Cinemascope
-
Posts
5,161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Cinemascope
-
-
Well he'd certainly have been an unknown to anyone who didn't watch television! At any rate, Eastwood's said he took the Leone jobs partly because nobody would hire him in Hollywood... so he probably wasn't perceived as someone with "clout" and at any rate Leone's movies were quite low-budget and they couldn't afford someone who was a big star.
-
That's quite an interesting movie, especially in its willingness (for a 50's picture) to address racial bigotry.
-
> Where did I "knock" anybody's method for choosing
> and/or enjoying movies?
> (I didn't!)
You said:
"Those who can't "do", "teach"; and those can't "teach", "critique"!
That actually isn't factually accurate, as Arkadin has already pointed out.
> What I "knocked" were those Film Critics who
> specifically earn their daily bread by dissecting,
> filleting & weighing upcoming and currently-released
> movies. I find them to be (almost universally)
> elitist, arrogant and highly prejudicial.
I disagree with that. Some of us find some critics very worthwhile reading at least once in a while. So yeah, I definitely sensed you were knocking critics altogether.
> I offer that as my opinion, and nothing else!
> If I call Tom Cruise an annoying, braying,
> self-important cretin, I'm not necessarily urging
> people to avoid his movies, I'm merely stating a
> personal opinion as a movie-going consumer.
> If I state that I think George W, Bush and his entire
> cabinet are gluttonous, amoral plutocrats, I'm not
> trying to convince anyone to vote for the Democratic
> candidate, but instead am simply declaring my own
> political stance, take it or leave it.
> Cinemascope, I've learned a great deal from your
> generous troves of insight on these Boards during the
> past 9 months, and when we've disagreed I've always
> striven to keep an open mind, express my thoughts
> clearly, carefully consider your POV, and always stay
> a Gentleman, but after this exchange, I'm afraid I
> must cross-over & stand with many of my fellow
> messengers and affirm that in these last several
> weeks your penchant for intellectual snobbery and
> judgementalism has increasingly overshadowed any
> sense of fairness in your responses to other folks'
> posts.
There is no question that I have been suspicious of a lot of posters on the TCM boards, and that is a result of the trolls who occasionally post inflammatory posts only to disappear and come back under different usernames. Not to mention the many regular posters who routinely claim that such and such person is actually just another username for someone else.... yes, I am wary of some people's intentions because I find that there's a lot of paranoia and accusations -- unfounded accusations, perhaps, but sometimes that's enough to make you start wondering if someone isn't just out to raise trouble.
-
Hollis,
Critics aren't important because they can tell you things you already know. They can be useful when they can offer information that helps you and you didn't already know, and nobody you talk to about films knew it, either.
-
Um looks like I missed this one when originally posted.
>
> Yes, but for the most part, they are two different
> breeds of cats. Roger Ebert and Leonard Maltin
> excepting, most film critics are known for being film
> critics and not film historians. Some of the best
> film historians in this country are largely unknown
> to the majority of the population. However, their
> books are available and make for fascinating
> reading.
You could argue that there are hacks in any profession. Nonetheless I stand by my main point... someone who is more than a casual viewer (and a regular TCM watcher would probably qualify) could very likely find a critic whose taste they generally agree with (and of course there'll always be exceptions, just like you could disagree with your spouse over a movie). Not only that, but these days, anyone with a blog can write about the movies, and such blogs aren't terribly hard to find.
And even though a lot of critics are not historians in the strict sense of the word, they may nonetheless have a pretty good grasp of classic & foreign movies, and make reference to them when appropriate in discussing recent releases.
> Not everyone puts as much faith in film critics as
> you. When I was younger I used to read certain film
> critics religiously. However, over the years, film
> criticism has changed from the thoughtful and well
> written Gene Siskel types.
I don't put faith on them, I just read 'em - some of them, some of the time. It usually gives me a good idea of what to expect, if I feel like getting one.
> Now days you read a film critic at your own peril
> because they will probably give away major plot
> points or the ending without warning.
You could read the wrong critic once, maybe two or three times at most. It really isn't that hard to find someone you can consider fairly reliable.
> Many people form their own opinions about movies
> based on their experience with the film and not what
> film critics have to say about it.
I base my opinions on both, and especially with classic films, most of the time you won't find a long review of it anywhere, except perhaps the NYT.com archive.
> Why? Because some critics (not all) talk about film
> in some abstract way that has little bearing to those
> of us reading the review. Also, some film critics
> seem to think that they are above the people they are
> writing for and that condescending tone comes through
> loud and clear.
If you look around, chances are that you'll find someone you can consider reliable and whose style you like. It doesn't take a Ph.D to shop for a good critic online.
> Not all critics are like that, but not every local
> film reviewer is a Gene Siskel, Roger Ebert or Molly
> Haskell.
And thank God for that. But local reviewers aren't really as crucial as they used to be in the age of the Internet. Anyone can read reviews from anywhere in the world.
> Yes, I could read their reviews on line I suppose but
> I don't have that much time in my daily life to want
> to do that. I enjoy reading Ebert's books but I
> don't hang on his every word nor do I seek out his
> reviews on line.
It doesn't take a very long time to look reviews up, especially when there are links on imdb.com. It certainly takes less time than wasting 2 hours of your life, plus tickets, parking, etc., watching a movie you won't enjoy, and which a critic could have warned you about.
-
Or he could have seen it on video.
-
Let's hear it for the dames!
-
Well, he did indeed become a star thanks to the "Dollars" trilogy.
BTW I just read a little something on how due to the low budget for the movies, Leone considered it easier to shoot silent a lot of the time and simply fill the soundtrack with music and sound effects. Maybe that is part of the explanation of why Eastwood's character doesn't talk much!
