So what about the new die hard then?Spearhead wrote:
I've got a range in taste that is far wider than most. I can like Spielburg and appreciate his work while liking other stuff too. Is he conventional? Yes, and no one will ever argue differently. I'm sorry you didn't like the movie, I thought it was probably one of the best political dramas ever made. You see, that's the thing about political dramas, uzi. They tend to be filled with lots of talking.
dubbedUzique The Lesser wrote:
to anyone outside of america, lincoln was a boring 3-hour long conversation. a stale exercise for 'that' actor to reprise 'that' period role. nobody gave a shit. best film of the year, "the end"? i think you might want to take your yankee-doodle glasses off and get a little bit of rational, critical distance involved in your foam-mouthed appreciation. spielberg is a giant of hollywood, so he has a certain status - a certain well-earned status. but saving private ryan didn't reinvent the war movie, and most of his latter-day work has been total shit. a lot of his stuff gets an easy ride because of rose-tinted nostalgia and all sorts of wanky zeigeisty type stuff too. don't try and tell me E.T. was groundbreaking film. spielberg is best when he makes safe movies for your average middle-class american family to enjoy. ok great. he's the major studios' (and box office's) best friend, in that regard. that doesn't make great art.Spearhead wrote:
AI did suck. So did Indiana Jones 4.
I'm not going to bother going through his entire career and defending all his movies. I'm not afraid of liking something because its popular. Lincoln was the best movie last year. The end.
oh and don't get childish and puerile and call people "hipsters" because you are admitting your taste in movies is simply the populist, easy-rider choice. it's immature to call people who want a little 'more' from their film-as-artform "hipsters". not everyone comes to a film wanting a gentle, easy, adequately pleasing feelgood experience. if the only film-fan in the world was of your type, we'd be looking back at 100 years of fucking candy cotton fluff and bullshit. thank god for those "hipsters", demanding more. it means film as an artform goes into realms like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mC4HQat0lI
disgusting
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
its from the silent era, and its kind of logistically hard to rearrange a live accompaniment to youtube videos.Mutantbear wrote:
dubbedUzique The Lesser wrote:
to anyone outside of america, lincoln was a boring 3-hour long conversation. a stale exercise for 'that' actor to reprise 'that' period role. nobody gave a shit. best film of the year, "the end"? i think you might want to take your yankee-doodle glasses off and get a little bit of rational, critical distance involved in your foam-mouthed appreciation. spielberg is a giant of hollywood, so he has a certain status - a certain well-earned status. but saving private ryan didn't reinvent the war movie, and most of his latter-day work has been total shit. a lot of his stuff gets an easy ride because of rose-tinted nostalgia and all sorts of wanky zeigeisty type stuff too. don't try and tell me E.T. was groundbreaking film. spielberg is best when he makes safe movies for your average middle-class american family to enjoy. ok great. he's the major studios' (and box office's) best friend, in that regard. that doesn't make great art.Spearhead wrote:
AI did suck. So did Indiana Jones 4.
I'm not going to bother going through his entire career and defending all his movies. I'm not afraid of liking something because its popular. Lincoln was the best movie last year. The end.
oh and don't get childish and puerile and call people "hipsters" because you are admitting your taste in movies is simply the populist, easy-rider choice. it's immature to call people who want a little 'more' from their film-as-artform "hipsters". not everyone comes to a film wanting a gentle, easy, adequately pleasing feelgood experience. if the only film-fan in the world was of your type, we'd be looking back at 100 years of fucking candy cotton fluff and bullshit. thank god for those "hipsters", demanding more. it means film as an artform goes into realms like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mC4HQat0lI
disgusting
so you call people hipsters and you're condescending, at the same time? because i think lincoln is a shit excuse for spielberg to get his favourite actors together for a hooray-america snorefest, i am allergic to 'political dramas'? no. lincoln is just not an exciting movie. the political drama doesn't really appeal to anyone outside of america. it's basically spielberg, on a major budget, making a major historical-propaganda-lite celebration film. uncannily in time for obama's re-election campaign, w/ all its democratic jouissance. it's just not compelling cinema to anyone outside of your own little sheltered land.Spearhead wrote:
I've got a range in taste that is far wider than most. I can like Spielburg and appreciate his work while liking other stuff too. Is he conventional? Yes, and no one will ever argue differently. I'm sorry you didn't like the movie, I thought it was probably one of the best political dramas ever made. You see, that's the thing about political dramas, uzi. They tend to be filled with lots of talking.
