FG Film Reviews

User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

Oops;1227682 wrote: If i remember rightly he's a superhero Spot and i think the film has quite a bit of humour in it too. Although the name does make it sound rather ominous :D



Mohandas Gandhi was a superhero and he had a sense of humour. The idea that $66 million was spent on glorifying the crazed fictional doings of Hellboy distresses me. The world is a foul place when so many people pollute their minds watching such action that it makes a profit.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Oops
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:21 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Oops »

spot;1227686 wrote: Mohandas Gandhi was a superhero and he had a sense of humour. The idea that $66 million was spent on glorifying the crazed fictional doings of Hellboy distresses me. The world is a foul place when so many people pollute their minds watching such action that it makes a profit.



And what about the crazed doings of some of your favourite bands/artists such as Alice Cooper or Ozzy Osbourne to name a couple! Thats ok is it? :)
If the person you are talking to doesn't appear to be listening, be patient. It may simply be that he has a small piece of fluff in his ear ~Winnie the Pooh~
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

Oops;1227702 wrote: And what about the crazed doings of some of your favourite bands/artists such as Alice Cooper or Ozzy Osbourne to name a couple! Thats ok is it? :)



I'm just trying to work out what the Ozzmeister could have done with a budget of $66 million. It's a scary thought.

I know very little about Alice Cooper, the only time I recall seeing him was in a strange cult movie called... umm... no it's gone out of my head. Two extremely witty chaps running a local TV studio from their bedsit and playing Bohemian Rhapsody in their car. They were, apparently, not worthy.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Oops
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:21 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Oops »

spot;1227719 wrote: I'm just trying to work out what the Ozzmeister could have done with a budget of $66 million. It's a scary thought.

I know very little about Alice Cooper, the only time I recall seeing him was in a strange cult movie called... umm... no it's gone out of my head. Two extremely witty chaps running a local TV studio from their bedsit and playing Bohemian Rhapsody in their car. They were, apparently, not worthy.



Very scary thought indeed!

Wayne's World i think it was. I absolutely hated that film :-5
If the person you are talking to doesn't appear to be listening, be patient. It may simply be that he has a small piece of fluff in his ear ~Winnie the Pooh~
User avatar
Kathy Ellen
Posts: 10569
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm

FG Film Reviews

Post by Kathy Ellen »

spot;1227674 wrote: It's a movie where people get killed? I try hard to avoid that sort of plot. For one thing the makers shouldn't be encouraged and for another I'd only get upset with myself if I enjoyed it.



Hitting's distressing too, I don't like movies where people hit each other either.



Spot, I hardly watch violent movies, but absolutely loved movies like "Kill Bill" and "Hellboy." I thought the graphics, storyline and actors were brilliant....Ron Perlman and John Hurt star in Hellboy.



I was just flipping through the channels last night and came across "Hellboy". I thought oh no, another stupid kid's movie. But somehow I became emeshed in the plot and continued to watch it.



Yes, it was very violent but brilliant...good vs. evil...
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

spot;1227674 wrote: It's a movie where people get killed? I try hard to avoid that sort of plot. For one thing the makers shouldn't be encouraged and for another I'd only get upset with myself if I enjoyed it.



Hitting's distressing too, I don't like movies where people hit each other either.



Did you not watch Saving Private Ryan spock?

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

Nomad;1227742 wrote: Did you not watch Saving Private Ryan spock?



You have to be kidding me. of course I didn't. I take more care of my mind than to allow voyeuristic mass-killing thrills in. Spielberg specialises in emotional manipulation through the use of shocking imagery. It's films like that which deaden their audiences' inbuilt reaction against violence.

What you end up with after a lifetime's exposure to explicit killing on screen is a generation of volunteers who really really want to point guns at "evil" men and make them fall over with blood splashed in all directions. Maybe that's the point in making the movies. Meanwhile they're out on patrol in Afghanistan, sensibilities completely numbed beforehand by Hollywood and their 40 hours a week in front of the TV.

The system has bred television-consumer man at his most abject amoral worst. You get people who can write "Spot, I hardly watch violent movies, but absolutely loved movies like "Kill Bill" and "Hellboy." without even noticing the glare of contradiction it carries. What people need to learn is that there is no "good vs. evil", that "good vs. evil" is an invention tied to patriotism which kills perfectly respectable men, women and children in far-away countries. It matters a lot. Yes, it was very violent but brilliant is why invasions are endorsed by the brainwashed death-inured voting public.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

FG Film Reviews

Post by Clodhopper »

Not a film, but a 7 part tv series which we watched in one go. An absolute hoot called Seven Lessons with Mr Gormsby.

It's a Kiwi production set in a failing NZ school and is utterly, brilliantly and hilariously non-pc. If there is a minority group it hasn't had a go at it's not for lack of trying!

