Paul Mison wrote:
>
> On 17/09/2001 at 18:31 +0100, Jasper McCrea wrote:
> >Not replying to too many posts here, because it'd be controversial (esp.
> >since someone mentioned a Peter Greenaway film (and they were being
> >serious!!))
>
> Of course I was. His films are good, even if that is in a slightly
> obvious way (the use of colours in Cook, Thief, for example); I really
> like the almost multimedia aspects of the split screen stuff in Pillow
> Book, too.
>
> How many of his films have you seen, out of interest?
Three. Drowning by Numbers I thought was good when I first saw it, but
on reviewing a few years ago, I realised I must have been a pretentious
fool to think that such a mish mash of confusing trash was any good.
Prospero's Books was so bad I fell asleep at the cinema (something I
also did during the Matrix, but in PB I didn't wake up again), and
Cook... was just ordinary, in terms of art films. (IMO!!!)
>
> >The Empire Strikes Back
>
> OK, so earlier I admitted this was the best of the trilogy, but that
> doesn't qualify it as best film by a long way. It's not even best
> sci-fi film (no-one's mentioned 2001 yet, or the David Lynch version of
> Dune- there was a good article about this in Sight and Sound last
> month).
If it (rating films) were objective, then this might be a correct
statement. The best sci-fi film (IMO) is probably Blade Runner, but I'd
still consider ESB to be one of the best films overall. (2001 and Dune
are probably both a little bit too confusing to be great - 2001 because
it's just silly [in a good way], and Dune because it tried to pack too
much in [although I saw this in the cinema with a friend who hadn't read
the book, and he enjoyed it too, so maybe I'm wrong here]).
>
> >Jaws
>
> Oh dear, the flipside to Star Wars and one of the movies that started
^^^^^^^^ ??
I don't understand? Are you saying that while Jaws was a
popcorn-satisfying, no risk taking commercially successful, LCD Star
Wars was the complete opposite? I know Lucas had a hard time convincing
anyone to make this movie, but was Jaws such a sure fire box-office
winner?
> turning Hollywood from being critically acclaimed, risk-taking, albeit
> commercially unsuccessful to a popcorn-satisfying
> 'vertically-integrated' lowest common denominator pleasing blockbuster
> factory, producing summer 'blockbusters' of increasing explosion count
> and less and less acting talent.
Have you watched Jaws lately? Perhaps it started this trend, by being a
dynamic film, but there is no way you could consider it lacking in
acting talent (the three key players are a joy to watch), directing,
story (certainly the weakest link, but still not as tissue thin as other
movies) or cinematography. Just because it is also throughly enjoyable
does not mean that you should discard it so lightly.
> The fact that films between, roughly, Easy Rider and Jaws tended to
> have depressing and/or ambiguous endings is purely coincental.
>
> >Worst movie of all time:
> >Citizen Kane or the Piano. It's a toss up between these two.
>
> Oh dear oh dear. The Piano is a wonderful film; admittedly there's not
> that much depth there, but there are some beatiful shots, and it has a
> hard edge that many period dramas lack.
No, it's bloody awful. It substitutes visual effect for substance in
every way. The Cell did a similar thing a few years later, with almost
every shot being beautiful, but at the neglect of everything else. I
think it was a more successful film than the Piano for this, but it was
still rubbish.
> Admittedly I wouldn't go along
> with the critical orthodoxy that Citizen Kane is the best film ever,
> but it's a shitload better than, say, Independence Day or Stealing
> Beauty (elderly art director in wannabe soft porn that fails shock).
In an historically interesting way it (CK) has its plusses, but to hail
it for its technical magnificence is anachronistic. We stand on the
shoulders of giants and our accomplishments certainly wouldn't be
possible without them (Welles is among the greats of cinema), but we
shouldn't hang around claiming that what they did then was better than
what came after. Except if you're talking about shite like Independence
Day. But I didn't mention that.
Your description of Stealing Beauty interests me... :)
We could all talk about films all day, I guess, and still come to no
concensus, not that I mind a stimulating conversation.
>
> > foreach(0.. # my
> > $#_){$_[$_ # signature is too
> > ++]^=$_[$_ # bignature
>
> Make it smaller then... oh, and it doesn't work on MacPerl (5.004) either.
Don't wanna.............. Go on, use Burger King Perl (£2.99 meal)
instead. Or at least a slightly up to date version.
>
Jasper
--
split//,'019617511192'.
'17011111610114101114'.
'21011141011840799901'.
'17101174';
foreach(0.. # my
$#_){$_[$_ # signature is too
++]^=$_[$_ # bignature
--]^=$_[$_
]^=$_[++ $_]if!($_%
2)}$g.=$_ ,chr($g)=~
/(\w)/&&($o.=$1and
$g='')foreach@_;
print"$o\n"
