Iggy's IMAC brings all the girls to the yard

[nimbus]

jerkbox nailed it, you lack the attention span for movies like the machinist and no country.


http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/e...bale-such-highly-underrated-actor-543238.html

jerkbox still posts?

 

[miplank]

mitch, you were right. i'm addicted.....

for non plats

I think you learned a valuable lesson today...


i'm always right.

 

[redshirt27se]

Honestly Bluebird, i've seen half of all their work.
Films by them I haven't seen
Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Hudsucker Proxy, The Man Who Wasn't There, Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers, True Grit

Ratings of films I have seen
Millers Crossing - 3/5 - Shot very well. Decent story and acting. Just didn't care much about the main character. Not enough character development in my opinion.
Barton Fink - 3.5/5 - Great depiction of a hollywood screenwriter. Barton strives to be a true artist, yet fails miserably in the end. Superb acting by John Goodman and beautiful cinematography, yet the climax of the film fails miserably in my opinion.
Fargo - 3/5 - An overrated picture in my opinion. Probably since it's so "real" it's boring at times. Steve Buscemi shines.
The Big Lebowski - 5/5 - The Coen's masterpiece in my opinion. excellent, excellent film. Bridges is the perfect role for Lebowski. Goodman steals every scene he's in.
O Brother Where Art Thou - 2.5/5
No Country for Old Men - 1/5 - Sloppy story with no character development clumsily put together. I honestly didn't care about a thing in the story. medicore monologue at the climax.
Burn After Reading - 1/5 - Clooney, Malkovich, and Brad Pitt couldn't save this film.
A Serious Man - 2/5 - Once again the Coen's REPEAT their THEMES. Bad things happen to a not so bad guy. More bad things happen to him. Richard Kind played the loser brother perfectly.

To Bluebird and layinback - You two grew up with the Coen's. I respect them as filmmakers and your opinion. To me, they made 1-2 great films, a couple of good films, and the rest are just mediocre at best. They did NOT however, make some of the best films in the history of cinema however. I firmly believe they made much better films in their early days. What do you two see in them? Am I missing something? I've honestly tried to like them, but this is all I get out of them.

You two grew up around the days of Scarface, Amadeus, Brazil, Hannah and Her Sisters, The Untouchables, Cinema Paradiso, A Short Film about love, Goodfellas, The Silence of the Lambs, Chungking Express, L.A. Confidential, Rushmore, American Beauty, Boogie Nights, Life is Beautiful, Pulp Fiction, The Matrix, Leaving Las Vegas, Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump, Schindler's List, Do the Right Thing, Back to The Future, and Raging Bull. The only film I would group with those and a few others is "The Big Lebowski" because of its cult classic rating. "Fargo" and "No Country for old men" are by no means horrible films, just mediocre in my opinion.

you are way too harsh. just because you don't understand a movie doesn't mean it's bad. you need to watch films for what they are, not what you wanted them to be as an aspiring film maker.

 

[iggy]

you are way too harsh. just because you don't understand a movie doesn't mean it's bad. you need to watch films for what they are, not what you wanted them to be as an aspiring film maker.

Everyone interprets films their own way. Film Criticism is a matter of sole opinion. I'm harsh because it's the only way I know. Truffaut was harsh, and he is arguably the greatest film critic ever to live. I don't say why films are bad, but why I didn't think they were good.

 

[redshirt27se]

Everyone interprets films their own way. Film Criticism is a matter of sole opinion. I'm harsh because it's the only way I know. Truffaut was harsh, and he is arguably the greatest film critic ever to live. I don't say why films are bad, but why I didn't think they were good.

everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you really think no country is a 1/5 it makes me think you didn't understand it. it's not meant to be an a-z story where they hold your hand and explain every nuance. the fact that you said it was a sloppy story and clumsily put together makes me think that even more.

 

[iggy]

jerkbox nailed it, you lack the attention span for movies like the machinist and no country.


http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/e...bale-such-highly-underrated-actor-543238.html

Are you really that ignorant bro? You must be one of those people who cry that others "Don't understand it", or "Don't have the attention span" to like a movie you love and understand it.