A second series was made with Aussie money ( no-one in NZ would go near it) and I'm told the joke in NZ is that it's used in Aus to train teachers in advanced educational techniques... ;)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

FG Film Reviews

Post by Lon »

spot;1227803 wrote: You have to be kidding me. of course I didn't. I take more care of my mind than to allow voyeuristic mass-killing thrills in. Spielberg specialises in emotional manipulation through the use of shocking imagery. It's films like that which deaden their audiences' inbuilt reaction against violence.



What you end up with after a lifetime's exposure to explicit killing on screen is a generation of volunteers who really really want to point guns at "evil" men and make them fall over with blood splashed in all directions. Maybe that's the point in making the movies. Meanwhile they're out on patrol in Afghanistan, sensibilities completely numbed beforehand by Hollywood and their 40 hours a week in front of the TV.



The system has bred television-consumer man at his most abject amoral worst. You get people who can write "Spot, I hardly watch violent movies, but absolutely loved movies like "Kill Bill" and "Hellboy." without even noticing the glare of contradiction it carries. What people need to learn is that there is no "good vs. evil", that "good vs. evil" is an invention tied to patriotism which kills perfectly respectable men, women and children in far-away countries. It matters a lot. Yes, it was very violent but brilliant is why invasions are endorsed by the brainwashed death-inured voting public.



Well---we finally disagree on something-----------I don't think that Spielberg manipulates emotions but rather depicts as in the case of "Ryan" just how futile war is. Some perhaps are numbed to violence by watching, but they tend to be people that are manipulated by the spoken word as well. Violence in films does not bother me in the least as long as it is a realistic depiction of what actually occurred. When violence as well as obscenities are used merely for shock value is where I object. I have been party to well over 800 autopsies and it has hardly made me immune to death, suffering or trauma. We are affected differently by what we visually observe.
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by chonsigirl »

And Spielberg's Schindler's List, the girl with the red coat, how we love her. :-1

Nomad, sometimes a film is very worthy of the message portrayed, but the violence is very hard to view. It is up to the individual what they can or cannot be able to handle.

Private Ryan-I have seen bits and pieces of it, it is very violent and has the message of futility of war. But the violence is very hard to view, I just am not able to watch it.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

Lon;1227850 wrote: Well---we finally disagree on something-----------I don't think that Spielberg manipulates emotions but rather depicts as in the case of "Ryan" just how futile war is.

All I wrote was that Spielberg specialises in emotional manipulation through the use of shocking imagery, I had Jaws and Jurassic Park in mind when I brought that in. As I said, I've not seen Saving Private Ryan. I assume there's an underlying common attempt to thrill. It's quite possible he tempered his technique for such a delicate subject but that's more than I'm aware of.

Lon wrote: Some perhaps are numbed to violence by watching, but they tend to be people that are manipulated by the spoken word as well. Violence in films does not bother me in the least as long as it is a realistic depiction of what actually occurred. When violence as well as obscenities are used merely for shock value is where I object. I have been party to well over 800 autopsies and it has hardly made me immune to death, suffering or trauma. We are affected differently by what we visually observe.

The gore and mayhem the average Western child watches before coming of age should be vomit-inducing. Sadly it's considered normal. As for "when violence as well as obscenities are used merely for shock value is where I object" that brings us straight back to Hellboy and Kill Bill, surely.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

spot;1227803 wrote: You have to be kidding me. of course I didn't. I take more care of my mind than to allow voyeuristic mass-killing thrills in. Spielberg specialises in emotional manipulation through the use of shocking imagery. It's films like that which deaden their audiences' inbuilt reaction against violence.



What you end up with after a lifetime's exposure to explicit killing on screen is a generation of volunteers who really really want to point guns at "evil" men and make them fall over with blood splashed in all directions. Maybe that's the point in making the movies. Meanwhile they're out on patrol in Afghanistan, sensibilities completely numbed beforehand by Hollywood and their 40 hours a week in front of the TV.



The system has bred television-consumer man at his most abject amoral worst. You get people who can write "Spot, I hardly watch violent movies, but absolutely loved movies like "Kill Bill" and "Hellboy." without even noticing the glare of contradiction it carries. What people need to learn is that there is no "good vs. evil", that "good vs. evil" is an invention tied to patriotism which kills perfectly respectable men, women and children in far-away countries. It matters a lot. Yes, it was very violent but brilliant is why invasions are endorsed by the brainwashed death-inured voting public.



So say you.

I didnt walk away from the film thinking war is romantic. If anyone did theyre extremely unbalanced.

I dont think the point of making an epic film like Saving Private Ryan was to glorify war spock. Youre not using your noggin.

