[QUOTE=DrDeth]
You know, again with someone saying “you’re not allowed to dislike a movie for that reason”.
[/quote]
Could you please do me the courtesy, if you decide to respond to my posts, of at least reading my posts? At no time did I say that you were not allowed to dislike BBM or any other movie for any reason that you want. You can dislike BBM for any reason you want but the reason you don’t like it is superficial in the extreme.
Who says they didn’t love their wives?
[QUOTE=Otto]
Could you please do me the courtesy, if you decide to respond to my posts, of at least reading my posts? At no time did I say that you were not allowed to dislike BBM or any other movie for any reason that you want. You can dislike BBM for any reason you want but the reason you don’t like it is superficial in the extreme.
[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. I don’t like Brussels Sprouts as I don;t like their tatse. “LIke” is *entirely * a matter of personal opinion. Are you saying my dislike of Brussels Sprouts is “superficial in the extreme”?
Again, I ask you to tell us a movie you disliked and why.
I did not say it was a bad movie. I said *I didn’t like it. *
I’ll jump in here. I liked the movie and have been following this thread with intersest.
[QUOTE=Otto]
…your stated reason for not liking it, that Jack and Ennis have sex while married to other people, shows an extremely low level of critical thought.
[/QUOTE]
I think there is a distinction to be made here. To issue a blanket statement that ‘all movies featuring adultery are deficient’ (and I think there was one post making this argument) would indeed be superficial and non-critical. But to criticize a particular movie for its handling of adultery is perfectly reasonable to me. I think some of the people in this thread have suggested that the adultery in this film was problematic because they did not sympathize with these characters. That’s a perfectly reasonable critique of the writing, acting and directing, and actually doesn’t have too much to do with personal taste.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I don’t see what the subject matter has to do with the quality of the film.
[/QUOTE]
Well I agree in the abstract that it is possible to make a ‘good’ film from poorly-developed subject matter, but: a) why would you? and b) who would enjoy it? To me, technical acumen in any craft is not impressive by itself.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Nonsense. I don’t like Brussels Sprouts as I don;t like their tatse. “LIke” is *entirely * a matter of personal opinion. Are you saying my dislike of Brussels Sprouts is “superficial in the extreme”?
[/quote]
No, I’m saying that dismissing a movie solely on the basis of the leads being adulterers is superficial in the extreme. The writing, the acting, the cinematography, the direction, the score, all of these meant nothing to you because the leads fucked someone other than their wives. Superficial. Extreme. I don’t believe your opinion on Brussels sprouts entered into it.
No, that’s OK, we can finish talking about this one first. I’ve expressed negative opinions on movies before so you can go look them up if you want.
Otto, I think DrDeth and the OP have a point: the inclusion of adultery in the way it was presented is a perfectly good reason to dislike the movie, as like and dislike are entirely personal. If they were to say that it is a bad movie because of this, that would justify some arguing.
I recognize that there are good movies out there, good books, and good bands that just aren’t for me. Requiem for a Dream is an example. I thought it was well-made and well-acted and interesting, but I absolutely hate it. I think that might be sort of what’s going on here.
[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
I think there is a distinction to be made here. To issue a blanket statement that ‘all movies featuring adultery are deficient’ (and I think there was one post making this argument) would indeed be superficial and non-critical. But to criticize a particular movie for its handling of adultery is perfectly reasonable to me.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, but that’s not what DrDeth is doing here. He declared that cheating is “plain wrong” and that he didn’t like the movie because of it. He went on to criticise other movies simply for having “adulterers” for leads (Titanic and Bridges of Madison County). He’s not ciritcising how adultery is handled in this or any other film, he’s criticising the films for having adulterers at all.
[QUOTE=Otto]
No, I’m saying that dismissing a movie solely on the basis of the leads being adulterers is superficial in the extreme. The writing, the acting, the cinematography, the direction, the score, all of these meant nothing to you because the leads fucked someone other than their wives. Superficial. Extreme. I don’t believe your opinion on Brussels sprouts entered into it.
No, that’s OK, we can finish talking about this one first. I’ve expressed negative opinions on movies before so you can go look them up if you want.
[/QUOTE]
Read my posts. I didn’t say it was a bad film- I said I didn’t like it. “The writing, the acting, the cinematography, the direction, the score, all of these meant nothing to” me as far as LIKING the film. You don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between “it’s a bad film” and “I didn’t like it”. It’s exactly like Brussels sprouts- they are a fine vegetable full of vitamin goodness I am sure. I just don’t like them. You are saying that since they are healthy to eat, I must enjoy the flavor.
I also don’t like horror films, depressing movies and films shot in B&W after good color technology was available.
Ok, then- why did you *like * Brokeback? Is it because you think you have to?
[QUOTE=Otto]
No, that’s OK, we can finish talking about this one first. I’ve expressed negative opinions on movies before so you can go look them up if you want.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. In the last 124 posts in this forum, you have expressed one actual “bad” opinion, and that was “Why no Rounders 2? Because they made Rounders 2 and called it Tilt, and it sucked.” Note that as there was no movie made called Tilt that was about Poker, this seems to be more about the TV show. And “it sucked” is so shallow as a reason that plankton are gasping in the air. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Otto]
I agree, but that’s not what DrDeth is doing here.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right. I don’t know why I felt compelled to offer him a defense; after that last post I see he’s intent on hanging himself by the ‘taste’ noose.
[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
You’re right. I don’t know why I felt compelled to offer him a defense; after that last post I see he’s intent on hanging himself by the ‘taste’ noose.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm, key lime…now I want pie and it’s your fault.
[QUOTE=Equipoise]
Keep in mind that it’s supposed to be a very slow, lyrical, quiet movie. Think Days of Heaven, which is so beautiful, but would probably bore the hell out of many of the people who were bored by Brokeback Mountain. Not a lot happens, really, and most of the action takes place in the expressions on people’s faces, and in the very spare dialogue. The scenery and sets play a big role too. It does reward repeat viewings because as “simple” as it seems on the surface, there’s a lot going on that I missed the first and second time I saw it and it gets richer and deeper. And yes, sadder.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve never seen Days of Heaven. Slow doesn’t bother me-I never said anything about that.
[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
Well I agree in the abstract that it is possible to make a ‘good’ film from poorly-developed subject matter, but: a) why would you? and b) who would enjoy it? To me, technical acumen in any craft is not impressive by itself.
[/QUOTE]
He’s not dissing it because of “poorly-developed” subject matter. He’s dissing it because of the subject matter, period. His statement is basically that any film that highlights adultery is not to his liking because of the subject matter. His opinion had nothing to do with character development or any other universally understood film critique point.
I agree that technical merit alone doesn’t make a movie good any more than subject matter alone makes a movie bad. There is artistic merit first and foremost, and even if you’re the Official Protector Of Marital Integrity Of The World, you can enjoy a film that sympathetically portrays the emotional conflict inherent in adulterous affairs. If you make the effort to go past the surface, that is. No one was happy about cheating on their spouse. Life isn’t that simple. It certainly wasn’t in rural gay America in the '60s.
There was plenty else to like about this movie. The scenery was beautiful. There was a feeling of authenticy for the period. The relationship with the daughter was good despite their separation. Contrary to the OP’s opinion, I thought the pacing was good. To zero in on any one thing to draw your opinion from isn’t fair to the film as a whole.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Yeah. In the last 124 posts in this forum, you have expressed one actual “bad” opinion, and that was “Why no Rounders 2? Because they made Rounders 2 and called it Tilt, and it sucked.” Note that as there was no movie made called Tilt that was about Poker, this seems to be more about the TV show. And “it sucked” is so shallow as a reason that plankton are gasping in the air. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
That you would actually go back and read 124 of my posts looking for negative opinons on films kind of scares me in an “internet stalker” sort of way.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
His statement is basically that any film that highlights adultery is not to his liking because of the subject matter.
His opinion had nothing to do with character development or any other universally understood film critique point.
I agree that technical merit alone doesn’t make a movie good any more than subject matter alone makes a movie bad. There is artistic merit first and foremost, and even if you’re the Official Protector Of Marital Integrity Of The World, you can enjoy a film that sympathetically portrays the emotional conflict inherent in adulterous affairs. .
[/QUOTE]
Not true. Read again.
Exactly. I *wasn’t * critiqing the film, I said I didn’t like it. A critique isn’t about how much you *enjoyed * the film, it’s whether or not the film *was well done. *
Indeed- artistic merit is “first and foremos” over whether or not a film is good or bad, but has little to do over how much you enjoyed the film.
None of you seem to be able to tell the difference between “the film was bad” and “I didn’t like the film”. I’ve liked plenty of BAD movies- Cannonball Run for example. Dreck- but enjoyable dreck. Annie Hall was well done- but I didn’t like it, either.
Can tell me that you only like good, artistic films, and you dislike every poorly done film? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Otto]
That you would actually go back and read 124 of my posts looking for negative opinons on films kind of scares me in an “internet stalker” sort of way.
[/QUOTE]
You asked me to. “I’ve expressed negative opinions on movies before so you can go look them up if you want.” How else was I supposed to “look them up”? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Not true. Read again.
Exactly. I *wasn’t * critiqing the film, I said I didn’t like it. A critique isn’t about how much you *enjoyed * the film, it’s whether or not the film *was well done. *
Indeed- artistic merit is “first and foremos” over whether or not a film is good or bad, but has little to do over how much you enjoyed the film.
None of you seem to be able to tell the difference between “the film was bad” and “I didn’t like the film”. I’ve liked plenty of BAD movies- Cannonball Run for example. Dreck- but enjoyable dreck. Annie Hall was well done- but I didn’t like it, either.
Can tell me that you only like good, artistic films, and you dislike every poorly done film? :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I confused your post with the OP. However I will say that a person can dislike parts of a film and still enjoy it overall. I’ve learned to watch movies with a more critical eye and as a result I enjoy them more. I don’t have to carry the same moral code as the principal players to “get” it. And I don’t have to like the characters to like the movie, though I did like these characters for the most part.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
And what were a couple of gay cowboys supposed to do? Tell their wives and employer that they’ve finally admitted to themselves (or one of 'em, anyway) that they’re gay? That’s how gay was back in the day. Denial to yourself and then denial to everyone around you because it’ll get you beaten or killed or fired.
[/QUOTE]
:eek: Gay cowboys?!
With all those sheep available? 
I don’t believe it. 
I went back to re-read the OP and I found one of the problems.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
The movie is a disjointed mess. Suddenly, someone has a kid and suddenly that kid is twelve and then someone else has married a third person and nobody gets older even though time apparently passes like a motherfuck even though it is rarely mentioned. It seems like they ripped out every second page of the screenplay. I haven’t read the book, but I imagine it contains a lot of material never filmed.
The best example: the Thanksgiving dinner in the Del Mar household. I kept wondering why Alma’s boss was at their (very small) Thanksgiving dinner, and then a few scenes later we find out that he is now Alma’s husband. Thanks for the heads-up, guys.
[/QUOTE]
This is a great example of a viewer not paying attention, and not realizing (or caring) that they haven’t been paying attention, then blaming at least one aspect of the movie for their own inattentiveness.
The careful viewer would have made note of 1) the scene where Alma Jr. accidentially brings down the display of nuts in the grocery store where Ennis has just brought the children when he gets a call to go to work. Alma’s working but then says she’ll call her sister to come get the kids. Alma Jr. knocks against the display and glass bottles come crashing down on the floor, spraying broken glass and nuts everywhere. Her boss comes to see what happened. Instead of being pissed off, the way most bosses would be, he clearly cares more about Alma being upset. That was a foreshadowing of what was to come, and 2) the scene where Ennis and Alma are in the courtroom and their divorce is being granted, both of which lead up to 2) Alma being married to her former boss.
Now, not everyone would catch all of that. In fact, when I first saw it I knew the guy she was married to was familiar, but didn’t remember where I’d seen him. It was only on the 2nd viewing that I recognized him during the grocery store scene and understood that the look on his face meant more than I’d realized during my first viewing. Still, the OP clearly missed the divorce-granted scene, which was a pretty clear indication that in the dinner scene that other guy was her new husband and Ennis was a guest (invited because of the daughters).
Heads-up were given, but you weren’t paying attention and you don’t care either. That’s fine to not care, but at least realize that the problem is yours and not the movie’s. You perceived the movie as a “disjointed mess” because you already didn’t like it, not because it was a disjointed mess. The passage of time was shown in various ways, through dialogue, makeup, hairstyles, the ages of Ennis’s daughters and various other ways. Just because Ang Lee didn’t show the passage of time as a cliched “montage” with cheezy music and a calandar with pages peeling off month by month by year by year doesn’t mean his way wasn’t effective for most of the audience, especially upon repeat viewings.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
I’ve never seen Days of Heaven. Slow doesn’t bother me-I never said anything about that.
[/QUOTE]
I understand that you didn’t say anything about that. I just felt the need to say it, not just to you, but to anyone reading who hadn’t seen the movie and planned on watching it. After all the hooha and awards and Oscar noms and controversy and (free) publicity from the media and people talking about it, it could be easy for a first-time viewer to sit there with arms mentally crossed, unconciously demanding “OK, BE GREAT NOW, EVERYONE SAYS YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO BE REALLY SPECIAL. WOW ME” and then being disapointed because the movie doesn’t “live up to” what what the viewer thinks it should. I’m not saying you’d be like this, I just have a habit of trying to head it off.
Before the controversy, before the Oscar noms, before the publicity, Brokeback Mountain was a small, quiet, slow, lyrical, beautiful and tragic movie. After all the controversy, publicity and remembrance of Oscar noms fade away, it will still be a small, quiet, slow, lyrical, beautiful and tragic movie. I think it’s good for people to know in advance that what they’ll be seeing isn’t the “hype” but the movie that was made before all that began.
And people should note that I didn’t include “romantic” in that description. Brokeback Mountain is NOT a “romantic” movie and was never intended to be a romantic movie. There’s no romance in the movie. There’s tragic love, a love that’s tragic for all.
And btw, if you like the pace and feel of Brokeback Mountain, you should definitely see Days of Heaven. Terrence Malick is a master of that style. It’s also a gorgeous-looking movie. It’s one of those movies that is really more about mood than plot (though there is a plot). It can’t be watched and appreciated in broad daylight with phones ringing, kids running in and out, dogs barking and other distractions. Watch it at a quiet time with the lights low or off. Watch Brokeback Mountain the same way, if at all possible.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
2. Exactly. I *wasn’t * critiqing the film, I said I didn’t like it. A critique isn’t about how much you *enjoyed * the film, it’s whether or not the film *was well done. *
[/quote]
Huh. Most people would concur that if a film is well-done, you can enjoy it for what it is instead of overlaying your personal moral code on the images and being all mad at them for not living up to your standards. I guess if it bothers you so much, you can just vow to never speak to them again. The cheatin’ cowboy bastids.
No one says you have to like a film. I’m interested in knowing why you didn’t like it. Was it because you had to work a little harder at getting the jokes? Was it because Diane Keaton looked like your ex-girlfriend? Not enough fast cars for your taste? I mean, we’re discussing films here. I think everyone reading this thread is looking for a little more than simply your one-sentence opinion.
Uh, pretty much. I’m not sure what your definition of “artistic” is, but I’m not going to waste my time on crap if the writer and director and actors don’t give a shit. Thousands of movies are made every year. Not all of them are worth my time. I’m selective.