I've watched dozens of silent films. "Greed" is four hours. "Dr Mabuse - The Gambler" is four hours. My attention span is greater than 90% of american moviegoers. I didn't like "The Machinist" because the story sucked!!!! Bale is a great actor. But if the story sucks, no way in hell i'm going to give it 4-5 stars unless the cinematography, editing, lighting, acting, special effects and every fucking other thing in the movie is PERFECT. Why didn't I like "No Country"?
The Lack of character development, the shitty acting by Tommy Lee Jones and a few others (main actor was the only decent one), and the fact that brilliant cinematography can't fix horrendous characters poorly acted in a mediocre story at best. It was mediocre at best. When I say "shitty acting" I mean that I expect Tommy Lee Jones and the cast to act as well as A-B type actors. The villian couldn't act his way out of a paper box. Made the whole story even more unbelievable.

How many foreign films have you watched puddles?
Have you seen Tarkovsky's "Mirror" or Bergman's "Persona"?
Try and figure out those is you're so bloody smart

 

[redshirt27se]

Are you really that ignorant bro? You must be one of those people who cry that others "Don't understand it", or "Don't have the attention span" to like a movie you love and understand it.

I've watched dozens of silent films. "Greed" is four hours. "Dr Mabuse - The Gambler" is four hours. My attention span is greater than 90% of american moviegoers. I didn't like "The Machinist" because the story sucked!!!! Bale is a great actor. But if the story sucks, no way in hell i'm going to give it 4-5 stars unless the cinematography, editing, lighting, acting, special effects and every fucking other thing in the movie is PERFECT. Why didn't I like "No Country"?
The Lack of character development, the shitty acting by Tommy Lee Jones and a few others (main actor was the only decent one), and the fact that brilliant cinematography can't fix horrendous characters poorly acted in a mediocre story at best. It was mediocre at best. When I say "shitty acting" I mean that I expect Tommy Lee Jones and the cast to act as well as A-B type actors. The villian couldn't act his way out of a paper box. Made the whole story even more unbelievable.

How many foreign films have you watched puddles?
Have you seen Tarkovsky's "Mirror" or Bergman's "Persona"?
Try and figure out those is you're so bloody smart

pretty sure we saw a different movie. javier bardem carried that movie. you can't compare blockbuster movies to indie films. it doesn't work.



unrelated: have you seen antichrist?

 

[puddlemonkey]

Are you really that ignorant bro? You must be one of those people who cry that others "Don't understand it", or "Don't have the attention span" to like a movie you love and understand it.

I've watched dozens of silent films. "Greed" is four hours. "Dr Mabuse - The Gambler" is four hours. My attention span is greater than 90% of american moviegoers. I didn't like "The Machinist" because the story sucked!!!! Bale is a great actor. But if the story sucks, no way in hell i'm going to give it 4-5 stars unless the cinematography, editing, lighting, acting, special effects and every fucking other thing in the movie is PERFECT. Why didn't I like "No Country"?
The Lack of character development, the shitty acting by Tommy Lee Jones and a few others (main actor was the only decent one), and the fact that brilliant cinematography can't fix horrendous characters poorly acted in a mediocre story at best. It was mediocre at best. When I say "shitty acting" I mean that I expect Tommy Lee Jones and the cast to act as well as A-B type actors. The villian couldn't act his way out of a paper box. Made the whole story even more unbelievable.

How many foreign films have you watched puddles?
Have you seen Tarkovsky's "Mirror" or Bergman's "Persona"?
Try and figure out those is you're so bloody smart

lol@your failed elitism

 

[layinback]

No country was pure allegory. Character development was not relevant. Each character was a representation. The protagonist is virtue. The antagonist is death etc... just my assessment, but I tend to over think shit and I prolly could fuck up a cup of black coffee.

 

[b0und]

I also have a computer

mine has a keyboard designed for people that are NOT midgets

unlike most imacs it seems









b0und (unimpressed PC user)