War in itself is horrid and gut wrenching and ugly. How could one make an accurate depiction of war without realism?

It wasnt a fun movie to watch, it was a sobering experience. It left me with a hollow feeling inside, it scared me. It was however a film that should have been made for all the world to see. Just like Schindlers List. It was an important movie and your doing yourself a disservice by not watching it.

You should rent it and sit in front of your tv and be horrified and hurt and angry and you should cry your tears for all of the sorrow we cause eachother.

You may not want to see it but you should see it.

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

Nomad;1228066 wrote: It wasnt a fun movie to watch, it was a sobering experience. It left me with a hollow feeling inside, it scared me. It was however a film that should have been made for all the world to see. Just like Schindlers List. It was an important movie and your doing yourself a disservice by not watching it.

You should rent it and sit in front of your tv and be horrified and hurt and angry and you should cry your tears for all of the sorrow we cause eachother.

You may not want to see it but you should see it.



World War Two was a real and complex event. It repays study, it educates, learning about it ought to change people.

Saving Private Ryan is fiction.

The one calls for valid emotional responses (among various responses). The other is exploitative profiteering with as little educational merit as Kelly's Heroes.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
mikeinie
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:43 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by mikeinie »

I saw this film while on holidays and thought it was great. It is Candian film called One Week.

It is slow at some parts, but it really gives an great insight to Canada with fantastic scenery. I recommend it. If you are Canadian, it is a must see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCy6ijUlI7A
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

spot;1228106 wrote: World War Two was a real and complex event. It repays study, it educates, learning about it ought to change people.



Saving Private Ryan is fiction.



The one calls for valid emotional responses (among various responses). The other is exploitative profiteering with as little educational merit as Kelly's Heroes.



Normandy was fiction?





Rank: Sergeant

Unit: 101st Airborne Division, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 3rd Battalion, Company H, 1st Platoon

Parents: Michael and Augusta

Brothers: 3 - Robert, Preston and Edward

Home Town: Tonawanda, New York

Saving Sergeant Niland? Although the story for the search for Private Ryan is fictional, there was a real paratrooper in the 101st Airborne Division whose family (appeared to have) suffered the loss of three out of four sons in combat in a short period of time.

Sergeant Frederick "Fritz" Niland was a member of the 101st Airborne's 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, and was one of those that made the drop into Normandy on June 6, 1944. He landed southwest of Carentan in Raffoville, and he was eventually able to make it back to his unit on his own.

Niland's three brothers served in other units, Technical Sergeant Robert Niland with the 82nd Airborne Division (505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, Company D), Lieutenant Preston Niland with the 4th Infantry Division (22nd Infantry Regiment), and Technical Sergeant Edward Niland as a pilot in the Army Air Force.

Edward had been reported missing over Burma in the Pacific Theater on May 16, 1944. His B-25 had been shot down and he was reported as MIA and presumed killed. Robert was killed on D-Day at Neuville-au-Plain. Preston was killed on June 7th in the vicinity of Utah Beach.

Unlike the fictional Ryan, however, there was no need to send out a rescue mission to find Sergeant Niland. When Father Francis L. Sampson, chaplain of the 501st, learned that two of Niland's brothers were dead, and that a third was presumed dead, he began the paperwork necessary to send Niland home.

Niland remained with his unit for some time, but once the paperwork cleared he was forced to return to the States, where he served in New York as an MP for the rest of the war.

Fortunately for the Niland family, Edward Niland had not been killed, but had spent almost an entire year in a Japanese prisoner of war camp before being rescued by British forces.

The two deceased Niland brothers were buried at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial at Colleville-sur-Mer, France. Robert is buried in Plot F, Row 15, Grave 11, and Preston is buried in Plot F, Row 15, Grave 12.

Attempts to point out the "discrepancies" between the stories of Fritz Niland and James Ryan are often misguided, as Ryan is only based on Niland, and is not meant to be (or claimed to be) a completely accurate representation of him. The differences in the two stories seem to stem in part from the fact that the true story of Sergeant Niland and his brothers is often reported inaccurately. The character of Private James Ryan is a mixture of fact and fiction, with some of the fictional elements coming from the erroneous stories about the Niland brothers.

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

Nomad;1228160 wrote: Normandy was fiction?

Of course there was a D-day landing. The fact that a movie uses the names of real people has nothing to do with whether it's a fictional account or not and I'm completely right when I say Spielberg's a past master of emotional manipulation and I don't for a minute believe he set that aside in making this. I find the whole notion of making up a story around events like these distasteful. By all means produce a historical recreation but do it more cleanly than this.

