Excellent argument Capo.



Not really.

I do it because it obviously irks you.

I have no ill-will or anything against you. You're a good critic with intelligent thoughts and don't give a goddamn about disrespecting any supposed "holy cow" films. That's an undervalued attitude to have with criticism.

Remember at FCM where I posted that Outlaw Vern's review of PUBLIC ENEMIES? Your knee-jerk reaction was to dismiss it as merely me trying demean you or whatever egotistical nonsense. I posted it because as you ironically pointed out, you and him shared the same (legitimate) criticisms of the movie. The approach was different though.

So yeah you've helped me before with constructive arguments that did iron out my reviews, IMO. Just trying to return the favor, but it's not like I have a gun to your head. Shiv sure, but not gun.

Capo, I simply want more than just mechanical reviews, I'm more intrigued by the critic's response, the personal story of the auteur with that film the launchpad for their feelings and connection and politics and the baggage that we as viewers take with us to the film, etc.

Take svsg, who gave the most interesting thought I've ever read on Bruce Lee's action classic ENTER THE DRAGON. And it had nothing to do with the film itself. He the Indian national wrote how (unless I'm wrong) ENTER was the first English-language movie he watched without subtitles.

See that shit fascinates and compells me more than the usual stuff we critics do. With ETD, highlights the universal appeal and audience-devotion to that one film and International icon.

I don't think my reviews have worked with what I've wanted to do, but I tried (I guess) with AIR FORCE ONE that tired bored DIE HARD clone, highlighting the sheer historical absurdity of a U.S. President going Bruce Willis.

Though Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt could have pulled it off. George Washington won a Revolution without any teeth.



I believe you missed the whole point of me using that bloated has-been. And if you read my OUT FOR JUSTICE review, you know I thought it was a weak-sauce action exploitation picture. But one fun if watched in interrupted spasms (like on TV.)

Don't mistake the trees for the forest.

Oh and for the record, you never trashed Van Damme either. Not that I really care if you did or not, but don't worry. I won't hold (or remember) it against you.



That was an awesome funny touch with EXECUTIVE DECISION, with the action hero star Seagal killed off in the first 20 minutes, forcing the supposed desk jockey Kurt Russell to save the day. Though that kinda doesn't make sense with Russell having done ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK but alas. Forgettable actioneer, but I give EXECUTIVE props there.

But back to your point, I remember your spat about wanting psychological depth with your films. OK fine, whatever I can understand that.

So how does that apply with your positive review of say...LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD? Not pissy or critical, just curious.

And that's the thing, curious. People really don't seem to want to converse or discuss beyond their given statements. Why is that? It's disheartening when people fear offending someone else or whatever.



Oh come on, a dude running around in a bat suit is more realistic than time traveling!



And you have THE OUTFIT too. You have no idea how jealous I am.

Sorry for getting off-topic JL, but, well, you know...

Firstly, just to deter any attacks in advance, I don't think action films should be, by definition, without psychological depth. What I mean by "psychological depth" is a character's plausible, grounded response to the social milieu; any psychological depth stems from social context. I think you got that sufficiently in the first Die Hard, which can be read as an allegorical take on the corruption of corporate America; less so in the second one - that's just a silly cash-in on the first, which works to a certain extent by way of a rinse and repeat method, much like Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.

With Die Hard with a Vengeance and Live Free or Die Hard, you've all of a sudden got an attempted seriousness, with specific references again to real, important issues such as race and the meltdown of the post-modern world due to organised terrorism. But it's all diluted and made fodder for poorly staged set pieces; the social context is all dressing, never addressed fully enough for anything to ring true. The terrorists are the biggest let-down; the Die Hard films are set up to cash in on both Willis's appeal as an actor and John McLane's appeal as a character. As a result, he could be fighting anybody, much in the same way that Rocky or Rambo could be fighting anybody, according to what's fashionable at the time (an unstoppable Russian boxer or the whole Soviet army or other such "foreign" threats). There's no real effort to get to grips with social reality in these kinds of films, and as a result, they lack psychological depth.

And so the appeal of Live Free or Die Hard rests on whether you think it's well-staged as an action film. I personally don't think it's all that great. One's enjoyment of it depends on one's knowledge of the genre, its history, its pioneers (this happens to be a sequel to possibly the best action film ever), its limits and its strengths. As always, it's a comparative judgment.

Makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for elaborating.

Oh and for the record, I still hate you for having seen THE OUTFIT.

Out of curiosity, why wait to make a new thread regarding these posts you are talking about? You seem like an intelligent person, why not just respond with your thoughts in the threads that make you think, instead of starting whole new topics?

Because I'm an attention whore, blib, that's why.

I dont do this to "own" a thread or anything like that. I dont believe that crap that a thread starter owns the thread or has some sort of claim over it because s/he started it. So I dont do that to get the eyes on me. Believe me, some time ago I noticed a little star next to my username and realized I reached 1000 posts, and I didnt mention it anywhere because I didnt want anyone to start a thread by accident. I also dont have my birthday in my profile for the exact same reason, I dont want a birthday thread for me. So why I call myself an attention whore? because I believe in the ultimate discussion. And the ultimate discussion, in my opinion, is the one that gets the attention of as many participants as you can. I planned this new thread to discuss a number of things regarding movies, and wanted everyone to have their say. Now that I realized my reply to what RRA just said would be something I will ALSO (and not just) talk about in that thread, I thought it would be best to wait and just write it all once in that thread. I still wanted to thank him in the meantime, cos I appreciate his reply.

