. Still, I believe my gut impression shows that these are quality films and can be, just depending on what you believe.
As for 2001, I suppose it's easy to find it boring if one doesn't enjoy Kubrick's style of filming or its imagery. The film speaks through what it shows, rather than actual dialogue, and it's a dense film that often takes the average viewer repeated viewings. It uses an abundance of music and sound where one would expect traditional narrative. To me it’s beautiful, as it captures the isolation and poetry of the spacecraft floating through space, as well as the long eons of time and movement presaging each part of the film. It’s a film that deals with existence on a macro level we aren’t accustomed to look at, and I think it’s done with lots of style and an easily-digestible manner. Because, to be honest, the story is very simple.
Then again, maybe I'll agree with you one day and go "Durrr, it's boring." Or quote critics rather than showing my own knowledge. Most of what they're saying, anyway, is filled with declaratives and broad statements with nothing backing it. That’s why some people write peer-reviewed articles and others become journalists. Bing. But yes, I think both of us can go without saying it's all personal when it comes to movies; one's perception of it. Still, I believe my gut impression shows that these are quality films and can be, just depending on what you believe.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:39 pm
Hmm . . . you seem to be taking this a bit personal. I don't believe I ever said, "Durr . . ." anything.Lord Foul wrote:Then again, maybe I'll agree with you one day and go "Durrr, it's boring." Or quote critics rather than showing my own knowledge. Most of what they're saying, anyway, is filled with declaratives and broad statements with nothing backing it. That’s why some people write peer-reviewed articles and others become journalists. Bing.
They're just movies. You did a good job defending your opinion. It has been many years since I saw these, that's why I looked for online reviews. Plus, I wanted to show that these "masterpieces" are still criticized by others (besides me, that is). Umberto Eco's opinion isn't exactly "durr, it's boring." He is usually considered a pretty smart guy. Smarter than most journalists, even.
I think "boring" is a great criticism, one that doesn't need much justification. Something can be well-crafted, artistic, high-concept, and yet if it fails to engage as a story, as a drama of human passion and dreams, then "boring" is exactly what you get, and it's a fault that can never be overcome with high-concept or "schlocky romanticism."
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:57 pm
Never.Malik23 wrote:Hmm . . . you seem to be taking this a bit personal.
The films have none of that; it's not there. It's only what you see. I see what you don't see, and there was a story to Casablanca and it moved me. I think "boring" is shit criticism, unless expounded upon. It's not criticism, just a word divested of any other, and it requires the other sounds and clacks of men to give it meaning. And even then there is little meaning. Want me to get more post-modern? I'm well-practiced at it.Malik23 wrote:I think "boring" is a great criticism, one that doesn't need much justification. Something can be well-crafted, artistic, high-concept, and yet if it fails to engage as a story, as a drama of human passion and dreams, then "boring" is exactly what you get, and it's a fault that can never be overcome with high-concept or "schlocky romanticism."
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:12 pm
No need to get post-modern. We've had dramas long before the modern age (not to mention post-modern). Just tell me one thing: what did the main character of 2001 want more than anything else, and what was the obstacle getting in the way of this desire?Lord Foul wrote: The films have none of that; it's not there. It's only what you see. I see what you don't see, and there was a story to Casablanca and it moved me. I think "boring" is shit criticism, unless expounded upon. It's not criticism, just a word divested of any other, and it requires the other sounds and clacks of men to give it meaning. And even then there is little meaning. Want me to get more post-modern? I'm well-practiced at it.
You can't answer it. And that's because this isn't a drama. It's not a story. It's a hodge-podge of s.f. images pathetically masquerading as "meaningful." The movie-makers couldn't decide if they wanted to do a movie about aliens shaping our evolution (zzzz . . . I could join Scientology if I wanted to hear that crap) or the implications of artificial intelligence on the philosophy of mind and cognitive science. So they stapled together both sections of this movie with a single jump cut of the bone-to-satellite image, threw in a handful of extremely weak/underdeveloped characters and "presto" had a movie that fooled a lot of people into thinking it was deep and significant . . . people who don't know much about philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Or evolution.
But mostly, it's boring.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:59 pm
Hm... I liked Gone with the Wind. Casablanca and 2001 didn't appeal to me. On 2001, there is alot of folks who hate it, and alot who think it's one of the best films ever made. In my experience I've found most of those who love it, experienced in theaters when it first came out, while most of us who weren't at all impressed by it saw it later, at home. So, it could be the theater experience (and being cutting edge effects when first seeing it) are the reasons people love it.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:29 pm
Malik23 wrote:Just tell me one thing: what did the main character of 2001 want more than anything else, and what was the obstacle getting in the way of this desire?