Meanwhile perhaps we can focus on Kathy's actual examples if we're discussing the inappropriate mixing of violence with "humor", or is it too uncomfortable to consider?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

spot;1228165 wrote: Of course there was a D-day landing. The fact that a movie uses the names of real people has nothing to do with whether it's a fictional account or not and I'm completely right when I say Spielberg's a past master of emotional manipulation and I don't for a minute believe he set that aside in making this. I find the whole notion of making up a story around events like these distasteful. By all means produce a historical recreation but do it more cleanly than this.



Meanwhile perhaps we can focus on Kathy's actual examples if we're discussing the inappropriate mixing of violence with "humor", or is it too uncomfortable to consider?



I dont watch shlock horror movies so I cant comment on them.

Well ok I can...some people have a macabre sense of humor. Im ok with that.

What is emotional manipulation?

Are you saying hes a cynical bastard that thrives on winding people up?

Unless youve actually spoken to him in a personal manner and come to understand him in this nature then I think your merely projecting your own perceptions onto someone elses motives.

He portrayed D Day as Ive seen actual footage of the event in a most realistic light.

The event itself was emotionally charged.

He succeeded in capturing that piece of history on film.

Wheres the manipulation?

Just once be objective and try to understand the worlds events dont revolve around how you percieve them. Your letting your mindset get in the way of realism.

If you dont want to see bloodshed fine, that doesnt mean Spielberg is a demon.

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

Nomad;1228175 wrote: What is emotional manipulation?

Are you saying hes a cynical bastard that thrives on winding people up?

Unless youve actually spoken to him in a personal manner and come to understand him in this nature then I think your merely projecting your own perceptions onto someone elses motives.

Oh come on - just google [emotional blackmail Spielberg], it's not merely my perception, it's pervasive. If you're unable to recognize it then that's down to you. Maybe you watched too much pointless killing on TV as a child.



Often accused of simplistic emotional manipulation by detractors, Spielberg unveiled A.I. as a vision true to Kubrick's unorthodox plot trajectory, ...

Of course, Spielberg is most often criticized for this emotional manipulation as a sign of his irredeemable "Hollywood-ness," as if someone as antithetical ...

Spielberg is the Western world's most famous living filmmaker; ... praised and damned as a master of emotional manipulation; and like Griffith, Chaplin, ...

Spielberg has succeeded in combining the intimacy of a personal vision with the ... and damned as a master of emotional manipulation; and like Frank Capra, ...

It's as if Steven Spielberg, so famous for emotional manipulation, here has let the material speak for itself. The result is less than heart-rending. ...

... "Jephte," was to win the interest of a Catholic congregation, and it did so with dramatic fire and emotional manipulation worthy of Steven Spielberg. ...

... the wizard of high-tech emotional manipulation, make us look once more at ... Spielberg himself was quoted as saying that he had held onto the script ...

Part Two of a symposium of short reflections on Steven Spielberg as artist and ... reaction developed over time to protect against emotional manipulation. ...

There have been a couple of instances where emotional manipulation has worked against Steven Spielberg. In particular, the case against 'Saving Private ...

By contrast, Spielberg is known for being...emotional manipulation. Kubrick made icy films...screenplays, whereas Spielberg pictures have always. ...

Spielberg's practice of emotional manipulation, which occurs throughout many of his films, afflicts the aural/visual style of the film. By reducing key ...

The second time I saw it, years later, I was more impressed by Spielberg's gift for emotional manipulation, he showing us the horrors while holding ...

It is relatively free of the grand-standing, sentimentality and emotional manipulation that spoil so much of Spielberg's work. ...
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

You base your opinions on other peoples opinions?

Have you talked to Spielberg and asked him what motivates him to make such films?

No.

Then my observation that you project your own feelings onto others motives is accurate.

My point being unless you can provide his thoughts, his insight its just speculation on your part.

Dont believe everything you think spock.

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

Nomad;1228191 wrote: You base your opinions on other peoples opinions?

Have you talked to Spielberg and asked him what motivates him to make such films?

No.

Then my observation that you project your own feelings onto others motives is accurate.

My point being unless you can provide his thoughts, his insight its just speculation on your part.

Dont believe everything you think spock.



My opinion is based on what I've seen of his films, it's not derived from other people's interpretations. The google search merely points out that I'm far from alone in my opinion. His films work in large part because they manipulate the emotional response of the audience - how obvious does it have to get? Saturday Night Fever did it for an earlier generation and did it in spades, it made the film impossible to enjoy, it generated annoyance the one time I watched it that I wasn't allowed to make my own mind up about the characters, I was having the film's opinion rammed down my throat.