Why did Capo apologized to JL? for going off topic. Or for "Hijacking the thread". But I dont think the apology should be aimed at JL. Capo is doing a wonderful thing to JL and everyone else reading this thread by posting some interesting posts. The people Capo should apologized to are all those members unlucky enough to read his wonderful non-the-score-posts simply because they dont check this thread about a movie they either didnt see or simply dont care about. And that's the real shame. RRA just mentioned above that one particular reply from svsg was the one he cared about most in another thread. What if another wonder-post is being deprived right now from a person who may have wonderful things to say about the notion of "good films" but that person simply dont know that this thread is no longer about the score? think about it.

I think that for the sake of the most healthy discussions - each and every one should be an attention whore. I'm not saying that every off-topic post should be the reason for a new thread, but if there's an interesting debate on the rise, that is no longer about the thread title, I think it should get the attention of a new thread, so that everyone will have the opportunity to voice their opinion.

I ended up posting here after all, because I found specific things I should reply to. I'll save the other thread for a rainy day, got a bunch of others I'd like to post before. (it's a real bitch not to be able to be online everyday, too many ideas and too little time to post them, fuck work). Anyway:



Why make a distinction at all? if a movie is fun or not is no indication to whether it's good or not. Millions of people eat Pizza Hut all over the world because they love it. Is it by default a good pizza then? millions of teenagers love and watch the show "Hannah Montana" - is it by default a good show then, because they enjoy it? I think not. The 2 categories may correlate each other, or not. A movie could be fun, and yet not of high quality. And you dont need to call it "Guilty Pleasure". To go around saying "Anything less than perfect is not good enough for me" is not Elitism, nor Perfectionism, it's pure Extremism. You say it yourself, that you find it hard to call a movie beyond hope - and I say, that any movie, which gives you something, teaches you something, that you wont get from other movies- then it's somewhat worth the 90 minutes. A movie doesnt have to be perfect in order be worthy of your time. A mediocre movie isnt by default a waste of time. Unless you look at movies as just some tool to pass the time with, and I sure hope nobody feels this way. To me it's art. Any great idea that is being polished through whichever medium is art. It doesnt have to be a sculpture or painting. Art is boundless.



You'll find, if you havent already, that french cinema is often "criticized" with the words used in your paragraph. Those viewers who seek visual speed, constant change-of-scenes, and "normal behaviour" are usually the same type of people who refer to surrealism as "stupid" "unreal" etc.

You often hear that Sir David Lean's films, be it Lawrence of Arabia or Dr. Zhivago are usually mentioned by casual viewers as films they cant stand to watch or rewatch, because of the slow pace, some will use the word "boring", yet they appreciate them as quality films.

What does that mean? the quality is not entertaining? the question is to whom. I could watch Dr Zhivago on a weekly basis and not get tired of it, because every second, slow as you may think it is, counts. At least for me. But taste is taste. I know Ballet is very hard and requires a lot of skill, it is a dance of high quality. Yet I dont give a damn about ballet. I know the quality is there, but doesnt mean I have to love it.

There's no problem saying that something (or someone) is pretty good at what it does, yet you're not necessarily a fan. I, for example, appreciate the dialog in "Gilmore Girls", I think it's witty and engaging, and is a couple of levels higher than dialogues you'll hear in other drama/comedy series on TV. And yet, I dont like watching that show despite the excellent dialogue.

I think there must be a personal appeal for someone to call a movie 'favorite'. That's why "one of the best movies" doesnt have to be a favorite of yours.

I think "Fight Club" has a certain quality to it, and I enjoyed it. I have absolutely no problem if Capo thinks otherwise about the movie as long as he pinpoints to what it is that is missing, or not done properly.

I dont think much about "Collateral" to be honest. (here's your holy cow RRA, hope you're enjoying this). I dont think it's anywhere close to "The Insider" (Mann's best picture IMO).
What I appreciate about Collateral is the visual feast. Superb photography. LA never looked more amazing. Dark atmosphere, the "feeling". And great sound effects as well. But that alone wont suffice. A movie doesnt have to only look good, but has to have some substance, and I dont think Collateral had much to sell in that department.

To me, a good movie is a polished idea. A beautiful vase with beautiful flowers inside. (flower=idea). Collateral is what I call a beautiful empty vase. There was nothing about the plot, dialogue or characters that impressed me. The mysterious Vincent may be cool to look at, but as a thriller I didnt find anything to hold on to, any bright piece of content. Again, beautifully shot. Visual feast. But that's pretty much all.

What I'm trying to say in all that is that I think the idea of the movie should be the core and not vice versa. The polishing work then follows. It's true that the medium at hand is visual, but the visuals are the means to convey the idea, rather than some "idea" you attach in a haste to serve your visuals. What is a movie without a heart? a collection of special effects? pretty much what I think of Bay's Transformers.

Then again, should I have a problem with Transformers? isnt the movie exaclty what we expected? is that the reason to condone it? I hear everyone saying that "Fast and the Furious" is a shitty movie. Yet I didnt really expect it to be more than what it was, so I dont understand the criticism. These type of movies have their target audience, and I think that movie served it well. But I did however expected Mann to show a little more content to back his visuals, so that's why I'm disappointed with collateral. Especially after seeing "The Insider" and the way he superbly polished a great idea for a movie. That's the vision I expect to see more. Hopefully with Public Enemies which I'll go see tomorrow.

Damn. I almost missed a public apology!