Page 15 of 57
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:07 pm
by bigP
Murdoch wrote: I like how this Mastracci guy gave Dark Knight a 15 out of 10. ](*,)
He even hands out his own
awards #-o
Thanks for posting the article Perkins Cobb, was a very funny read.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:15 pm
by domino harvey
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
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:26 pm
by swo17
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?
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:51 pm
by Mr Sausage
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?
Because people who use the term "gay agenda" seriously are idiots.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:51 am
by knives
Now Sausage, you really shouldn't insult idiots with that sort of comparison.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:03 am
by snack
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.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:32 am
by Michael Kerpan
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.
He's certainly a wonderful _writer_ about movies. I've never had the privilege of hearing him speak about them, however.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:10 am
by essrog
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:31 am
by knives
Couldn't the same thing me said for blacks, Asians, Muslims, LGBT, or really any minority group though? 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. It's a silly way of complaining about something that can only be changed as far as the audiences are willing to change them (through their wallets). As long as Spike Lee is the only black director people remember and the gay community is stuck in Gentleman's Agreement films complaining solely about sexism seems moot.
This gem in particular feels eye roll worthy:
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
So you want genres to be ghettoized by gender rather some sort of equal opportunity thing?
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:54 am
by Cold Bishop
knives wrote:Couldn't the same thing me said for blacks, Asians, Muslims, LGBT, or really any minority group though?
But women aren't a minority group in America. That's the problem.
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.
But how many of these do anything to change the "niche audience" perception of women?
So you want genres to be ghettoized by gender rather some sort of equal opportunity thing?
I think her point is the genres have already been ghettoized by gender, but male filmmakers are allowed to breach it successfully.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:45 am
by knives
Cold Bishop wrote:But women aren't a minority group in America. That's the problem.
...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.
But how many of these do anything to change the "niche audience" perception of women?
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.
I think her point is the genres have already been ghettoized by gender, but male filmmakers are allowed to breach it successfully.
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.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:39 pm
by Perkins Cobb
Manohla is awesome. This reminds me that I miss the kind of profane rants that she could get away with at LA Weekly, but not the NYT.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:15 pm
by Highway 61
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.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:29 pm
by swo17
Generally, films that I feel are attempting to represent me make me want to die.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:57 am
by Oedipax
Steven Shaviro with a whopper of a
post on
Gamer.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:40 am
by MyNameCriterionForum
Not sure where this should go (and if it's already been posted, I apologize):
http://nyccine.blogspot.com/2009/12/hol ... .html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
God, Jason Reitman looks like a douche... and makes douchey films. Kathryn Bigelow and Tarantino are the only two real directors sitting at that table as far as I'm concerned. Apparently Tarantino wants to "Quit and write novels and film criticism" at the age of 60, or whenever 35 mm film and projection is gone, whichever comes first. Jackson seems like kind of a pretentious dick, considering how dumb his films are. Cameron seems uneasy not being the center of attention. Anyway.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:42 am
by knives
MyNameCriterionForum wrote:Cameron seems uneasy not being the center of attention. Anyway.
Might have to do with his ex being at the same table.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:59 pm
by Jeff
knives wrote:MyNameCriterionForum wrote:Cameron seems uneasy not being the center of attention. Anyway.
Might have to do with his ex being at the same table.
They are supposedly very good friends. He advised her to do
The Hurt Locker.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:02 am
by domino harvey
She in return advised him to do the world's biggest furry flick, but it turns out he has a really bad sarcasm detector
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:03 pm
by MyNameCriterionForum
On Bresson:
http://bombsite.powweb.com/?p=6770" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:14 pm
by Jean-Luc Garbo
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.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:32 pm
by life_boy
Cinetwist wrote: I like that he likes Two Lovers, but not much else.
Sorry to spoil it for you, but I think you mean
Regular Lovers.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:02 pm
by Cinetwist
life_boy wrote:Cinetwist wrote: I like that he likes Two Lovers, but not much else.
Sorry to spoil it for you, but I think you mean
Regular Lovers.
Nope, he made a post afterwards about how Two Lovers could have made the list, or should have made the list.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:06 am
by Oedipax
Via Jonathan Rosenbaum, Robin Wood's
final top 10, dictated a couple days before his death.
Re: Film Criticism
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:41 pm
by domino harvey
Angel Face (something of a surprise, this
Angel Face is just one of those movies that ages so well when you think back to it