 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During all my years of movie going, I am still amazed when one of my favorite directors makes a terrible film. Maybe its just to make a buck, I don't know. Example- I can't believe that the same man that made 2001 and SPARTACUS made EYES WIDE SHOT.
I'm a little more of the school of thought that says I can't believe the man who made 2001 and EYES WIDE SHUT made SPARTACUS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i believe i started a thread with the same title and subject.
use the search engine, dammit!
have a nice day
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 13, 2011 - 3:50 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
This thread is loaded with what we used to call, back in my college days, "glittering generalities!"
I've seen thousands and thousands of movies in my lifetime already, and while there were many I didn't like (at all!!!), I can't think of many I thought were "bad" films in the way that you all are suggesting. The "bad films" were just ones I disliked.
Most of the people employed in the film industry today, and in the past, are tops in their craft categories, from director to makeup person. Most of them work hard at their job at hand, and put their best efforts into making the best film they can, at that moment. Most of my adult life was spent working on soundstages or location sites. I can tell you that the creative people I associated with, physically worked very, very hard each day, to get the job done. In my years, I've encountered very few people who sloughed off their duties or abandoned their creativity.
In the end, whether the film, as a whole, worked for the audience, or whether the individual craft elements were stunted by the limitations of the budgets or time constraints---was really no individual's fault in this very collaborative medium. Most everyone tries his best.
When I used to go to the movies, in the Golden-Age-of-the-Studio days, I knew that even if I didn't like the film, itself---the excellence of the art direction or the photography or the costumes or the set dressing or the makeup or the editing or the scoring, would probably be enough to make the film stick in my mind. There are still movies from the past which I love, primarily, for one or more of these aspects.
When I see the lists of "bad" films posted in your various lists above---many of which are major films, but also many of which I didn't enjoy at all---it makes me wonder if some of you have actually seen any "bad films"---films which reflect absolutely no redeeming artistic values or skills in any area of filmmaking expertise. I certainly can't think of many like this that I have seen in 70 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 13, 2011 - 4:06 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
L BENDER
(Member)
|
This thread is loaded with what we used to call, back in my college days, "glittering generalities!"
I've seen thousands and thousands of movies in my lifetime already, and while there were many I didn't like (at all!!!), I can't think of many I thought were "bad" films in the way that you all are suggesting. The "bad films" were just ones I disliked.
Most of the people employed in the film industry today, and in the past, are tops in their craft categories, from director to makeup person. Most of them work hard at their job at hand, and put their best efforts into making the best film they can, at that moment. Most of my adult life was spent working on soundstages or location sites. I can tell you that the creative people I associated with, physically worked very, very hard each day, to get the job done. In my years, I've encountered very few people who sloughed off their duties or abandoned their creativity.
In the end, whether the film, as a whole, worked for the audience, or whether the individual craft elements were stunted by the limitations of the budgets or time constraints---was really no individual's fault in this very collaborative medium. Most everyone tries his best.
When I used to go to the movies, in the Golden-Age-of-the-Studio days, I knew that even if I didn't like the film, itself---the excellence of the art direction or the photography or the costumes or the set dressing or the makeup or the editing or the scoring, would probably be enough to make the film stick in my mind. There are still movies from the past which I love, primarily, for one or more of these aspects.
When I see the lists of "bad" films posted in your various lists above---many of which are major films, but also many of which I didn't enjoy at all---it makes me wonder if some of you have actually seen any "bad films"---films which reflect absolutely no redeeming artistic values or skills in any area of filmmaking expertise. I certainly can't think of many like this that I have seen in 70 years. Have you seen GUMMO?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick was just telling it how it is. The film has many moments to savour. And I've always liked the soundtrack album. The real odd thing is that Jocelyn Pook should have made a big impact in film music circles. The Masked Ball woke me up!
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 13, 2011 - 6:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
dan the man
(Member)
|
TO Manderley- I agree with you 100%, all the talent in the film industry yet all the insults, but let's put the blame where the blame lies, mainstream critics, they lead the way to such attitudes, always have, Rex Reed and the like, if it does not smell good to them it stinks, can't or couldn't they say i just don't like the film, it just does not attract my taste buds, no they can't do that can they, this board is cool, good stuff, but we have problems like that on this board, it's everywhere in life, but all the blood , sweat and tears that artists put into their craft,to see it torn asunder is a pitiful thing, Why we are hear now, film composers have often got the worst of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 15, 2011 - 9:09 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Richard-W
(Member)
|
There's nothing wrong with Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick was just telling it how it is. The film has many moments to savour. And I've always liked the soundtrack album. The real odd thing is that Jocelyn Pook should have made a big impact in film music circles. The Masked Ball woke me up!
Agreed.
The emotional center of EYES WIDE SHUT is ... hollow. Not because of anything Kubrick did. His work is brilliant here. The problem was in the casting. Tom Cruise didn't have the personality or the emotional range to play the part. His performance is wooden and uncomprehending. I think he gets it up to a point on an intellectual level, but acting is an emotional process, and the emotional life of this character is simply not there. Todd Field, who played Nick Nightingale the piano player, should have swapped roles with Cruise. Fields could have nailed it. Although frankly I would rather have seen Jack Nicholson or Richard Dreyfuss or anyone other than Cruise.
In comparison, Cruise's wife at the time, Nicole Kidman, is so good she makes a fool out of her husband.
Steven Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS was a huge disappointment, because of Cruise, because of the smudgy desaturated image, and because of the script. Another dead-beat dad story to please the militant feminists in charge at the studio just like all the other dead-beat dad stories they're imposing on every other film that gets green-lighted. What's it doing in an H.G. Wells sci-fi classic? I would rather they used the characters and told the story H.G. Wells wrote. But I guess even Spielberg has to play ball, to some degree, if he wants to make movies.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
