Photos
 |
Gravatar
Website:
-
Find Me On:
 |
Latest Comments
Comments
I didn’t say Cronenberg is a xenophobe, just that the film is xenophobic. For example, I wouldn’t call Judd Apatow a sexist because I don’t know him but I can see the point of those people who think that ‘Knocked Up’ a sexist film. However, IMHO, it’s also a funny, well-made piece of entertainment, so it doesn’t offend me.
I’m aware that films rely on stereotypes and I can see past the sexism, racism, etc, that go along with this, but I expect more sophisticated ‘types’ from a mature film.
This is why ‘Eastern Promises’ offends me and why I think it’s appropriate for WMOAT. The simplistic, xenophobic stereotypes, poor accents, etc, offend my intelligence rather than my morality/humanity.
Anyway, to address your points.
The film’s depiction of London is unrealistic because, from what I recall, it consists solely of posh English people (e.g. Naomi Watts) and Russian gangsters (e.g. everyone else). In London there aren’t really aren’t such things as small communities of one nationality or social class and if there are, they are so small that you’d walk around a corner and enter a new community.
As for the xenophobia: are there Russian criminals in London? Yes. Are all the Russians in London criminals? Of course not. Are all the Russians in ‘Eastern Promises’ criminals? Yes.
There is a lot of xenophobia in the UK based on stereotypes shown in this film (e.g. foreigners are criminals, they don’t learn English or our culture but hold on to their own as if they have something to hide, etc.). So, to me, exaggerated, extremely negative stereotypes in what is supposed an intelligent film indicate a fear of foreigners.
“Is Gangs of New York xenophobic?” To me, no. The xenophobia within the story is overt and, again, from what I recall, espoused primarily, if not solely, by its antagonist. Also, unlike the UK, the US is a nation of immigrants (i.e. Americans are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants) and so I saw the film as a comic book-like story of what immigrants had to put up with by people who were essentially immigrants themselves (isn’t Daniel Day-Lewis’ character of Irish descent?).
I hope that answers your questions and yes, you were jerky and contradictory for contradiction’s/your fondness for the film’s sake.
You also missed that when he mentions how supposedly racist something is, he does so to an imaginary all white readership (e.g. all those “Being white is hard. Right guys?” comments, the idea that only white people are laughing at/with Antoine Dodson and so the humour must be based on his ethnicity, etc.)… like a racist.
I agree completely.
Nobody who has expressed outrage at its inclusion has given a reason, let alone a good reason, why it’s supposedly a good film.
You also forgot to mention the following:
– It’s about a man who quits his decent job due to what I can only recall being some kind of pathetic mid-life crisis passed off as existential angst and works in a fast food restaurant, where he finds contentment, if not happiness and completion.
– The aforementioned man fantasises about his teenage daughter’s teenage friend but in his fantasies she only seems to dance and get covered in roses because the director wants the audience to like, or even empathise with, the guy… and because this is puritanical Hollywood escapism. ‘American Beauty’ is supposed to be a film for intelligent adults, i.e. people who are mature enough to deal with the idea that middle aged men often have sexual feelings towards teenage girls!! We, the audience, don’t have to like the main character or agree with his choices to watch the film and feel sorry for him (e.g. ‘Taxi Driver’)!! Even the makers of the ‘Baby One More Time’ video treated their audience with more respect with regards to schoolgirl fantasy. And one more thing about this aspect: the correct use of visual metaphors is to communicate what can’t be communicated any other way, not to polish uncomplicated turds.
– Apparently overly-macho, gay-hating men are secretly gay and murderers; it’s as simple as that.
– The kid who makes hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars selling marijuana… Actually, I seem to recall it was some kind of super-special blend.
I could go on but I’m starting to realise that this film would have been a lot better as an 80s Rodney Dangerfield comedy – old man wanting his daughter’s friend and hanging with the kids at the burger place, the weird kid who sells weed, the jock bully, the ‘parents just don’t understand’ vibe, etc.
‘Eastern Promises’ has far worse accents and is extremely xenophobic, for a start.
Also, isn’t it set in London?
I live in London.
I think ‘Mary Poppins’ had a more realistic depiction of the city.
Despite ‘A History of Violence’ essentially being a more highbrow ‘Cool as Ice’ and becoming ridiculous towards the end, at least it started OK… I think.
Why is this being posted?
Not only does it make Videogum no different than TMZ (unless you count smug sarcasm, which I don’t), but the glasses + plastic nose + moustache ‘disguise’ is clearly a joke, very probably played on the paparazzi Mel Gibson knew were waiting outside and asinine bloggers.