Perhaps I should stick to well-made documentaries. What I refuse to accept is propaganda and Spielberg's historical/political movies are just that.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

spot;1228200 wrote: My opinion is based on what I've seen of his films, it's not derived from other people's interpretations. The google search merely points out that I'm far from alone in my opinion. His films work in large part because they manipulate the emotional response of the audience - how obvious does it have to get? Saturday Night Fever did it for an earlier generation and did it in spades, it made the film impossible to enjoy, it generated annoyance the one time I watched it that I wasn't allowed to make my own mind up about the characters, I was having the film's opinion rammed down my throat.



Perhaps I should stick to well-made documentaries. What I refuse to accept is propaganda and Spielberg's historical/political movies are just that.



Manipulation is a cynical accusation.

Can you provide insight into his own personal motives for choosing to make one film or another?

Until you can what your saying is an opinion based on your own personal thoughts.

If you can say your opinion is not based on fact through personal knowledge nor is it based on anything but perception and speculation then that should wrap this conversation up.

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

Nomad;1228206 wrote: Manipulation is a cynical accusation.

Can you provide insight into his own personal motives for choosing to make one film or another?

Until you can what your saying is an opinion based on your own personal thoughts.

If you can say your opinion is not based on fact through personal knowledge nor is it based on anything but perception and speculation then that should wrap this conversation up.



If you can show me where I've given the impression that I'm analysing Spielberg I'd be interested to see where I wrote so unclearly. What I've seen is some of his movies, what I'm analysing are those movies I've seen, they're external real manifestations. They, the movies, manipulate the emotions of the audience regardless of the internal private wishes of the damned director. The inside of the guy's mind is opaque to me, his movies are more transparent. His movies, to the extent that I've seen them, have no motive since motive is in the mind of the author, they do however have a common technique which is explicit and visible.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Oops
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:21 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Oops »

Just watched Låt den rätte komma in (Let The Right One in)

This is the best film ive seen so far this year. Its a horror film, but its also a film about friendship and standing up for what you believe in. I cant recommend it enough :-4



trailer ~ Let The Right One in Trailer
If the person you are talking to doesn't appear to be listening, be patient. It may simply be that he has a small piece of fluff in his ear ~Winnie the Pooh~
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

spot;1228313 wrote: if you can show me where i've given the impression that i'm analysing spielberg i'd be interested to see where i wrote so unclearly. What i've seen is some of his movies, what i'm analysing are those movies i've seen, they're external real manifestations. They, the movies, manipulate the emotions of the audience regardless of the internal private wishes of the damned director. The inside of the guy's mind is opaque to me, his movies are more transparent. His movies, to the extent that i've seen them, have no motive since motive is in the mind of the author, they do however have a common technique which is explicit and visible.





wrong !

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
almostfamous
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:50 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by almostfamous »

spot;1227803 wrote: ... which deaden their audiences' inbuilt reaction against violence.

What you end up with after a lifetime's exposure to explicit killing on screen is a generation of volunteers who really really want to point guns at "evil" men and make them fall over with blood splashed in all directions...



I tend to agree with this point. As much as I support our troops, volunteering to kill for whatever reason just sucks for lack of a better word. (not to turn this into a political argument..) but... as much as our soldiers can be role models, they can also set a negative tone for our kids, causing them to want to fight and kill, not understanding the full effect and repercussion. these movies can do the same.

and yes, i still watch them but my mind isn't easily tampered with. i'm pretty guldern stubborn about certain things.
User avatar
almostfamous
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:50 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by almostfamous »

but for the record, I give Saving Private Ryan 4 of those little kernel thingies







I've seen Knowing twice in a week. I loved it. I especially liked the religious connotations. i.e. the tree of life, the "whisper people" shedding their immortality, etc. 4 kernel thingies

I've actually seen quite a few newer movies lately so let's see....

The Ugly Truth ---- 3 kernel thingies It was cute and kinda witty but a little too vulgar at times... and for me, that's sayin a lot :lips: I love Katherine Heigl tho.

Fast & Furious 4 ---- I didn't burn up too many brain cells watchin it but I really liked it. Only 4 kernels though because someone died that I really liked and it pissed me off.

Taken --- saw it again for the 3rd time yesterday. If you like action movies it's awesome. And Liam Neeson (sp?) is an awesome actor. 5 kernel thingies

hmmmm... what else

Obsessed --- anything w/ beyonce' knowles, well, imo SUCKS so unless you're into psychotic chicks or you are one, you probably won't like it. no kernels ...not even a dusty one off the floor
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

almostfamous;1228523 wrote:



I've seen Knowing twice in a week. I loved it. I especially liked the religious connotations. i.e. the tree of life, the "whisper people" shedding their immortality, etc. 4 kernel thingies




Watched Knowing last night. Im back and forth on the film. Aspects of it I liked very much. The time capsule and code concept were interesting. I also enjoyed some of the subplots but the ending ruined it for me. It was too predictable and fantasy. I would have preferred an effort at more realism.