You can't answer it. And that's because this isn't a drama. It's not a story. It's a hodge-podge of s.f. images pathetically masquerading as "meaningful." The movie-makers couldn't decide if they wanted to do a movie about aliens shaping our evolution (zzzz . . . I could join Scientology if I wanted to hear that crap) or the implications of artificial intelligence on the philosophy of mind and cognitive science. So they stapled together both sections of this movie with a single jump cut of the bone-to-satellite image, threw in a handful of extremely weak/underdeveloped characters and "presto" had a movie that fooled a lot of people into thinking it was deep and significant . . . people who don't know much about philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Or evolution.
I find it interesting you think a story constitutes a main character wanting something or some obstacle being there. The story goes across from the dawn of mankind to the first human who breaches the point of space which signifies a technological checkpoint for the aliens who've been guiding them from the beginning. The plot's there, goes from beginning to end; that's the point; not some character wanting something but an odyssey of discovery.
What makes you think it was even trying to be a drama, or that constitutes it being good or not if it is/isn't? The characters have no need to be developed; it's extraneous and outside the point of the film. Figure out what the film is trying to do before you criticize it.
And yes, it is just a film. Kubrick wasn't trying to write a treatise on philosophy or science; he collaborated with Arthur C. Clarke, not Carl Sagan. Though, to the film's credit, it's very realistic as far as outer space goes (especially compared to stuff preceding it).
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:30 pm
I'm throwing in to the fray here. I dig Bogart, so I enjoyed Casablanca when he was on the screen, but I've pretty much forgotten about the movie since then. As for 2001, I never caught what the big deal was either, and have always chalked it up to a) awe-inspiring effects for the time and b) the effects of mind-altering substances. My pot head friend loves it. I've watched it several times to try to get it, but end up falling asleep most of the time. I have managed to stay awake through the whole thing maybe twice, and yes, it does get a little interesting with HAL and it being shut off and such. But even those scenes are slow paced.
Kubrick was a challenging filmmaker, but that experiment was not to my liking. I'd watch Eyes Wide Shut several times over 2001. Both are think pieces with everything left wide open (no pun intended) enough to interpret however you want.
I've not attempted Gone With The Wind, which is odd because I do try movies at least once typically before I dismiss them. But this thing just has little in it that looks to interest me, and one of my ex girlfriends tried it while we were dating, and she was very annoyed with it, which pretty much suggests that I would be annoyed too.
As for boring, I think it is valid consideration, although I also think it cannot be judged boring on a single viewing. Para-aesthetics has a LOT to do with the watching of a movie, and if you go into 2001 tired, you will almost certainly sleep through it. I'm a big Gilliam fan, and I'd say that Brazil runs a little toward the boring, and I tend to nod off during it, but I also think it is a really good film.
LOTR movies could have been better, but they got so much right that I was utterly obsessed with them when they came out. I don't think they are perfection, but they added enough elements in to make it a standout adaptation of all time. I'd say they were very surprising as an adaptation, and usually "surprising" in adaptations are a bad thing.
Godfather movies....meh... I'm not a fan of mafia movies or any movies that run on the theme of Power; everyone wants it and kills everyone else to have it. It just doesn't speak much to me or my life. If that makes me a p*ssy, so be it.
Kubrick was a challenging filmmaker, but that experiment was not to my liking. I'd watch Eyes Wide Shut several times over 2001. Both are think pieces with everything left wide open (no pun intended) enough to interpret however you want.
I've not attempted Gone With The Wind, which is odd because I do try movies at least once typically before I dismiss them. But this thing just has little in it that looks to interest me, and one of my ex girlfriends tried it while we were dating, and she was very annoyed with it, which pretty much suggests that I would be annoyed too.
As for boring, I think it is valid consideration, although I also think it cannot be judged boring on a single viewing. Para-aesthetics has a LOT to do with the watching of a movie, and if you go into 2001 tired, you will almost certainly sleep through it. I'm a big Gilliam fan, and I'd say that Brazil runs a little toward the boring, and I tend to nod off during it, but I also think it is a really good film.
LOTR movies could have been better, but they got so much right that I was utterly obsessed with them when they came out. I don't think they are perfection, but they added enough elements in to make it a standout adaptation of all time. I'd say they were very surprising as an adaptation, and usually "surprising" in adaptations are a bad thing.
