Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 12, 2017, 06:49:13 PM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 200
1  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Blade Runner 2049 (2017) on: Yesterday at 05:35:53 AM
I rewatched the ending on the tube.

It is not terrible, but still not good. The suicide is a cheap idea, and the way Scott filmed it with these slo mo shots ... arrgh ... nahh, not good.
2  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Blade Runner 2049 (2017) on: Yesterday at 04:58:40 AM
Scott is an empty director, but for an empty director he made some good films. But never a really great one.
His best is Alien, which does not feel like a Scott film for a single second. His only one which gets a 9 from me.

Kingdom of Heaven is one of his best, but only in the DC, and Blade Runner is also a good one, but it hasn't much substance, and the visuals are too superficial, which is the usual problem in most of his films, already in The Duellists. He wants to make stunning looking films, but like in BR he too often overdoes it with all that light coming from everywhere.

For Thelma and Louise he was the wrong choice. The ending is terrible.
3  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Blade Runner 2049 (2017) on: Yesterday at 03:27:11 AM
I'll give both films a 8/10, but Villeneuve's film has the chance to become a 9.

Scott's film has all the usual Scott problems for me.
4  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Orson Welles on: December 10, 2017, 08:34:53 AM
Welles made at least some contributions to the 3rd Man, re-wrote some of his lines, at least he wrote that famous cuckoo clock speech.

It is a fantastic film.
5  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Orson Welles on: December 09, 2017, 06:02:10 AM
The Third Man, which is not a film he directed, does not make sense? And does not have a compelling story and compelling characters?
6  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: American Sniper (2014) on: December 07, 2017, 02:19:00 AM
Dumb propaganda film with strong racist undertones. The directing of the individual scenes is not bad, but as a a whole it is also a dramaturgical mess. It was quite funny when 10 min before the end Kyle had out of nowhere suddenly a "problem" with his heroic killings. Cooper was quite good in the lead. All in all it was mostly entertaining. 5/10
7  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Rate The Last Movie You Saw on: December 05, 2017, 02:03:49 AM
The Square (2017): Right before the launch of a new artwork called The Square at a modern art museum in Stockholm, Sweden, the curator's phone and wallet gets stolen. His attempt to retrieve them sets off a series of unexpected events. Swedish satire/black comedy that has a few funny moments but is just an overly long and disjointed mess of standalone scenes with little substance. Avoid. 5/10


Everything I read about The Square indicates the opposite. Too bad I missed this film.
8  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: John Ford on: December 04, 2017, 09:10:59 PM

@Stanton: there is a part of art that is an objective truth and not an opinion.



Actually I think there is no truth at all. No objectivity, everything is subjective, not only art. But that to explain is a bit complicated.

Whatever, art is what people are able to see in it. What we call art is a consensus of those who are interested. A compromise with other words.
9  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: John Ford on: December 04, 2017, 09:42:04 AM
It is not about "uniformed taste", rather learning about the trade & respect.
Only critics bash everything in sight.
And they don't count much to me, neither does the majority of the audience.

When you study an art form and you have good teacher, they'd never downtalk
the big great masters. One doesn't have to love their work - of course - but
one has to respect and acknowledge it. And s(sooner or later) realize WHY the
work (or some of it anyway) is great. Critics don't know that really - only people
who create themselves.

But those who "create themselves" were also often enough keen on bashing the works of other directors, or not "understanding" them. I see there no real difference between critics and directors if it comes to the bashing aspect.
10  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: John Ford on: December 04, 2017, 09:38:03 AM
It is not about "uniformed taste", rather learning about the trade & respect.
Only critics bash everything in sight.
And they don't count much to me, neither does the majority of the audience.

When you study an art form and you have good teacher, they'd never downtalk
the big great masters. One doesn't have to love their work - of course - but
one has to respect and acknowledge it. And s(sooner or later) realize WHY the
work (or some of it anyway) is great. Critics don't know that really - only people
who create themselves. That's why Leone was a Fordian and why Tarantino
is a Leone geek. To say that Ford didn't make film as "good" as OUATITW is
a bold statement, but I'm sure out there one can also find people who truly
think that a Tarantino western is better than a Leone western... Smiley.


I disagree with most of that.
It's all a matter of taste. There is no truth about art, only opinions.

I do respect some films I don't really like, but there are others where I simply don't see anything in them. Of course some times I begin to understand after many years why certain films were praised by others, but for some "classics" this will never happen.

And I think in former years people might have said ironically about Leone's westerns: "I'm sure out there one can also find people who truly think that a Leone western is better than a Ford/Hawks/Mann western".
11  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: John Ford on: December 04, 2017, 09:29:41 AM
Whatís with the obsession of distinguishing 30ís and 40ís, an arnitrary line?

No obsession, just a few remarks not to be taken too serious.
12  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: John Ford on: December 04, 2017, 06:06:57 AM


Anyway, I can't take people serious who downtick the great artists & masters.
If one can't stand Hitchcock's themes - that's fine. But to claim "he is overrated blabla..."
is just that, blabla... If you're an architect and can't appreciate F. L. Wright, then
something is wrong with you Smiley.


Mike, I think this is very problematic.
That'a way to create a uniformed taste, which defines what is good and not. Which wants to create objective criteria for art (and for anything else), but for me everything is subjective, and if I'm bored by an artist (whatever his reputation might be), I see no reason to dislike his work. And if a majority says that an artist is fantastic, than it is everybody's right who disagrees to call such an artist "overrated".
And it works also the other way round, with films which don't get enough recognition (imo). Like Quantum of Solace, which is an incredible rich and beautiful work.

And then, over the decades it often enough changes who a great master is and who not anymore.

Well, for me none of Ford's films is on the level of OUTW, TWB, 2001, Eight and a Half, The Hour of the Wolf or Mulholland Drive. Not even close. Same goes for Hawks, whose films I enjoy though very much. But Hitchcock has made a few films coming close or reaching that level.
13  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: John Ford on: December 04, 2017, 05:55:35 AM
I don't think there's a notable difference between 1968 and 1969 (and Silence is btw doubtless 1968, shot and released that year, Corbucci even shot and released another great film that year, after Silence).

Still I view Grapes of Wrath as a 40s film (actually I thought is was a film from 1941). Wink

Flaws are things which feel wrong in a film, and Ford's films are filled with such things (especially sentimentality, naivety and his rather primitive "humour").

I think there are flawless films, but a flawed film might be better then a flawless one. But remember what one thinks is a flaw, that is as subjective as what one considers as a masterpiece and what as a boring film. But the flaws in Ford's films are often a bit too massive for my taste.










14  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: John Ford on: December 04, 2017, 02:36:23 AM


For example, our Friend Mr Siegel here doesn't care about the flaws you're talking about.

More likely he does not see them as flaws, or only as minor important things.

But so far we have not specified what are the flaws ...



GRAPES OF WRATH is my favorite film made in the 30s Smiley.


Not bad for a film of the 40s ...

(I know it was shot in 1939, and some might say that a decade starts with the year with the 1, but it was always a film of the 40s for me )
15  Other/Miscellaneous / Off-Topic Discussion / Re: John Ford on: December 03, 2017, 12:38:49 PM
That being said, fewer and fewer regular film-goers watch his work.

Ford is surely overrated.

His films are good of course (well not all), and he was a talented director, he had his themes, and his way to turn them into compelling movies, but all of his films have also terrible flaws, which people seem to ignore with courage. Because of these flaws none of his films is a 10 for me.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 200



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.057 seconds with 18 queries.