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
almostfamous
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:50 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by almostfamous »

Nomad;1228715 wrote: Watched Knowing last night. Im back and forth on the film. Aspects of it I liked very much. The time capsule and code concept were interesting. I also enjoyed some of the subplots but the ending ruined it for me. It was too predictable and fantasy. I would have preferred an effort at more realism.



I've heard that a lot about the ending but to me, I thought the ending was perfect. Perfect in the sense of the connection that I made (not sure if it's what "they" intended).. between the end and the noah's ark story. I'm trying to not to say too much so I don't give it away but you know what I mean.
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

almostfamous;1228735 wrote: I've heard that a lot about the ending but to me, I thought the ending was perfect. Perfect in the sense of the connection that I made (not sure if it's what "they" intended).. between the end and the noah's ark story. I'm trying to not to say too much so I don't give it away but you know what I mean.





The little girls mom was kinda hot. I got a little excited when I saw the outfit she was wearing when she crawled into bed with her daughter.

That part saved the movie for me.

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
almostfamous
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:50 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by almostfamous »

Nomad;1228743 wrote: The little girls mom was kinda hot. I got a little excited when I saw the outfit she was wearing when she crawled into bed with her daughter.

That part saved the movie for me.



I'm surprised you didn't mention her black bra in that one scene. Where is your attention to detail? I'm a little disappointed in you nomie.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

almostfamous;1228758 wrote: I'm surprised you didn't mention her black bra in that one scene. Where is your attention to detail? I'm a little disappointed in you nomie.



I can't think of a single moment throughout Knowing where the plot was anything short of drivel, sadly. Complete unutterable irredeemable tosh. Any connection between the universe we live in and the content of the movie was entirely accidental.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
almostfamous
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:50 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by almostfamous »

spot;1228794 wrote: I can't think of a single moment throughout Knowing where the plot was anything short of drivel, sadly. Complete unutterable irredeemable tosh. Any connection between the universe we live in and the content of the movie was entirely accidental.



I think calling it garbage is rather harsh in consideration that it was more on the original side than most I've seen over the years. Do I think it's remotely possible that any of what the movie consisted of could ever happen? Sure, and I also believe that Santa's datin the tooth fairy and the North pole is really at the southern tip of Africa.

However, I did find it interesting and it probably helped that I'm biased towards Nic Cage too. I also thought the kids were pretty good little actors too.

As for connections being accidental, doubt it. Someone intentionally wrote all of the movie's content. Accidents consist of spilled milk and peeing yourself. Not quite sure what you meant there at all.
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

I finally bought a blu ray player. The 1st movie Im going to buy is Steven Spielbergs Saving Private Ryan.

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

almostfamous;1228882 wrote: I think calling it garbage is rather harsh in consideration that it was more on the original side than most I've seen over the years. Do I think it's remotely possible that any of what the movie consisted of could ever happen? Sure, and I also believe that Santa's datin the tooth fairy and the North pole is really at the southern tip of Africa.



However, I did find it interesting and it probably helped that I'm biased towards Nic Cage too. I also thought the kids were pretty good little actors too.



As for connections being accidental, doubt it. Someone intentionally wrote all of the movie's content. Accidents consist of spilled milk and peeing yourself. Not quite sure what you meant there at all.



Oh boy...I was going to say dont ask him questions or he'll answer. Too late. You'll be sorry.

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
almostfamous
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:50 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by almostfamous »

Nomad;1229358 wrote: Oh boy...I was going to say dont ask him questions or he'll answer. Too late. You'll be sorry.



:p

Spot doesn't scare me, not that he intends to. Sometimes I even learn a thing or two but don't tell him I said so.
User avatar
almostfamous
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:50 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by almostfamous »

4 Horsemen with Dennis Quaid sucked fat lemons
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

Watched Pearl Harbor. Good flick. A little fluffy but thats cinema.

I wonder if spock approves of 3000 Americans being shredded, I wonder if thats more acceptable than D Day since we were on our own soil.

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
minks
Posts: 26281
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:58 pm

FG Film Reviews

Post by minks »

The Soloist

With Robert Downy Jr, and Jamie Fox, both played great characters. Touching story.



Loved it 4 kernals

4 X

Attached files
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�

― Mae West
User avatar
Odie
Posts: 33482
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:10 pm

FG Film Reviews

Post by Odie »

Nomad;1230045 wrote: Watched Pearl Harbor. Good flick. A little fluffy but thats cinema.

