Peven wrote:art for art's sake? too bad Stallone has no concept of that sentiment, his is "bad for bad's sake" and it makes him money....
SilentScream wrote:Never understood that term myself. 'Art for Art's sake'?' Does it basically mean dressing up any old pretentious shit that 'ordinary plebs' cannot understand?
Nah, don't fink so.
Spandau Belly wrote:SilentScream wrote:Never understood that term myself. 'Art for Art's sake'?' Does it basically mean dressing up any old pretentious shit that 'ordinary plebs' cannot understand?
Nah, don't fink so.
I would say art for art's sake is anything where the focus is more on the art form and context than the content. Doing something in a way that is a challenge just to see if you can do it and how it will turn out.
And there's no need to dress up pretentious shit, it's already wearing a tux.
Peven wrote:what is "pretentious shit"? art that doesn't try to talk down to it's audience ?
Spandau Belly wrote:Peven wrote:what is "pretentious shit"? art that doesn't try to talk down to it's audience ?
People use the word 'pretentious' a lot when talking about movies. For the most part, you can call any movie you don't like pretentious because the people making it think it is worth watching and you don't; therefore you can call them cocky and arrogant about demanding money and time to watch their shitty product.
I mostly try to avoid using this word.
caruso_stalker217 wrote:Well FUCK! My entire weekend is SHOT.
caruso_stalker217 wrote:Well FUCK! My entire weekend is SHOT.
TheBaxter wrote:caruso_stalker217 wrote:Well FUCK! My entire weekend is SHOT.
don't despair. The Help is still playing in theaters, and i think Valentine's Day just got released on blu-ray.
SilentScream wrote:Also watched a bizarre Polish flick called The Hourglass Sanatorium, a surreal and totally off the radar experience that makes Gilliam and Jodorowsky look ordinary. Fans of those two should appreciate this. Peculiar and quite, quite strange.
John-Locke wrote:SilentScream wrote:Also watched a bizarre Polish flick called The Hourglass Sanatorium, a surreal and totally off the radar experience that makes Gilliam and Jodorowsky look ordinary. Fans of those two should appreciate this. Peculiar and quite, quite strange.
WANT!
Bloo wrote:SO I watched BRIDESMAIDS while working on payroll and scheduling at work today.
It's hard for me to believe that this got such favorable reviews and popularity. Maybe it's because I'm not a middle aged white woman with best friend issues or maybe it's because I'm Oleg and we run on pure testosterone, but I don't see the appeal. Or maybe I just liked this movie a whole lot better when it was called I LOVE YOU MAN.
Because that's what this was, I Love You Man, with chicks, which was kind of the point of ILYM. It was the "bromantic comedy", this was chicks fighting over a bride (who was too self centered to notice that her supposedly best friend was having issues). Instead of Rush, in this it was Paris and Wilson Phillips. Instead of cute, concerned Rashida Jones, we get self centered Mya Rudolph. Instead of nervous, anxious, and somewhat failing Paul Rudd, we get bitchy self-centered Kristen Wigg. And instead of a slightly off kilter, yet has his best interests at heart Jason Segal, we get a bitchy, self-centered, with her own interests at heart (albeit cute) Rose Byrne.
You know who was fucking awesome in this, the limited parts for men. Jon Hamm, fucking awesome, particularly in a scene where he's asking Wigg to go down on him while he's driving. Chris O'Dowd was very good as the nervous yet well intentioned cop/love interest. There's a scene with a mechanic (played by Richard Riehle) that said more about about O'Dowd's character then anything else. There was also a really funny bit at the beginning with Terry Crews that really went no where after that, it really served no purpose and would have probably been either a)cut or b) not as funny with anyone OTHER then Crews in it.
So yeah this was pretty much a waste of my time.
Spandau Belly wrote:I haven't seen a comedy movie in 2011. BRIDESMAIDS seems to get the most buzz. It's just that movie this year where everybody I know tells me it's "hilarious" and then when I see it, I will laugh enough to make it worth watching, shrug, then forget it right away. Like THE HANGOVER or whatever other Judd Apatow movie was big the last couple years.
CRAZY STUPID LOVE just looked too insulting to my intelligence. Maybe it was just mismarketed or something.
If I have to watch one, I'll probably go with EVIL BOSSES or whatever that one with Colin Farrell sporting the combover was called. That one looked pretty good, except that I couldn't really tell the lead guys apart too good. I think two of them were Jason Bateman and the other was Jason Bateman with a beard. Anyway, I might give that one a rent.
minstrel wrote:Saw The A-Team last night on HBO. Incomprehensible. Something about recovering plates used by the mint to press money. Who cares? None of the lead actors really sold their roles, or even really defined their characters. And the script kind of betrayed what the original TV characters were about. BA was a genius mechanic, but that wasn't brought out in the movie. Face was a handsome guy who could charm his way to anything, but that wasn't brought out in the movie. Hannibal was the mastermind on TV, but it seemed like Face who formed the big plan in the movie. And George Peppard brought Hannibal a sense of humor that was completely lacking in Liam Neeson's version of the character.