-
If they'd nominated movies that a lot of people went to see, they'd have had to nominate such "gems" as Pirates of the Caribbean: Treasure of the Black Pearl and The DaVinci Code.
Well, at least the animated movies did attract a fairly large audience... it's a showdown between the Cars hot wheels and the Happy Feet dancing penguins! I'm gonna root for the penguins!
-
Um... with all the languages in the movie (Japanese, Spanish, Berber, Arabic, sign language) how could they have gotten rid of the subtitles? Wasn't the point of the movie to draw up some kind of analogy to the tower of Babel?
Well, at any rate, I'd like to see The Departed win the lucky one for Marty.
-
Someone just mentioned "Que Sera Sera" in a discussion about both versions of The Man Who Knew Too Much.... bumping for reference.
-
Already seen both versions of The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? Most seem to prefer the Valentino/Rex Ingram silent over the Glenn Ford/Vincent Minnelli remake.
-
It's definitely fun to see the faces on the actors and directors whenever the winner is a real surprise!
-
I'd also add that WHV is bringing out a new volume of WW2 movies on DVD in June. Some of them (if not all) have shown on TCM.
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=64150
Oh yeah, an unlikely choice for a war movie (or at least war-related) that also happens to be a foreign-language film is Carlos Saura's Ay, Carmela!, set during the Spanish Civil War. Sadly it's only available on R2 DVD.
-
I've always found Gene Kelly to be a fascinating and charming performer. What may or may not have happened behind the scenes isn't really something I'm too interested in, and I don't think it should affect my enjoyment of these musicals. It's hard to say how accurate anything based on hearsay could be, and how those who have "stories to tell" may or may not have had an agenda of their own.
Furthermore I'm sure that there's usually enough tension and pressure when doing a big studio movie that some people might just not be able to remain as cordial as they would have been under less stressful circumstances.
And yes I am sure that some famous actors and performers I generally like may not have been nice IRL. But that's OK, I like them for what's on screen, not for what there was IRL.
-
Well TCM can only show the movies they got rights to at the moment. They also didn't show Cavalcade because it's a Fox movie and it shows on the Fox Movie Channel.
However, they did recently announce a new deal that will allow them to show Wings starting in 2008. So if the movie's not on DVD by then, you can burn your own I guess.
-
Todd McCarthy's a top-notch critic. I'd love to read anything he wrote or edited!
-
Could it have been "Trail of the Loneseome Pine"?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029747/soundtrack
* "At the Ball, That's All"
Written by J. Leubrie Hill
Performed by The Avalon Boys
* "The Trail of the Lonesome Pine"
Music by Harry Carroll
Lyrics by Ballard MacDonald
Performed by The Avalon Boys, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, with Chill Wills and Rosina Lawrence
* "I Want to be in Dixie"
Written by Ted Snyder and Irving Berlin
Performed by Rosina Lawrence, Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel
* "Bohemian Girl"
Written by Nathaniel Shilkret
-
And a lot of people would tell you that Pauline Kael was a horrible critic...
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/02/prose_and_cons_critics_on_kael.html
Let's be honest, these days, anyone can be a critic. Anyone can write about the movies they liked or didn't like on a blog, or a bulletin board. Of course not everyone will be as reliable, or will have a similar taste to yours, but in all honesty, there's never been as many voices expressing the pros and cons of new movies.
And again, if you have a method that works for you, that's great, but don't knock a method that works for others, anymore than you'd like for them to knock your method and tell you that you might be missing out on a good movies simply because you didn't hear about them.
-
Ever see The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp by Powell & Pressburger? It tells the life story of a British soldier stretching back to the Boer War and all the way up to WWII. And yes it's on a Criterion DVD.
What about Zulu? It's a fascinating look at a standoff between the British and Zulu warriors, with a very early performance by Michael Caine. It's on DVD, too.
-
You're right. Being the best living American director is a horrible, horrible thing. Shame on Marty.
-
klondike, any method that works for you is a good method. Still it'd be kind of nice if you didn't knock something just because it didn't work for you. You said you once relied on critics, but I'm unclear as to whether you ever found the one whose taste most closely matched your own.
So maybe there isn't any "element of science" as you put it, but for me personally it's something that can be relied upon, and very reliably at that. For this I'm only talking about those cases where I'm fence-sitting, obviously with a movie by Scorsese, Eastwood, Cuaron or Coppola (either one) I'll definitely watch it and most likely not read any reviews until after the fact. With others, I may just wait until the DVD. And there's a few critics who've helped me not waste time with certain movies that weren't worth catching in theaters.
So like I said before, if you find something that works for you, that's good. But don't knock a whole profession just because it wasn't helpful to you.
-
It's a shame how many legendary theaters have been torn down in recent years. I still remember attending a few films at the old Fox Theater in downtown Portland before it was demolished. It was sad to see it go, but it was equally sad to see it operating in its run-down condition.
The Coronet Theater in San Francisco is another sad loss... I'll never understand why somebody didn't take it over, GL could have, if only for the fond memories of the days his movies were greeted with lines around the block.
-
It just occured to me that although I have the Collector's Set of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, I've never heard the Richard Schieckel audio commentary. I wonder if he says anything about it.
But at any rate, I totally adore the "Dollars" Trilogy as well as Once Upon a Time in the West and My Name is Nobody. It's a shame there aren't movies like these being made any more.
A. Hitchcock's THE MAN WHO ...
in Films and Filmmakers
Posted
I enjoy most of DD's movies as well. Glad to see more of them being released on DVD.