I wonder if spock approves of 3000 Americans being shredded, I wonder if thats more acceptable than D Day since we were on our own soil.



wasn't it the best on blu-ray?:guitarist:guitarist



awesome movie!
Life is just to short for drama.
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11518
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by YZGI »

spot;1228187 wrote: Oh come on - just google [emotional blackmail Spielberg], it's not merely my perception, it's pervasive. If you're unable to recognize it then that's down to you. Maybe you watched too much pointless killing on TV as a child.





Often accused of simplistic emotional manipulation by detractors, Spielberg unveiled A.I. as a vision true to Kubrick's unorthodox plot trajectory, ...



Of course, Spielberg is most often criticized for this emotional manipulation as a sign of his irredeemable "Hollywood-ness," as if someone as antithetical ...



Spielberg is the Western world's most famous living filmmaker; ... praised and damned as a master of emotional manipulation; and like Griffith, Chaplin, ...



Spielberg has succeeded in combining the intimacy of a personal vision with the ... and damned as a master of emotional manipulation; and like Frank Capra, ...



It's as if Steven Spielberg, so famous for emotional manipulation, here has let the material speak for itself. The result is less than heart-rending. ...



... "Jephte," was to win the interest of a Catholic congregation, and it did so with dramatic fire and emotional manipulation worthy of Steven Spielberg. ...



... the wizard of high-tech emotional manipulation, make us look once more at ... Spielberg himself was quoted as saying that he had held onto the script ...



Part Two of a symposium of short reflections on Steven Spielberg as artist and ... reaction developed over time to protect against emotional manipulation. ...



There have been a couple of instances where emotional manipulation has worked against Steven Spielberg. In particular, the case against 'Saving Private ...



By contrast, Spielberg is known for being...emotional manipulation. Kubrick made icy films...screenplays, whereas Spielberg pictures have always. ...



Spielberg's practice of emotional manipulation, which occurs throughout many of his films, afflicts the aural/visual style of the film. By reducing key ...



The second time I saw it, years later, I was more impressed by Spielberg's gift for emotional manipulation, he showing us the horrors while holding ...



It is relatively free of the grand-standing, sentimentality and emotional manipulation that spoil so much of Spielberg's work. ...



I've been thinking about this. Doesn't every work of fiction have some "emotional manipulation" in it? It seems to me every book, movie, tv show or play has the so called emotional manipulation. Do the authors and or directors not make every effort to manipulate our emotions by wanting us to feel sorry, happy, sad, proud etc. etc about every character they write/direct about?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

YZGI;1232052 wrote: Do the authors and or directors not make every effort to manipulate our emotions by wanting us to feel sorry, happy, sad, proud etc. etc about every character they write/direct about?



Only the American ones, Wisey, only the American ones.

Acceptable writing tells the story in such a way that the audience can make an informed choice regarding the protagonists and events. Everything else is Disney / Hollywood.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

spot;1232545 wrote: Only the American ones, Wisey, only the American ones.



Acceptable writing tells the story in such a way that the audience can make an informed choice regarding the protagonists and events. Everything else is Disney / Hollywood.





The Gulag Archipelago included?

Thats some pretty good writing but its biased. And Russian.

Explain away please.

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

FG Film Reviews

Post by Lon »

I saw "Breaker Morant" when it first came out and thought it a great flick. Saw it for the second time last night and liked it even better. Brits really liked using Aussies as Cannon Fodder in the Boer War as well as other wars didn't they?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

Nomad;1232586 wrote: The Gulag Archipelago included?

Thats some pretty good writing but its biased. And Russian.

Explain away please.



You're accusing Solzhenitsyn of "making every effort to manipulate our emotions by wanting us to feel sorry, happy, sad, proud etc. etc about every character they write/direct about", as opposed to writing in "such a way that the audience can make an informed choice regarding the protagonists and events"? All I can do is leave the contrast in the thread for people reading the discussion to decide for themselves.

I can't think of any Disney / Hollywood treatment of The Gulag Archipelago, thank God. If it stuck to the form of their other "historical re-enactments" it would involve American SEALs shooting up the prison camps for a solid hour's worth of mayhem followed by ten minutes of running the Stars and Stripes over the ruins of the administration block and sobbed thanks from skeletal inmates with all the accuracy one comes to expect after "U-571", "Pearl Harbor" or "1941".

The difference between the potential treatment and the actual original is all you need consider to get the drift.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

spot;1232669 wrote: You're accusing Solzhenitsyn of "making every effort to manipulate our emotions by wanting us to feel sorry, happy, sad, proud etc. etc about every character they write/direct about", as opposed to writing in "such a way that the audience can make an informed choice regarding the protagonists and events"? All I can do is leave the contrast in the thread for people reading the discussion to decide for themselves.