I think you mean Steven Spielberg’s “War of the Worlds”, which, despite Tom Cruise being out-acted by Dakota Fanning, is OK.
Which reminds me, Spielberg’s “Munich”.
Isn’t “Showgirls” intentionally horrible?
I also support “Eyes Wide Shut”.
However, “The Bucket List”, which I half-watched a few days ago when it was on TV, was simply bland and predictable and a waste of talent rather than the “worst dying-person movie.”
I too was expecting something up to the standard of “The Office” and “Extras” and was disappointed.
However, I realised it was just a mid-brow Hollywood romantic comedy and got over it.
Tina Fey was wasted, though.
“Hot Tub Time Machine” is both intentionally bad and intentionally funny.
“The Book of Eli” is pretty bad… OK, it’s very bad but it’s hardly the worst. More than anything, it’s the (MILD SPOILER) ‘book twist’ that you can see coming a mile away and the other more pointless faith-based twist that make it so bad. Up until that point I thought it was just dull, aimless and the kind of film 14 year old male Action film fans consider to be ‘serious’.
Yes.
It’s bad.
I hope you mean the racism one. Trust me and others who have nominated it, it’s terrible and offensive to every living person.
“A Knight’s Tale” is awful.
Who’s given you two thumbs down?
Cowards, that’s who.
“Con Air” is a dumb action film and, IMHO, very entertaining. What exactly makes it one of the worst of all time?
Also, why all this Nic Cage hate? Is it just the cool thing to do now?
Yes, he’s been in some terrible films – “The Family Man”, the “Bad Lieutenant” remake that wasn’t really a remake but really it was, etc. – but he’s also been in some very good ones. His notorious over-acting is not so different to Pacino’s, who has also been in terrible films; “The Devil’s Advocate”, for example… And “Insomnia”.
I thought it was more boring than actually “the worst”.
So, you’re saying J.J. Abrams is a name you associate with uniqueness and it wasn’t unique?
I only know this name from “Alias”, “Lost”, “Mission Impossible 3″ and “Star Trek”. With the possible exception of “Lost” (which I don’t like but recognise for at least presenting itself as something different), none of those things are remotely unique (or, IMHO, good) so I was expecting teeny, Hollywood Horror.
My point is that neither are intellectual and that the only difference between them is one has hipster-nerd credibility, probably due to the nonchalance and insincerity Tim and Eric’s comedy shares with said social group, and the other doesn’t.
I haven’t seen “The 41-Year-Old Virgin Who Knocked Up Sarah Marshall and Felt Superbad About It” for obvious reasons (i.e. it looks terrible) but my impression is that those horrible, horrible, “Scary Movie”-esque spoofs are sincerely trying to be good but, at least to me, fail. Tim and Eric are self-consciously bad… More than that, they are self-consciously self-consciously bad, making fun of comedy that makes fun of cheap effects, bad acting, etc.
Their comedy is weird for the sake of weird, bad for the sake of bad, referential for the sake of referential, etc.
Hence, their comedy isn’t about anything – it’s not Ricky Gervais’ “The Office” reflecting existential angst, a post P.C. Britain, etc, or Chris Rock talking about divisions within the African-American community – and has no head nor heart.
Q. If sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, then what does that make Tim and Eric’s post-post ironic ‘humour’?
A. Not funny.
There’s a thin line between their comedy and something like “The 41-Year-Old Virgin Who Knocked Up Sarah Marshall and Felt Superbad About It”, the line being comprised of hipster-nerd nonchalance and heartless insincerity rather than intellect.
It’s comedy like this that makes me proud to be British.
No offence, but to me saying someone’s use of the camera alone makes him/her a brilliant director is like saying Mariah Carey’s octave range alone makes her a brilliant singer; there’s more to art than technique.
I saw “Caché” and wasn’t impressed, primarily for two reasons:
1) to paraphrase Jeunet’s comment about why his films aren’t very “French”, it was yet another French film about a miserable bourgeois couple arguing in a kitchen (if I had never lived in France and had only seen the French films that are released outside the country I’d think everyone was middle-aged, middle-class and never smiles);
2) from what I remember, it heavily referenced the event in 1961 when the police killed 1000s of people, yet the film’s focus was on the bourgeois couple as if it was their tragedy. Yes, I understand that this couple could represent France as a whole but AGAIN, NOT EVERYONE IN FRANCE IS MIDDLE CLASS and I personally HATE when non-white tragedies are turned into white tragedies by telling a story through white protagonists. I think this is especially important to how I watched the film because I didn’t know about this event and I know French people who didn’t know about this event and so that means there’s an opportunity to inform… but that’s not the story Hanecke wants to tell.