Godfather movies....meh... I'm not a fan of mafia movies or any movies that run on the theme of Power; everyone wants it and kills everyone else to have it. It just doesn't speak much to me or my life. If that makes me a p*ssy, so be it.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:43 pm
Well said. I have been saying this for years here. 2001 is not that great. And it's pretentious and overrated.Malik23 wrote:You can't answer it. And that's because this isn't a drama. It's not a story. It's a hodge-podge of s.f. images pathetically masquerading as "meaningful." The movie-makers couldn't decide if they wanted to do a movie about aliens shaping our evolution (zzzz . . . I could join Scientology if I wanted to hear that crap) or the implications of artificial intelligence on the philosophy of mind and cognitive science. So they stapled together both sections of this movie with a single jump cut of the bone-to-satellite image, threw in a handful of extremely weak/underdeveloped characters and "presto" had a movie that fooled a lot of people into thinking it was deep and significant . . . people who don't know much about philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Or evolution.
But mostly, it's boring.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:28 pm
Normally, watching a film based on a good book, I have to pretend the book doesn't exist in order to enjoy the movie. 2001, I just didn't get until I read the book. I did enjoy it cinematographically (if that wasn't a word, it is now. I claim it), but was also just shy of bored with it.
I appreciate it more for what it did in its context, its place in film history, than for what it IS. [and Kubrick has broken new ground more often than almost any other film-maker]
I wonder if Casablanca is that way for some people. I could never fairly judge that film because a mere glimpse of Bogart stimulates my gag reflex. I had to read the script for a class once, and found it perfectly ordinary.
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is the most over-looked film of all time.
I appreciate it more for what it did in its context, its place in film history, than for what it IS. [and Kubrick has broken new ground more often than almost any other film-maker]
I wonder if Casablanca is that way for some people. I could never fairly judge that film because a mere glimpse of Bogart stimulates my gag reflex. I had to read the script for a class once, and found it perfectly ordinary.
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is the most over-looked film of all time.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:50 pm
I certainly overlooked it. Got about 1/2 an hour into it and couldn't bear to watch anymore of it. And I really enjoy the Class of Nuke 'em High and Toxic Avenger movies, so, it's not about cheezy "B" movies in general. (Or would that be Cheezy "C" or "D" moviesJeff wrote: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is the most over-looked film of all time.
)Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:15 pm
The main character of 2001 was the alien presence, manifested as a black monolith. What it wanted was to communicate with us. What was preventing it was our not being ready.
I'm reminded of the reviews of the Chronicles that claim it is boring, and pretentious, and poorly written.
(What does Covenant want, and what prevents him from getting it? It's not that easy, is it?)
I'm reminded of the reviews of the Chronicles that claim it is boring, and pretentious, and poorly written.
(What does Covenant want, and what prevents him from getting it? It's not that easy, is it?)
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:16 pm
Well said. One of the strengths of 2001 for me has always been its seeming disregard for conventional perspective and character focus. The characters are secondary to the film's point, and the wider lens through which the story is viewed.Lord Foul wrote:Malik23 wrote:Just tell me one thing: what did the main character of 2001 want more than anything else, and what was the obstacle getting in the way of this desire?
You can't answer it. And that's because this isn't a drama. It's not a story. It's a hodge-podge of s.f. images pathetically masquerading as "meaningful." The movie-makers couldn't decide if they wanted to do a movie about aliens shaping our evolution (zzzz . . . I could join Scientology if I wanted to hear that crap) or the implications of artificial intelligence on the philosophy of mind and cognitive science. So they stapled together both sections of this movie with a single jump cut of the bone-to-satellite image, threw in a handful of extremely weak/underdeveloped characters and "presto" had a movie that fooled a lot of people into thinking it was deep and significant . . . people who don't know much about philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Or evolution.
I find it interesting you think a story constitutes a main character wanting something or some obstacle being there. The story goes across from the dawn of mankind to the first human who breaches the point of space which signifies a technological checkpoint for the aliens who've been guiding them from the beginning. The plot's there, goes from beginning to end; that's the point; not some character wanting something but an odyssey of discovery.
What makes you think it was even trying to be a drama, or that constitutes it being good or not if it is/isn't? The characters have no need to be developed; it's extraneous and outside the point of the film. Figure out what the film is trying to do before you criticize it.
And yes, it is just a film. Kubrick wasn't trying to write a treatise on philosophy or science; he collaborated with Arthur C. Clarke, not Carl Sagan. Though, to the film's credit, it's very realistic as far as outer space goes (especially compared to stuff preceding it).
A true masterpiece, thought-provoking, fresh and utterly original in vision, which is so much more than can be said of many of the so-called best films on that list.