Murdock was an ace pilot in both the TV series and the movie. They got that one right, and the casting of Sharlto Copley worked.
But there was no passion in this movie, no real creativity. It's all just a by-the-numbers action film complete with a couple of big set pieces and a turncoat military/CIA bigwig. Yawn.
justcheckin wrote:I just watched Rubber... it was quite an interesting movie. It should for sure be seen through a self induced haze.
caruso_stalker217 wrote:Watched my nifty new JACKIE BROWN Blu-Ray with every pore on Robert Forster's face visible, the way God intended. This was I think my 13th viewing in the last two years. This film never fucking gets old and it looks great on Blu-Ray.
Bloo wrote:caruso_stalker217 wrote:Watched my nifty new JACKIE BROWN Blu-Ray with every pore on Robert Forster's face visible, the way God intended. This was I think my 13th viewing in the last two years. This film never fucking gets old and it looks great on Blu-Ray.
damn, I want to get that blu but I try not to double dip....
Spandau Belly wrote:BRIDESMAIDS
So I was home visiting my mum for Thanksgiving and after we drove my grandfather back to the old folks home I was the only dude there and it was time to pick a movie and so my mum, my sweetheart, and both sisters all decided on BRIDESMAIDS. Until Bloo's review (scroll up), I'd heard only good things but was never super interested in seeing it. I'd skipped BRIDE WARS, I have seen AMERICAN PIE III: AMERICAN WEDDING and had some laughs at that, but comedies based around all these stresses of planning weddings generally annoy me because not-so-deepdowninside I feel most weddings are way more trouble than they're worth.
This movie is your typical Judd Apatow venture and I'm sick of writing about his movies in paragraph form, so I'll just go down the list of Apatow convetions observed in this film in point form:
1) 20 - 30 minutes too long. This is a must of Apatow, and most of the problems in this and any other Apatow movie stem from this problem.
2) Poor pacing and anti-climacticness.
3) An ensemble cast that doesn't gel so much as feel like a bunch of comedians trying to out-mug each other for screentime.
4) Humour based less on setup and payoff and more based on just getting people to blurt out inappropriate things.
5) Portrayal of women as nagging shrews (this time they're the main charaters) and men as horndog doofuses.
6) Trying to be a romantic comedy while also being really scathing and bitter about just how disappointing and repressive adult relationships are.
There are definately a few laughs to be had here and there. I can't say I had a bad time watching it, but it's your usual Apatow mess of hollow comedic calories that overstays its welcome.
Whatevs.
caruso_stalker217 wrote:Spandau Belly wrote:BRIDESMAIDS
So I was home visiting my mum for Thanksgiving and after we drove my grandfather back to the old folks home I was the only dude there and it was time to pick a movie and so my mum, my sweetheart, and both sisters all decided on BRIDESMAIDS. Until Bloo's review (scroll up), I'd heard only good things but was never super interested in seeing it. I'd skipped BRIDE WARS, I have seen AMERICAN PIE III: AMERICAN WEDDING and had some laughs at that, but comedies based around all these stresses of planning weddings generally annoy me because not-so-deepdowninside I feel most weddings are way more trouble than they're worth.
This movie is your typical Judd Apatow venture and I'm sick of writing about his movies in paragraph form, so I'll just go down the list of Apatow convetions observed in this film in point form:
1) 20 - 30 minutes too long. This is a must of Apatow, and most of the problems in this and any other Apatow movie stem from this problem.
2) Poor pacing and anti-climacticness.
3) An ensemble cast that doesn't gel so much as feel like a bunch of comedians trying to out-mug each other for screentime.
4) Humour based less on setup and payoff and more based on just getting people to blurt out inappropriate things.
5) Portrayal of women as nagging shrews (this time they're the main charaters) and men as horndog doofuses.
6) Trying to be a romantic comedy while also being really scathing and bitter about just how disappointing and repressive adult relationships are.
There are definately a few laughs to be had here and there. I can't say I had a bad time watching it, but it's your usual Apatow mess of hollow comedic calories that overstays its welcome.
Whatevs.
Yeah, but is it possible to masturbate to it?