I can't think of any Disney / Hollywood treatment of The Gulag Archipelago, thank God. If it stuck to the form of their other "historical re-enactments" it would involve American SEALs shooting up the prison camps for a solid hour's worth of mayhem followed by ten minutes of running the Stars and Stripes over the ruins of the administration block and sobbed thanks from skeletal inmates with all the accuracy one comes to expect after "U-571", "Pearl Harbor" or "1941".



The difference between the potential treatment and the actual original is all you need consider to get the drift.



Well my little spocky, according to your logic Solzhenitsyn made us feel something very powerful so he must be manipulating us. Just the way Spielberg did in SPR. Different subject matter but human suffering just the same.

Spielbergs genre just happens to be film.

I believe Im correct in quoting you something to the effect that modern films are trash?

Perhaps its not so much individual films you find distasteful as it is the era of films you prefer or dont.

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

Nomad;1233168 wrote: Well my little spocky, according to your logic Solzhenitsyn made us feel something very powerful so he must be manipulating us. Just the way Spielberg did in SPR. Different subject matter but human suffering just the same.

Spielbergs genre just happens to be film.

I believe Im correct in quoting you something to the effect that modern films are trash?

Perhaps its not so much individual films you find distasteful as it is the era of films you prefer or dont.

This may seem a slightly ignorant question but which Solzhenitsyn film are you referring to here? I'd be awfully surprised if any version of The Gulag Archipelago had been made, it seems far too extensive a topic and it's not fiction, the whole three volume set is a historical summary based in part on personal observation. As for the books themselves I can't say I felt manipulated by the author in any way at all, I considered the books analytical documentation and I'm sure the author did too. What Solzhenitsyn have you watched, that makes you say it's "the era of films" I might have a preference for? The BBC once produced a Play For Today from one of his short fictional stories but that's all I've ever come across myself.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

spot;1233192 wrote: This may seem a slightly ignorant question but which Solzhenitsyn film are you referring to here? I'd be awfully surprised if any version of The Gulag Archipelago had been made, it seems far too extensive a topic and it's not fiction, the whole three volume set is a historical summary based in part on personal observation. As for the books themselves I can't say I felt manipulated by the author in any way at all, I considered the books analytical documentation and I'm sure the author did too. What Solzhenitsyn have you watched, that makes you say it's "the era of films" I might have a preference for? The BBC once produced a Play For Today from one of his short fictional stories but that's all I've ever come across myself.



In your reply to YZGYZY you mentioned writing. You specified only writing needed to be written in such a way as to be considered potent. An informed choice I think you said.

I read TGA and was tremendously moved.

I watched SPR and was tremendously moved.

The film according to you was trashola because Spielberg manipulates his audience.

In the same vein werent we all manipulated by Solzhenitsyns thoughts? As YZWYZGY reminded us all authors of any genre wish to make us feel something. They express themselves in a very individual way and the effect can be powerful based on the authors views and how we interpret them, which I dont think is quite as cynical as manipulation. Rather its an offering, the same way a painter paints because he needs to express whats inside of hime and he shares with us

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
spot
Posts: 37429
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

FG Film Reviews

Post by spot »

Nomad;1233199 wrote: In your reply to YZGYZY you mentioned writing. You specified only writing needed to be written in such a way as to be considered potent. An informed choice I think you said.

Is that what you're barking on about. I'd wondered what you'd got into your head. This is a film review thread. Films are written, produced, directed, acted, distributed - it was the writing of the films I was specifically bringing up. The script. That bit of the film which employs words. Wisey mentioned writing/directing and I was responding particularly about the writing component.

I do think you've gone a long way off topic for no other reason than to pick a fight yet again.

As for The Gulag Archipelago and whether it's emotionally manipulative or not, I stand by what I posted earlier. Anyone else who's read it can compare our points of view from an informed perspective.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by Nomad »

spot;1233202 wrote: Is that what you're barking on about. I'd wondered what you'd got into your head. This is a film review thread. Films are written, produced, directed, acted, distributed - it was the writing of the films I was specifically bringing up. The script. That bit of the film which employs words. Wisey mentioned writing/directing and I was responding particularly about the writing component.



I do think you've gone a long way off topic for no other reason than to pick a fight yet again.



As for The Gulag Archipelago and whether it's emotionally manipulative or not, I stand by what I posted earlier. Anyone else who's read it can compare our points of view from an informed perspective.



Nope. Im not trying to pick a fight. I dont like fighting. You do make me pull my hair out though.

Its not that far off topic, just a slight detour in regards to your views on manipulation in medium.

I AM AWESOME MAN


User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

FG Film Reviews

Post by flopstock »

I watched Seven Pounds tonight.



Will Smith was a wonderful teenaged actor, I thought.



He will go down in movie history as a great adult actor.:thinking:



I'm just sayin':D
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.[SIZE=1]:-6[/SIZE]

Return to “Films Cinema Forum”