 Messages |
Topics |
Attachments
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Sonny
1
« on: January 28, 2010, 08:53:37 PM »
Yeah, it's very visually enjoyable to watch. I don't think that's all there is to it, since it does present an anti-heroic character who's own decision lead to his personal downfall and degeneration. Even so, I wouldn't be able to compare it with any Leone film. Comparing Leone with any director is fruitless, and saying that Kubrick was trying to make a SW with Barry Lyndon is intriguing, but not very accurate. BL is quite simply a period pieece with an anti-heroic character, as depicted in the novel.
2
« on: January 28, 2010, 08:39:45 PM »
I will devote the only two words that come to mind when thinking of this movie....
TESTOSTERONE-IGNITED
not that there's anything wrong with that.... but yeah.
3
« on: January 28, 2010, 08:31:55 PM »
Wow I just realized how old this thread is.... I'm sure some members have gotten to watch the film again (even if completely against their "better judgment") so I'm curious about whether any opinions have changed or become more radically inclined toward one-dimmensional critique. Not that views I've read here haven't raised interesting ideas, but I'm still not convinced about what makes the film even remotely mediocre in style, meaning, characterization, cinematography, sequence or anything else. But, as always, I'm interested in your ideas.
4
« on: January 28, 2010, 08:18:33 PM »
I'm sorry to say I think that this movie has a lot of flaws.... including the persuasive use of zoom 
What exactly do you mean? Of course, I'm not saying the film is flawless but it is quite possibly the most physically gorgeous film I've ever seen. All of its shots are perfect photographs. No film director either preceeding or succeeding Kubrick has been able to create such a perfect effect of a style that so closely resembles a moving paining.
5
« on: January 27, 2010, 07:46:27 PM »
So I'm taking an Irish Film class at Florida International University where so far we've watched "The Quiet Man", "Michael Collins" and "Waking Ned Davine". We're in constant debate (as it is the purpose of the class) about what constitutes an "Irish Film". And beyond the general question about a film's nationality is the notion that an "Irish" film that depicts my professor's definition of "Irishness" is simply a film that delineates some aspect of Irish culture, meaning it doesn't need to be produced by an Irish production company or directed by an Irish filmmaker, since, in fact, it can be just as American as "The Quiet Man", starring John Wayne playing an Irish-American. So my idea of an Irish film based on these standards would be Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" and I'm prepared to argue my way into getting it shown in my class. Any thoughts on this? Just curious.
6
« on: May 11, 2009, 06:18:02 PM »
FC has now officially become a Star Trek nerd... it's too late for him now.. I'll mourn his greatness till the end of days... (or until he stops being a Star Trek/Star Wars galaxy nerd)  (I had to...)
7
« on: May 11, 2009, 06:10:26 PM »
I dont think any of Verhoevans films from the 90's are supposed to be taken seriously.
mmm but there's a difference too, when it comes to films that don't take themselves seriously... Starship Troopers just happens to be great because it's satyrical.. not because it's lowbrow.
8
« on: May 10, 2009, 07:28:19 PM »
Me too. Except that ST (1997) was brilliant satire, and ST (2009) takes itself seriously. And therein lies the difference between good film and bad.
I agree. I think what made Starship Troopers so great was precisely that it didn't take itself seriously. Compared with Star trek, Starship was much much better but Star Trek wasn't too bad.. even if it did take itself more seriously than it should have.
9
« on: May 10, 2009, 07:21:40 PM »
Hey You - Pink Floyd
I get this one stuck in my head for hours after I listen to it.. It's a great one too, I don't mind getting it stuck in my head.
10
« on: May 09, 2009, 07:54:00 PM »
I'm going to hold off on this until this place picks up a bit.
I'm sure it will sometime over the summer.
11
« on: May 09, 2009, 07:51:33 PM »
Star Trek (2009) - 8/10  I liked it quite a bit. I wasn't expecting anything good. I was never into Star Wars or Star Trek, never liked the bits and pieces of the prequels of Star Wars but seeing as the franchises have their similarities I expected this Star Trek film to be a commercialized version of what the hardcore fans wanted it to be... I thought "no thanks" but I was pleasantly surprised. Good action sequences, likable characters, decent sets and CGIs, it reminded me of Starship Troopers. Yeah, I noticed the lens flares too but they didn't bother me too much, thankfully, because there were a lot of them.
12
« on: May 09, 2009, 07:43:01 PM »
Just an idea, but could somebody name a romantic movie where action is included just to please the male audience?
I think the question is... what films have a pre-emphasis on romance over action vs. which have a pre-emphasis on action over romance But naming a few that might fit the first category: Casablanca Rear Window Forrest Gump The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Rebecca
13
« on: May 08, 2009, 04:02:35 PM »
Well what can we do? Those are the first effects of the grand catastrophe that is about to arise in the film industry (i'm half worried, though) But then again, Criterion needs some dough too. I can't imagine they were doing too well when selling DVDs for over $40 in what they advertise as "pristine quality"... the difference is there, but not $40 worth, in my opinion.
14
« on: May 08, 2009, 03:54:38 PM »
I wonder what the romance is put there for: to attract female viewers or just because american filmakers think that AW must have it because it is supposed to confer a realistic touch? That's something I find very interesting as well. The Spaghetti western seemed to be directed for the leisure of men, primarily, but perhaps it wasn't something that was done on purpose. Most women find romance in films to be essential, at least so they can enjoy the film, which is why most women don't find spaghetti westerns to be that interesting, seeing as the romantic aspect in SWs is kept to a minimum and many SWs don't even bother with it at all (I've actually talked to some women about this and they agree). So American westerns show a contrast to that, because the film makers acknowledge that their target audience will include a large number of women, and most women who like westerns (including my mother) enjoy American westerns more than they enjoy SWs, and I know that has a lot to do with the romantic element of AWs.
15
« on: May 08, 2009, 12:13:11 PM »
Don't forget Man of the West... It's now in my possession and I'll be watching it soon 
|
Show Posts