Oh, I also thought the ‘twist’ was a bit M. Night Shyamalan in both its conception (all this tension and mystery because of a childhood lie? Pfff…) and execution.
So, admittedly my opinion the film is highly subjective (I was also prejudiced against the film from the start because of the depraved nature of “La Pianiste” and “Funny Games”), but… I guess most opinions are.
I wanted to like “Bringing Up Baby” because of the leads (more Kate than Cary, who is quite wooden and more ‘star’ than ‘actor’) and my fondness for old films.
However, it wasn’t funny, the leads became annoying very, very quickly, it was WAY too long and slow and became farcical in the worst possible way (as opposed to being an enjoyable farce). I genuinely did want to like it but I couldn’t figure out what there is to like, let alone love.
I have no problem with Hollywood films but I hope you know what I mean when I say it was too Hollywood; i.e. vacuous entertainment, relies on star charisma rather than acting, plot, wit, etc.
I don’t think it’s dated, though. I mean, when it came out it was a bomb. IMHO, people are just looking back on it nostalgically through rose and irony-tinted lenses, forgiving its major faults with either “But it’s old..” or “It’s supposed to be this bad”.
Maybe this alone is not enough for me to consider it the WMOAT but if I factor in that it’s supposed to be a classic and significant and all that critical acclaim, for me, it’s definitely a contender, although, yes, admittedly there are many, many worse films.
Oh, yes, “Crash” is not just a bad film. Its message that “Aren’t we all a little bit racist?” and the way it delivers that message with horribly unsubtle dialogue, scenes and stereotypes is SO very, very, very offensive.
I know people who excused all that with, “But that’s the only way you’re going to get the general public to watch it; by being obvious”, which is only only arrogant but offensive to ‘the general public’ (i.e. “I know it’s stupid but I’m not the average person and he/she only responds to stupid things”).
It’s also one of those horrible “message” films that only really appeals to already converted; I mean, I can’t imagine Joe Racist wanting to watch this film, let alone then seeing the errors of his ways.
For me, “Boogie Nights” starts off as a slightly spoofy comedy about 70s porn and style that doesn’t take itself too seriously and then, for some reason, turns into “Goodfellas” with all the drugs and guns, at which point I get the impression I’m supposed to take it seriously… Only I can’t, because it’s still Mark Wahlberg ‘acting’ the part of a guy with a big dick, the story is juvenile and the “rise and fall” structure is overdone and its execution overwrought.
Which reminds me, MAGNOLIA!!
THAT is even worse than “Boogie Nights”. It’s a horrible, horrible, pseudo-intelligent Altman rip-off with Tom Cruise and, unless I’m wrong, it rains frogs at the end.
I can’t tell; are you being sarcastic?
If not, can you explain what’s so “sweet and poignant” about it?
The little kid having disgusting cyber sex with an adult?
By the way, IMHO an “indie” movie should be the opposite of “sweet and poignant”, which, to me, is the domain of entertainment-focused mainstream cinema. It should tackle those issues that the mainstream doesn’t, like race (e.g. “Shadows”), female sexuality (e.g. “She’s Gotta Have It”), religious doubt (e.g. much of Bergman’s work) and so on.
This is why independent/alternative/underground cinema was born in the first place, to give a voice to the voiceless and inspire change or, at the very least, debate. “MYAEWK” seems to only want to uncritically reflect the lives of hipsters back to hipsters.
“MYAEWK” is a more obscure realisation of the same mistaken belief found in films like “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Garden State” that ‘kooky’ equals ‘artful’.
3rd.
Gabe: “I did not try and sugarcoat the fact that we had teased him, because I’m not a wimp. I will take full responsibility for having teased someone who was alive, regardless of the fact that they died later.”
So you’re proud of yourself for still teasing someone after he died, because to stop would make you a wimp? That’s probably Jennifer Lynn Petkov’s excuse, too. A real non-wimp has the strength to admit when they’re wrong and apologise.
And it doesn’t matter how many people die each day and how many times you bring up this fact to excuse yourself. For you to pick one out and treat his death as a source for your ‘failed comedian turned blog-writer’ attempts at humour does not show a lack of ‘sugarcoating’ but an abundance of obnoxious immaturity and stubbornness.