He even hands out his own awards #-oMurdoch wrote:I like how this Mastracci guy gave Dark Knight a 15 out of 10. ](*,)Perkins Cobb wrote:The world's worst film critic takes aim at Armond's batting average.
The Fabulous Fisting Fiore's Pic Picks wrote:KEY SCENES TO LOOK FOR:
1. PYRO VS. ICEMAN
2. PHOENIX VS. PROFESSOR X
3. JUGGERNAUT
4. ANY SCENE WITH HALLE BERRY
5. WOLVERINE IN THE FORREST
6. THE BEAST AT ALCATRAZ
Because people who use the term "gay agenda" seriously are idiots.swo17 wrote:How in the hell can this guy lambast V for Vendetta for its "blatant support for the gay agenda" and yet bestow the coveted Fist of Fiore on each(!) of the three installments of the X-Men trilogy, which are basically just coming out films thinly veiled as superhero movies?
He's certainly a wonderful _writer_ about movies. I've never had the privilege of hearing him speak about them, however.snack wrote:Any opinions on Phillip Lopate? I might take a "Film Criticism" seminar with him next semester, but it really interferes with my schedule. I've read his "In Anticipation of La Notte," which I really enjoyed.
So you want genres to be ghettoized by gender rather some sort of equal opportunity thing?We had so few [genres] that were made specifically for the female audience and now the best of them are being made by Judd Apatow
But women aren't a minority group in America. That's the problem.knives wrote:Couldn't the same thing me said for blacks, Asians, Muslims, LGBT, or really any minority group though?
But how many of these do anything to change the "niche audience" perception of women?The complaint is a bit silly, especially in a year where women films and women directors have had more mainstream success then I can remember.
I think her point is the genres have already been ghettoized by gender, but male filmmakers are allowed to breach it successfully.So you want genres to be ghettoized by gender rather some sort of equal opportunity thing?
...And? How does women not being a minority prevent my point from being valid? Let's pretend it does though, just for the sake of argument. How about latino directors or films. Percentage wise they're on about equal footing with white people and have a higher percentage in Hollywood too.Cold Bishop wrote:But women aren't a minority group in America. That's the problem.
Admittedly, I am no insider, but from what I've been reading around the Internet for a little over has been an increased awareness of a market for women. Now this doesn't mean quality cinema for women, but as we are talking of Hollywood any quality is accidental. From this I see an increased shift to women focused films, which admittedly keeps them as a 'niche', but if the goal is to have films by women directors and/ or catering to women in a way that isn't any more pandering than the male equivalent than I believe they'll have to be a audience. As long as Hollywood works in the capitalist mode it does, and even if it shifted modes dramatically, they won't be selling where there is no market.But how many of these do anything to change the "niche audience" perception of women?
This goes back to my point that it is the wrong year for this sort of comment, or at least this sort of comment being phrased this way. A lot of her argument should be directed more toward women for not trying to do that same breach breaking. Yes it is a hell of a lot harder, but that is for lack of reputation. Even just with Bigelow that glass ceiling is cracking. To go back to the article though even that isn't necessarily true. For example when Bigelow was entrusted with 100 mil for K-19, far more than Anderson has ever been given, she was still a very unproven quantity with only one hit and no cult to back her. Really after the degree of bomb that was it was a miracle she got any financing at all for as risky a project as The Hurt Locker. I'll admit to only using one example here which proves that the state of affairs for women filmakers is not good, but the degree to which is being severely overstated and causing just as much negligence to other groups who are much more mistreated minorities then women have ever been.I think her point is the genres have already been ghettoized by gender, but male filmmakers are allowed to breach it successfully.
The most powerful point she makes is that people are "starved for representations of themselves." This is so true, and I am baffled at how Hollywood can ignore this. It seems to me that there's enormous profit to be made by producing well-made films to demographics eager to buy tickets to a good flick that speaks to them. Of course, this is so obvious that it's clear that Hollywood has crunched the numbers and decided that it's better to spend 400 mil on Avatar than 40 mil on a great women's, black, or LGBT film. I'll never understand.essrog wrote:Manohla goes off.
Might have to do with his ex being at the same table.MyNameCriterionForum wrote:Cameron seems uneasy not being the center of attention. Anyway.
They are supposedly very good friends. He advised her to do The Hurt Locker.knives wrote:Might have to do with his ex being at the same table.MyNameCriterionForum wrote:Cameron seems uneasy not being the center of attention. Anyway.
This new book sounds good, but is it worth the price? The publisher lists the hardback for $125. I'm glad that the softback is more affordable, though.MyNameCriterionForum wrote:On Bresson:
http://bombsite.powweb.com/?p=6770" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sorry to spoil it for you, but I think you mean Regular Lovers.Cinetwist wrote: I like that he likes Two Lovers, but not much else.
Nope, he made a post afterwards about how Two Lovers could have made the list, or should have made the list.life_boy wrote:Sorry to spoil it for you, but I think you mean Regular Lovers.Cinetwist wrote: I like that he likes Two Lovers, but not much else.
Angel Face is just one of those movies that ages so well when you think back to itAngel Face (something of a surprise, this