aox wrote:I can't believe there is still a single person on this planet still trying to rekindle this debate in the year 2010. They literally have nothing on their side except......well, their own selfish vision.
You better be careful about what you say about this guy. Do you know what he snacks on in movie theaters? He snacks on "People who eat in movie theaters." At least, according to his profile. So, I'm just sayin'...watch yourself. Sounds like one tough hombre.
I love that he seems not at all concerned about losing 40% of the film while he watches a pan-and-scan, but is willing to cannibalize someone if they their popcorn squeaks a little.
Foam wrote:The "blank canvas" argument in the responses to responses video almost made me cry blood.
I doubt I make it through all thirty minutes of this but does he address the early history of cinema (actualities, etc) in his definition of what a film is, or does he even realize movies existed before what his Blockbuster carries? he asks rhetorically
Now he's talking about how stupid Last Year at "mare-in-bod" fans are, since Alain Resnais (he doesn't even attempt that one) can't explain the film. An authorial intent argument? I mean, really? This guy is more in need of a Film 101 class than maybe anyone else on the internet.
People either absolutely buy into his "in-depth, analytical and highly critical" review style, or they simply can't stand his "shrill, annoying, highly repetitive, and Completely Missing The Point rants". There's very little room for middle ground — he seems almost to cultivate polarization with his review choices and confrontational style.
Bottom liine - Stay away. You simply can't go wrong. At least judging from my experience where on top of the non-story, non-issues, etc. the version was an absolutely shoddy close to black on white DVD thing.
Numero Trois wrote:Yeah, but movies back then were mostly in b&w. No one in 1946 would confuse a still with the actual movie. Either way, I think it's just a matter of a minority few who don't want to read. The Amazon listing for the DVD describes it exactly. And surely the back of the DVD case does the same.
It is time for the content providers to overcome the misguided idea that letterboxing of programming on television in any way improves or enhances the viewing of the programming itself. It is time to give the viewer some control over how the programming content is presented on our screens. I am tired, frustrated and completely alienated by the content providers that choose to diminish my experience by forcing a shrunken image onto half of my screen just to satisfy someones selfish vision of how the picture should be presented.
Thankfully, he was shouted down.
and in over two months, he's managed to woo TWO more people to his crusade! What a triumvirate of power! I'm sure change is on the horizon now!!!!!!!!
I’ve watched some atrociously painful crap but this flick wins this year’s “J.A. Hamilton Shitstorm award” for most pathetic waste of two hours. There’s nothing either endearing or compelling about this story, its characters or its tremendous lack of direction. Avoid it like a circumcision at twenty five performed with a spoon.
GREENBERG is not the sort of film that brings about a lot of buzz or attention. This coming from the director of THE SQUID AND THE WHALE, a film I’ve heard of but not seen. I’m not terribly big on films like this one, films that try so hard to be “something” but instead come off as strained and awkward. This is exactly what GREENBERG as a film and as a character is: painfully and thoroughly awkward beyond imagination.
First off we have the sad premise of “a dude who wants to do nothing.” Don’t get me wrong, there’s lots of hope for that sort of premise, look at SEINFELD, the show about nothing or even OFFICE SPACE, THE film about a man’s pursuit of nothing. Those are both hilarious endeavours spawned of the same idea, which leads me to ask the obvious question, how in hell did GREENBERG get it so damn wrong (bear in mind this film is no comedy yet I make this analogy simply because the box tries to imply that it is). Talk about a topic that has infinite possibilities, yet here we are with a dull ass flick that falls flat on its face very quickly and never even makes an attempt to get up.
Now it certainly doesn’t help that the character Greenberg (played by Stiller) is a complete and utter douchebag that you just want to hammer through a wall. Say he’s at a table of people talking movies; he’s the wannabe poser that outright loathes the one film everyone else loves for no better reason than because everyone else loves it. He’s such a flawed miserable character that he has to pick apart everyone else’s life to make himself feel better. I’m surprised half these people even talk to him after some of shit he pulls (like screwing over his band by not taking a music contract, sponging off his family and being a total jerkoff to his brother’s personal assistant). It’s hard to tell why anyone would feel anything for this guy but pity, which even then would be a fleeting emotion due to how much of a prick he is.
knives wrote:Now it certainly doesn’t help that the character Greenberg (played by Stiller) is a complete and utter douchebag that you just want to hammer through a wall. Say he’s at a table of people talking movies; he’s the wannabe poser that outright loathes the one film everyone else loves for no better reason than because everyone else loves it. He’s such a flawed miserable character that he has to pick apart everyone else’s life to make himself feel better.
Am I using irony correctly here? Because I find it ironic that Armond White hated a movie in which the protagonist is created in his image.
Not for all mankind, August 2, 2009
By lohmeier - See all my reviews
This review is from: For All Mankind - Criterion Collection [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray)
Ok. Apollo was paid by the american tax payer, so the rest of the world has no right to see this awesome documentary. I understand. But i find it a little bit ironic that a blu ray with the title "For All Mankind" is region locked.
Not for all mankind, August 2, 2009
By lohmeier - See all my reviews
This review is from: For All Mankind - Criterion Collection [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray)
Ok. Apollo was paid by the american tax payer, so the rest of the world has no right to see this awesome documentary. I understand. But i find it a little bit ironic that a blu ray with the title "For All Mankind" is region locked.
EW readers pick "20 'Classic' Overrated Movies". Unsurprisingly, the list is filled with "boring" fare like 2001, Lawrence of Arabia, and Citizen Kane. They also call out His Girl Friday (what?), Annie Hall (double what?), etc. The arguments in the respective comments sections can be amusing/frustrating/crazed.
Ew, that EW thing just makes our skin crawl. "Zach" on His Girl Friday:
Ooh, His Girl Friday is a terrific example because I didn’t care for that brand of humor. While you’re at it, all of the Hepburn-Tracy rom-coms of the ’40s are dull.
FerdinandGriffon wrote:Ew, that EW thing just makes our skin crawl. "Zach" on His Girl Friday:
Ooh, His Girl Friday is a terrific example because I didn’t care for that brand of humor. .
Haha, says it all really.
I love that there is genuine crap that is used mostly as a punchline these days (Love Story, I'm looking in your directly) immediately next to His Girl Friday and Lawrence of Arabia. Also, people complaining that Sleepless in Seattle ruined An Affair to Remember, which is... sigh.
Entertainment Weekly wrote:An Affair to Remember (1957)
Sleepless in Seattle ruined Affair to Remember for me. Every time it’s on, all I can think about is Meg Ryan, Rosie O’[Donnell] and Rita Wilson bawling, and Tom Hanks’ WTF look. — SRD
=;
Entertainment Weekly wrote:Gone With the Wind (1939)
Scarlett was supposed to be the ''heroine,'' yet she was a spoiled, rude, immoral tramp. The only part of the movie I liked was where Rhett walked out on her — I just wish it had happened about 3 hours sooner! — Flyer