it's also pretty funny to me that you'd say you have a "taste that is far wider than most". who are "most", in this case? your redneck friends from the deep south? that comment is pretty eyebrow-raising. it's like those people that say "i like all types of music!!!!", because they listen to the radio a lot. i'm sorry, but going to the cinema to see many different genres of film does not make you a 'well-watched' film fan. there's nothing in that pattern that disputes you being a passive consumer of major studio schlock.
It's funny that because I'm defending Spielburg suddenly I'm into feelgood-cotton candy bullshit. Especially after I go out of my way to say how much I enjoyed a Clockwork Orange. Yep, pretty much definition of hipster-faggotism. So one dimensional.
Oh yes uzique, lecture me on how condescending I am! lol
Oh yes uzique, lecture me on how condescending I am! lol
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-03-01 08:58:55)
lol. ok. "you watch more movies than most", but your two examples for two extremes of film are spielberg and a clockwork orange.
you sound like a freshman undergraduate. do you consider 'fear and loathing' an underground cult classic, too?
you sound like a freshman undergraduate. do you consider 'fear and loathing' an underground cult classic, too?
You're a retard. I said Clockwork orange because it's an incredibly violent film that I happened to enjoy very much and is the exact opposite of cotton candy fluffy feel good bullshit you accused me of being limited to. What, you want me to name all the films I've seen in the past 5 years? Pull your head out of your ass
i just think statements like "i am a wider film watcher than most" are suspicious and open to a lot of pointing and laughing. it's a silly thing to say in a defense of spielberg. address the topic without making "damn hipsters" and "i'm so widely watched" claims. both are spurious and sententious.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-01 09:09:41)
Neither of you guys can say you're movie fans until you watch and like Willow.
What? Since when? Plenty of people defend the movie. It doesn't suck, but it wasn't exactly breaking new ground for the WW2 genre. I'd still rather watch Shakespeare in Love.Spearhead wrote:
Wow... okay so now according to bf2s saving private ryan sucked. Wow I feel sorry for all of you. Spielburg is a great director. He makes consistently good and entertaining films. Whether it's a historical drama, sci-fi, adventure flick, whatever. Fuck you hipster faggots.
and let's pre-empt any "why does it have to be groundbreaking?" queries. good art doesn't have to be groundbreaking, or new/novel, or innovative, or whatever. but saving private ryan just wasn't that great. a great hollywood movie, with wide appeal, sure. a great war movie? ok possibly, but not in the top-tier of war movies when considered as proper 'art', in my opinion. saving private ryan just had tom hanks pulling that blubber-baby face, and the same string-orchestration spielberg has used to wrench the tears in every.single.damn.film. also it had fucking vin diesel in it. i'm sorry but no film where vin diesel plays a decent part is going to be in the top rank of cinema.
and appreciate midgetsunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Neither of you guys can say you're movie fans until you watch and like Willow.
If I recall correctly, uzique said he liked it when he was a kid and so did I. Good old 90's.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Neither of you guys can say you're movie fans until you watch and like Willow.
Saving Private Ryan was not really trying to be "art", it was in a sense trying to re-imagine WW2 as it actually "happened" as opposed to how it was pictured in the popular imagination. Spielburg went out of his way to make the combat as visceral and in-your-face as possible, instead of the black and white, corny John Wayne propaganda (think The Longest Day). Like all his movies, it wasnt really trying to be challenging. It was trying to fill in what used to be a blank space, a kind of "what was it really like" experience. Don't tell me your weren't at all moved when that guy started having a nervous breakdown after the beach landing -- that was bold.