Bloo wrote:caruso_stalker217 wrote:Spandau Belly wrote:BRIDESMAIDS
So I was home visiting my mum for Thanksgiving and after we drove my grandfather back to the old folks home I was the only dude there and it was time to pick a movie and so my mum, my sweetheart, and both sisters all decided on BRIDESMAIDS. Until Bloo's review (scroll up), I'd heard only good things but was never super interested in seeing it. I'd skipped BRIDE WARS, I have seen AMERICAN PIE III: AMERICAN WEDDING and had some laughs at that, but comedies based around all these stresses of planning weddings generally annoy me because not-so-deepdowninside I feel most weddings are way more trouble than they're worth.
This movie is your typical Judd Apatow venture and I'm sick of writing about his movies in paragraph form, so I'll just go down the list of Apatow convetions observed in this film in point form:
1) 20 - 30 minutes too long. This is a must of Apatow, and most of the problems in this and any other Apatow movie stem from this problem.
2) Poor pacing and anti-climacticness.
3) An ensemble cast that doesn't gel so much as feel like a bunch of comedians trying to out-mug each other for screentime.
4) Humour based less on setup and payoff and more based on just getting people to blurt out inappropriate things.
5) Portrayal of women as nagging shrews (this time they're the main charaters) and men as horndog doofuses.
6) Trying to be a romantic comedy while also being really scathing and bitter about just how disappointing and repressive adult relationships are.
There are definately a few laughs to be had here and there. I can't say I had a bad time watching it, but it's your usual Apatow mess of hollow comedic calories that overstays its welcome.
Whatevs.
Yeah, but is it possible to masturbate to it?
no
caruso_stalker217 wrote:Bloo wrote:caruso_stalker217 wrote:Spandau Belly wrote:BRIDESMAIDS
So I was home visiting my mum for Thanksgiving and after we drove my grandfather back to the old folks home I was the only dude there and it was time to pick a movie and so my mum, my sweetheart, and both sisters all decided on BRIDESMAIDS. Until Bloo's review (scroll up), I'd heard only good things but was never super interested in seeing it. I'd skipped BRIDE WARS, I have seen AMERICAN PIE III: AMERICAN WEDDING and had some laughs at that, but comedies based around all these stresses of planning weddings generally annoy me because not-so-deepdowninside I feel most weddings are way more trouble than they're worth.
This movie is your typical Judd Apatow venture and I'm sick of writing about his movies in paragraph form, so I'll just go down the list of Apatow convetions observed in this film in point form:
1) 20 - 30 minutes too long. This is a must of Apatow, and most of the problems in this and any other Apatow movie stem from this problem.
2) Poor pacing and anti-climacticness.
3) An ensemble cast that doesn't gel so much as feel like a bunch of comedians trying to out-mug each other for screentime.
4) Humour based less on setup and payoff and more based on just getting people to blurt out inappropriate things.
5) Portrayal of women as nagging shrews (this time they're the main charaters) and men as horndog doofuses.
6) Trying to be a romantic comedy while also being really scathing and bitter about just how disappointing and repressive adult relationships are.
There are definately a few laughs to be had here and there. I can't say I had a bad time watching it, but it's your usual Apatow mess of hollow comedic calories that overstays its welcome.
Whatevs.
Yeah, but is it possible to masturbate to it?
no
Well FUCK! My entire weekend is SHOT.
caruso_stalker217 wrote:I imagine the first segment may have had some problems due to John Landis killing Vic Morrow with a helicopter.
Bloo wrote:Spandau, I believe the first two segments were the original and the second two were the remakes (I know the last two were remakes and Speilbergs's was original. I'm not sure about Landis's segment). Spielberg's feels more akin to his Amazing Stories then TZ. It's interesting that the last two are the stronger as Miller and Dante had a lot more to prove
TheBaxter wrote:Bloo wrote:Spandau, I believe the first two segments were the original and the second two were the remakes (I know the last two were remakes and Speilbergs's was original. I'm not sure about Landis's segment). Spielberg's feels more akin to his Amazing Stories then TZ. It's interesting that the last two are the stronger as Miller and Dante had a lot more to prove
no, kick the can was a remake too. the other two may not be straight remakes, but landis' episode has similarities to "A Quality of Mercy" and the dante one is vaguely similar to "It's a Good Life"
Bloo wrote:TheBaxter wrote:Bloo wrote:Spandau, I believe the first two segments were the original and the second two were the remakes (I know the last two were remakes and Speilbergs's was original. I'm not sure about Landis's segment). Spielberg's feels more akin to his Amazing Stories then TZ. It's interesting that the last two are the stronger as Miller and Dante had a lot more to prove
no, kick the can was a remake too. the other two may not be straight remakes, but landis' episode has similarities to "A Quality of Mercy" and the dante one is vaguely similar to "It's a Good Life"
I thought for sure Kick The Can was original.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests