Bad summer for movies...

[Kyle]

Man, this summer is a big dissapointment. Luckily I work at a movie theatre so I don't have to pay to see these terrible flicks!

1. Anchorman: I heard previously that this was supposed to be one of the funniest films EVER. All I saw were a bunch of untalented fools crying, whining and acting obnoxious for 90 minutes trying TOO hard to get a laugh. Also, the script sucked to abominable proportions, trying to be random and just being dumb. One of the worst movies ever, and a HUGE dissapointment. I was seriously hoping to like this.

2. The Village: Beats Anchorman out for worst movie of the summer, and maybe in the last five years. I liked 6th Sense, loved Unbreakable and had positive feelings towards Signs, and was looking forward to this. The hype on this one a couple years back was that Night said it was the "best idea ever." Note, not HIS best idea, THE best idea, ever. Oh my goodness. Talk about lame rehash of the most used story in the book. The whole movie took itself so seriously, everything happened so slow, and it all came down to nothing. Of all possible ways to end a movie like this, I think M. Night Shamalamadingdong found the worst one possible. There is no depth to the stupidity of this movie. For more, check out Eberts hysterical review.

3. Catwoman: Should I really say anything? Campy, but kinda fun. Definitely not what you would call a good movie.

4. Alien vs. Predator: Okay, not only do you have the girl bossing all the guys around (which, given the circumstances in the movie, seems dumb enough), but you have the chick bossing the predators around! But some of the action was pretty good. Oh, and idiots, the compass doesn't point north in freakin antartica!

5. Manchurian Candidate: Didn't see it, but it should have been called the "Republican Candidate" or something. Stupid left wing propaganda again.

6. Farenheight 911: Uuuuggghhh.... I hated Bowling for Columbine because it was too manipulative and mean spirited. In this new Moore flick we get Moore bashing Bush for not taking terrorism seriously enough (he plays a clip where Bush is golfing and tells us to seriously be aware of terror or something, and to watch his golf swing), and he bashes Bush for taking terror TOO seriously (going to war and such). More Moore propaganda, but the idiots sure ate it up. You can always tell who the dumb crowd is by how much trash they leave in the theatre, and the fine folks who went to see F911 thrashed up that mess.

7. I, Robot: Take it or leave it. Entertaining, kinda nice.

8. Spiderman 2: I loved this movie. A bright spot in the summer.

9. Collateral: A great movie. I love this one as well. Another bright spot!

10. Harold and Kumar: Funny flick, man! A lot better than Anchorman.

11. Little Black Book: Suprisingly good. I really like Brittney Murphy.

So there were a few good movies, but the ones that were bad were really, really bad. Ah well.

Next summer we get Pirates of the Carribean 2 (hopefully good), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (ppppllllleeeeaaaasssseeeee Lord, let it be good, though it's gonna be tough with Tim Burton helming it), Mission Impossible 3 and some other potentially good movies. I hope it's better than this lousy summer!

[dustin]

I really liked Anchorman a lot. I thought it was hilarious. Your mileage obviously varies.

[Mike]

Kyle your reviews of these films, with few exceptions (the ones that I did not see, because I expected them to be crap), are exactly the opposite of how I would have reviewed them. With that being said, We should plan to never meet in person because I believe that you are possibley my Doppelganger, identical but completely opposite. Our meeting would probably create some kind of Space Time paradox.

Mike

[Mike]

If you get a chance Dustin, Kyle (they may play it at your local art cinema) watch The Corporation, and Out Foxed. Both good documentaries.

Mike

[kyluvjesus]

Wah, you liked The Village???

I can see how some people could dig Anchorman, but the Village? I thought that was an utterly unlikeable movie.

I don't find Will Ferrel very talented at all. All he did was cry, yell or whine the entire duration of the film. Then again, so did everybody. Man, they were trying SO HARD to be funny! It wasn't flowin' man. But there were funny parts.

The Village... uuuuuuggghhhhh.......

So we're that different Mike??? Do you like basketball or kung-fu movies? Old classics like Abbott and Costello, Orson Welles movies (which, by the way, Manchurian Candidate wasn't, though I forgot who posted that it was), Chaplin, Keaton, freakin Jimmy Stewart?

Do you like Mel Gibson and consider Jim Carrey one of (if not the) pinnacle of comedy? Do you like Steve Martin in his glory days? Physical comedy? Satire? Films like What's Up Doc or Mildred Pierce?

Do you think Jordan played basketball better than anybody has ever played any other sport? Do you like literature like Peter and Wendy and C.S. Lewis? Are you a Christian? Shakespear? Do you like pretencious art?

And finally... Do you like Calvin and Hobbes?

Nice barrage of questions thar for ya.

[vonibot]

Wah, you liked The Village???

I can see how some people could dig Anchorman, but the Village? I thought that was an utterly unlikeable movie.

I don't find Will Ferrel very talented at all. All he did was cry, yell or whine the entire duration of the film. Then again, so did everybody. Man, they were trying SO HARD to be funny! It wasn't flowin' man. But there were funny parts.

The Village... uuuuuuggghhhhh.......

So we're that different Mike??? Do you like basketball or kung-fu movies? Old classics like Abbott and Costello, Orson Welles movies (which, by the way, Manchurian Candidate wasn't, though I forgot who posted that it was), Chaplin, Keaton, freakin Jimmy Stewart?

Do you like Mel Gibson and consider Jim Carrey one of (if not the) pinnacle of comedy? Do you like Steve Martin in his glory days? Physical comedy? Satire? Films like What's Up Doc or Mildred Pierce?

Do you think Jordan played basketball better than anybody has ever played any other sport? Do you like literature like Peter and Wendy and C.S. Lewis? Are you a Christian? Shakespear? Do you like pretencious art?

And finally... Do you like Calvin and Hobbes?

Nice barrage of questions thar for ya.

I don't care if this was intended for Mike--this is too intriguing to pass. Here are my answers:

1.Kung fu
2.the classic Manchurian Candidate (1962) featured Frank Sinatra, Lawrence Harvey, Janet Leigh and Angela Lansbury. That sounds pretty darn classic to me.
3.The Third Man; Citizen Kane (IOW, O.W. not A.&B.)
3.Buster Keaton (The Cameraman), Jimmy Stewart (Rear Window, It's a Wonderful Life). I think Chaplin is overrated.
4. Mel Gibson is an extremist filmmaker--as was D. W. Griffith.
5. Jim Carrey is funny and bizarre but not a pinnacle.
6. Chase, Martin, Murphy, Murray, Sellers are funnier.
7. Again, Keaton, Sellers, and Jackie Chang revived physical comedy.
8. Satire=DADA
9. Mildred Pierce
10. I think Pele played better soccer than Jordan played basketball
11. Orwell, Camus, Joyce and Kafka
12. Buddha makes more sense to me than Christ. Jesus makes as much sense to me as Ghandi and King.
13. I am not a Shakespeare but enjoy his plays.
14. All art is pretentious--only some of it is truly great.
15. Calvin and Hobbes rock. Thankfully, Bill Watterson knew when to quit.

[Mike]

I thought the Village was good. Had great performances, really a love story at heart. the concept of pacifists creating their ownd community to escape the real demons of the world.... (don't want to ruin it for anyone).

I didnt see Anchorman, I have never been a Fan of ferrel's, he is funny sometimes, but in the same way that ben stiller is hit or miss, he is also. they both remind me of pro b-ball players, because they are professionals, but they commit "travels" that other commedians or filmmakers could not get a way with, but still are allowed to do it without criticism (envy was horrible)

No i dont really like basketball (NBA) talk about whiners and Cry babies( refering to your post regarding Will Ferrels Anchorman performance) College ball is ok.

Manchurian Candidate, Garbage, i posted it was orsen wells, I was wrong. It did star Frank Sinatra though, and is a great film. I like some old Classics, but not for the sake of them being "classics". Obviously I am not an old film buff (from my misspost earlier regarding candidate) But I have seen a lot of films that were made in the past 40 or so years.

To say Jordan played b-ball better than anyone else that has played b-ball is one arguement. To say he played it better than anyone else who has played any sport is absurd. Not because he is jordan, but because that is just an absurd arguement to me? Someone could easily say the same about Lance Armstrong. Right? But what about the pioneers of yester-year? Joe Namith, Bobby Jones, Mario Lemiux?

I like literature, I read the CS lewis series as a kid, it was good. I am probably the only person in the world who has read the complete LOTR series, and finds it to be crap. There I said it. Harry Potter is better. I prefer the Dark Tower Series (Stephen King) for best all around Sci-fi Fantasey. I liked Dune, until the Children of Dune... got to weird.

I am a Christain, although not like most. Basically i am a Zen Baptist. But I don't like to discuss my religious views casually, so we better leave it at that.

Shakespear? not really. Im really kind of a simple guy. Never got into Calvin and Hobbes.

I like Scuba Diving, Camping, anything to do with river or streams, not a big fan of boats (unless they are dive boats). I love music. I have 7 guitars, a banjo, 2 congas, upright grand piano, electric piano, M-audio 49 key keyboard for my mac and Garage band, and an accordian.

I collect old record albums, I work out of the house, and I spend way too much time online.

Perhaps our movie tastes are the only things that are that different.

Pretentious art? I like some things, and some things I don't... i guess I would have to say no to that, because I love funtion - Funtional art rocks. I really like Architecture, Frank Lloyd Wright... now that is an artist, Heinrich Mueller too.



Mike

PS: regarding the LOTR, i'm serious. I know there are thousands of real literary scholars who would disagree with me. While I agree it is the product of a very good imagination, it seems to me that the overall story has merit, but the inner details are nothing more than a series of circumstances that work themselves out, by the author simply introducing another series of detailed "new" circumstances. I just don't think it is written well. But that probably says more about my "simplicity" than anything else. Harry Potter, that is good writing.

[rip]

...and an accordian. ...

Far Side: Welcome to hell. Here's your accordian.

PS: regarding the LOTR, i'm serious. .... Harry Potter, that is good writing.

You aren't the only person who doesn't like LOTR. The problem is that JRRT tried too hard to write 'litrachoor' (even if he didn't realize he was doing so or trying to). They read too much like 19th century French Literature (long boring passages that 'set the scene', following by one or two lines of dialog, followed by another long boring passage of scene setting). Barf. Ok story. Inverted trope, which is interesting technically (ie, instead of quest-to-find-something, it is quest-to-destroy-something). But the technique leaves me cold.

That said, the HP books are not 'good writing' :> They are ripping good yarns and fun to read, but they are technically bad (I'm a writer)... but I don't let the errors in technique get in the way of my enjoying the stories.

rip

[Kyle]

I guess I had better answer my own questions:

I absolutely LOVE Calvin and Hobbes and have been obsessed since childhood.

I think Jordan played basketball better than anybody else has played any other sport. I think his level of athletic ability, competitiveness and accomplishments are unsurpassed. The way he dominated basketball constantly almost defies the fallen nature of man. Of course, I'm not setting him above us little humans, he still sins like everybody, but man! It's like God fashioned him to be the perfect athlete. Lance Armstrong is great, but hasn't dominated constistently for as many years as Jordan (or even close, to my knowledge). Don't know too much about Pele, but that's interesting. And please don't mention Tiger Woods.

I like Orson Welles (used to LOVE his stuff). I love Citizen Kane and have lukewarm feelings about the rest of it. After CK everything he did was inchoherent and artsy.

Never even seen Manchurian Candidate. But I do like old film noirs if they're good. Double Indemnity rocks.
Jimmy Stewart is one of my favorite actors of all time. I can also do a decent Jimmy Stewart impression.

As for pretencious (or however you spell it) art, I don't dig it. I, too, like functional art. Art should serve a purpose, even if the purpose is to entertain! I took an art class that really made me hate art. The stuff we learned about was so stupid. Jackson Pollack or what not. I'm not big into poetry, but I like good song lyrics. Actually, if it's good and entertains, I'm down!

[Mike]

How about the Big Lebowski? One of my all time favorites...

[Kyle]

I have lukewarm feelings about the flick. Alot of it was funny, but they didn't tie up a lot of loose ends. Still, I was pretty entertained.

[sasquatch]

I, too, like functional art. Art should serve a purpose, even if the purpose is to entertain! I took an art class that really made me hate art. The stuff we learned about was so stupid. Jackson Pollack or what not. I'm not big into poetry, but I like good song lyrics. Actually, if it's good and entertains, I'm down!

I have this theory that a growing number of people these days just want to be spoon-fed entertainment without actually having to participate. TV and radio are prime examples where you tune in and expect it to entertain... it is a one-way conduit. I think it's fine that someone doesn't like a certain form of art or artist, but it is unfair to label it pretentious just because the point isn't obvious or forced onto them. It has the same impact as saying, "That's dumb." It discredits the critic and insults the entertainer. You're entitled to your opinion, but a little thought and healthy discussion can expose all kinds of entertaining ideas about even the dumbest entertainment. Wait, is this post sounding too pretentious? I hope so. I suggest going for a walk and thinking about a good response.


Yours Truly,
Sasquatch

[mbauer]

Your point rings true sasquatch, it seems that too many these days settle for just entertainment, something to take their mind away and "veg"; the result can be a degradation of art if taken too far (which we are in danger of now, especially in the cinematic field). I agree. However, the flip side of the coin is...bullshit (for lack of a better term). Just because an art form or artist is "misunderstood" or "hard to understand" does not make it immediately worthwhile. Just because the artist or a critic can make something up about the piece, does not classify it as "good" art. Just because a work of art is in a museum or recieves an oscar does not make it a masterpiece. Jackson Pollack splattered paint onto a canvas because he was all out of ideas, not because he was some sort of genius. Long before he was known for his kindergarten-like paintings he tried to do more realistic (not realistic in the Duane Hanson sense, but far less "abstract") art, and failed. Now you may say his painting are beautiful, becuase of the color and the emotion behind the strokes, and that's all fine and good, but to make something up about the artist's id, or some other far fetched explanantion shouldn't classify the art as above what it actually is, splattered paint on a canvas. The same is true for all forms of art. I may be wrong, but I think that this was what Kyle was refering to as the difference between "functional" and "pretentious." "Pretentious" being mumbo jumbo that is obviously made up, but passed off like we're all supposed to swallow it. And I tend to agree with him. I'm not saying that art has to be spoon fed to us or be blatantly obvious. As an "artist" myself I have seen countless fellow "artists" pass off crap as art. They have been conditioned that if they can bullshit enough, then the art will be accepted, and in turn they will too. If this continues, it will also result in the degradation of art. Art is becoming a cop-out. Anyone can pick up a pencil, paintbrush, or mouse, pull some stuff out of an art history textbook, and wing an explanation that sounds "pretentious." No longer is the emphasis placed on skills of creating and comunicating one's ideas and opinions.

mbauer

[Kyle]

I think people put too little emphasis on entertainment. Entertainment IS an art, in my opinion. Movies like Anchorman (supposedly spoon-fed entertainment) aren't entertaining because they're stupid, just like movies like 'Chocolat' aren't entertaining because they're high and mighty art.
Entertaining is a skill that needs to be developed. In terms of movies, a detective flick, a comedy, and actioner, a drama and sometimes even a chick flick can be good entertainment. That involves a tight story (often times) that is well placed and it draws the viewer into the story. The viewer is involved in what's being unfolded on screen. They feel like they're part of the story. A good comedy can consist of many funny scenes pulled together to form a useless plot, but who cares cause the scenes are funny. Dumb and Dumber is the perfect example of this.
Paintings, too, can be very engaging. They're a style of painting (forget the name) that is like the paint equivolent of jazz. It's really cool, I enjoy it a lot. It's entertaining. There is music that is really engaging and good, and there is useless tripe (practically everything these days).
A movie like Citizen Kane is considered an art picture. It's my favorite movie of all time. I find it interesting and entertaining on so many levels.

Furthuremore, I don't think it's possible to be spoon-fed entertainment. To be entertained requires an active participation from the viewer. I think entertainment is unselfish whereas pretentious art is completely selfish.

[rob]

Kyle wrote:

I think people put too little emphasis on entertainment. Entertainment IS an art, in my opinion. I took an art class that really made me hate art. The stuff we learned about was so stupid. Jackson Pollack or what not. Actually, if it's good and entertains, I'm down! Furthuremore, I don't think it's possible to be spoon-fed entertainment. To be entertained requires an active participation from the viewer. I think entertainment is unselfish whereas pretentious art is completely selfish.

huh? obvious pretentious bush-lover

[Kyle]

I like that you're cutting and pasting quotes together to make a statement that the subject never said.

Following after Michael Moore, good for you.

[rob]

lol Kyle.

just giving you an example of what the right-wing entertainment news media does to anyone who poses a threat to their power machine

[Kyle]

Sorry, I guess with yall liberals I can't assume you understand what I'm talking about, so I should type each thing out as I would speak to a child. I wonder if that's how 'political correctness' was invented?

In my first paragraph, I was complaining in general about 'art' as in what the artist interprets as art. Also called pretentious art, or what not. Selfish art. Spewing paint on a canvas or writing up overdone poetry that makes no sense. Basically calling something that took no effort and skill and calling it 'art.'

In my second post I was speaking of art in purity. What art really is. Not what art isn't. Art is something that takes skill and sincerity to create. Good entertainment is true art, as opposed to some abstract sculpture that is supposed to represent deeper meanings but really looks like a hybrid between a tree, a cockaroach and a chimpanzee.

So now that that is cleared up, I hope I'm no longer an evil right-winged media power trying to corrupt everybody's minds.

[rob]

kyle,

Political Kyle:
liberal?

define liberal. I am not liberal.

• I hate political correctness and anything that trumps free speech.
• I dispise treehuggin' granolacrunchers and other environmental extremists as they turn more people off than on to the real problems our world faces.
• I abhor administrative costs sucking all the effectiveness out of charitible and government programs.

why don't you stop polarizing? liberals, conservatives, progressives, communists, sodomists--all are free to believe and say what they want.


Art Critic Kyle:
"Art" is not determined by the "artist" but by those who react to it. You cannot define Art by your opinions. Opinions are not fact. If art is pretentious...it is not because of the artist, but those who support that shit.

Take off your blinders and stop spreading intolerance. there is a great wonderful world out to experience.

What makes your arguments so weak is how narrow your scope is....and that is exactly what political extremists (conservative and liberal) want of you.

---rob

[Kyle]

Wow Rob I didn't know that about you! Cool! I also hate PC and anything that trumps free speech (that's a great way to put it). And treehuggers get on my nerves too (there's a TON of em where I got to school).

As for me being polarized and having a narrow mind of things, yeah it's true much of the time. But I'm working through a lot of things, and sometimes my scope broadens and sometimes it gets even narrower. But it's NOT because somebody else tells me what to think. I'm a freedom-or-die kinda guy, and one of the things that really ticks me off is when people just get tooled by a professor and take on all the theories that are thrown to them.

I've definitely broadened my scope on such things as drinking, smoking, gambling and other such 'sins' as the modern Christian world calls them. I am completely against things like prostitution but I think they should be legal. If any political machine is getting there kicks by me being narrow minded, well then they can get their kicks cause I'm not gonna change what I believe just to piss them off.

You nailed it on the head. I think that art is determined by those who react to it, not the artist. If I make a short silent comedy and it doesn't get a good reaction from an audience, I won't ship it off to a film festival because I'll know it sucks. Actually, I tend to know if my stuff sucks before any audience does, but ya never know for sure what will be successful. If an architect builds a house and the family that moves in hates it, the architect didn't do his job, regardless of how fancy the house looks.

I think it was the Renassaince that people first started thinking the artist determines the art. I could be wrong, but I think it's a fairly recent trend.

[sasquatch]

I think people put too little emphasis on a chick flick... can be good entertainment. That involves a tight story (often times). It's really cool... spoon-fed entertainment. I think entertainment is unselfish whereas pretentious art is completely selfish.

Kyle,
I do not believe you can label any artist or art form pretentious without becoming a snob yourself. I also believe your art professor probably knows a hell of a lot more than you (about more than just art). It's tough to listen to someone who is saying things that you disagree with. It gets even more difficult to listen (or God forbid agree) when you realize that person knows more than you will ever know about the subject. That is usually when people try to quickly dismiss ideas with phrases they learned from others that sound cool (but lack substance) like "that's just pretentious." You are certainly free to express yourself, but I am free to completely disagree with a pretentious prick like yourself.

...Discuss,
Sasquatch

BTW... you should have been be laughing at the end of this post

[Kyle]

I actually liked my prof for a while, he showed us Calvin and Hobbes panels that were artisticly good, and I love C&H! I thought the guy was funny and informative, though I disagreed with some of the things he liked.

Then he up and showed us a picture of gay porn. Yeah. No warning, nothing. Called it art. I think it all went downhill from there...

[gibraltar monkey]

i was laughing at the end of that post, and BTW i am a pretencious artist (sic)

hmm, "sic," how much more pretencious can you get than that? (this is a challenge - contest for the most pretentious luxer... how high can you fly?)