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-03-01 10:16:57)
how about when that US soldier lets the German kill his buddy upstairs?Spearhead wrote:
If I recall correctly, uzique said he liked it when he was a kid and so did I. Good old 90's.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Neither of you guys can say you're movie fans until you watch and like Willow.
Saving Private Ryan was not really trying to be "art", it was in a sense trying to re-imagine WW2 as it actually "happened" as opposed to how it was pictured in the popular imagination. Spielburg went out of his way to make the combat as visceral and in-your-face as possible, instead of the black and white, corny John Wayne propaganda (think The Longest Day). Like all his movies, it wasnt really trying to be challenging. It was trying to fill in what used to be a blank space, a kind of "what was it really like" experience. Don't tell me your weren't at all moved when that guy started having a nervous breakdown after the beach landing -- that was bold.
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
saving private ryan an attempt at gritty realism? you say you watch a lot of films and you are claiming saving private ryan was a 'realist' movie?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Can't go wrong with the classics.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
He was on Lost!Brasso wrote:
how about when that US soldier lets the German kill his buddy upstairs?Spearhead wrote:
If I recall correctly, uzique said he liked it when he was a kid and so did I. Good old 90's.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Neither of you guys can say you're movie fans until you watch and like Willow.
Saving Private Ryan was not really trying to be "art", it was in a sense trying to re-imagine WW2 as it actually "happened" as opposed to how it was pictured in the popular imagination. Spielburg went out of his way to make the combat as visceral and in-your-face as possible, instead of the black and white, corny John Wayne propaganda (think The Longest Day). Like all his movies, it wasnt really trying to be challenging. It was trying to fill in what used to be a blank space, a kind of "what was it really like" experience. Don't tell me your weren't at all moved when that guy started having a nervous breakdown after the beach landing -- that was bold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW9Q1cm_Tnw
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The only part that really bothered me about Saving Private Ryan was the Jewish character that was Spielberg's attempt to reverse the stereotype of the placid Jew going off to the concentration camp without fighting back (since expanded upon by Defiance and Inglorious Basterds). It just stuck out like a sore thumb and wasn't even subtle.Spearhead wrote:
If I recall correctly, uzique said he liked it when he was a kid and so did I. Good old 90's.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Neither of you guys can say you're movie fans until you watch and like Willow.
Saving Private Ryan was not really trying to be "art", it was in a sense trying to re-imagine WW2 as it actually "happened" as opposed to how it was pictured in the popular imagination. Spielburg went out of his way to make the combat as visceral and in-your-face as possible, instead of the black and white, corny John Wayne propaganda (think The Longest Day). Like all his movies, it wasnt really trying to be challenging. It was trying to fill in what used to be a blank space, a kind of "what was it really like" experience. Don't tell me your weren't at all moved when that guy started having a nervous breakdown after the beach landing -- that was bold.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You seem to have some issues with Jews.
The fuck if I know. All I am saying is that Bond blows.Kimmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
if not Bond then what is the Cadillac?Macbeth wrote:
Never cared for Bond films. They all seem like the same old cliched action movie. For some reason people think Bond movies are the Cadillac of action movies.
Speaking of cars though...did I ever tell you how much I enjoy the Fast and Furious series?
No, I have issues with revisionist history.Macbeth wrote:
You seem to have some issues with Jews.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I don't think Inglorious Basterds was trying to change the narrative of the Jewish experience.
saving private ryan sucks
shakespeare in love is a really good movie
and the only outstanding movie spielberg has done is schindler's list
shakespeare in love is a really good movie
and the only outstanding movie spielberg has done is schindler's list
A super elite squad of Jewish soldiers goes to France and successfully assassinates Hitler? I guess it's more stupid than revisionist.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Okay, no one is going to refer to Inglorious Basterds when discussing the Holocaust. I think you have way too wide of an idea of what counts as historical revisionism.