Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on February 02, 2005, 10:09:40 AM
-
reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=971
I can't say I agree with all the choices made above, but I can't say that I'm ever surprised that great masses of people disagree with the nominations.
-
I want desperately to disagree with the categorization of Farenheit 9/11 as a "thought provoking" film but I haven't been able to force myself to see it yet, so I can't really say anthing at all about it.
-
my impression is that it may be thought provoking, but that "provoking" in this case means "inflammatory"
-
I ain't seen much in the way of the nominated but I have to agree with you on The Incredibles & the team behind Sky Captain.
Any flick that has more blue screen than your average Star Wars prequel (and pulls it off) at least deserves a nomination. *grumble*stupid Matrix*grumble
-
I can't agree with you on The Terminal.
One of the most boring and utterly unentertaining movies I have seen in a while. Boo!
Other than that, I mostly agree with your points.
-
I feel the same way as Mr. P about "The Terminal" Everyone is aware that I, Skar, did not write the Oscar snubs article, yes?
I felt that "The Terminal" was a rather obvious and failed attempt at entertaining social commentary. Painful. It's sad when a great like Spielberg starts spewing out crap.
-
Im sure Im alone but I cant agree with the Passion, either. I thought it was an exceedingly easy film to make, on just about every level emotionally, visually, and cinematographically. Frankly it wasnt 1/3 as good as the LDS film Jesus the Christ... plus there was no real message, just a lot of torture. Yeah I got it after the first hour, he went through more pain than anyone else, now quit ripping his skin off with a barbed flail.
A more courageous take would have been to focus on his message and resurrection rather than his murder.
But then Im not a big snuff film watcher.
-
I absolutely refuse to see the Passion. For some reason it just seems wrong to me to watch it. I understand that Christ suffered for us, and paid the price of our sins, and I don't want to see someone's viewpoint on what they think is what happened (ie Mel Gibson) by showing a lot of gratuitous violence enacted on Christ. In fact, I think it's inappropriate, but that's just me.
-
Word, I wish I had never seen it.
-
I liked it, but it was hell to watch.
-
I very much liked the passion. Gibson's take on the events was very focused (In catholic circles the phrase "the passion of the Christ", if I'm not much mistaken, refers to exacly what Gibson portrayed in the movie, the immediate events leading up to the resurrection)
As a Mormon I believe that the bulk of the suffering occurred in the garden of gethsemane. The physical aspect of Christ's suffering at the hands of humans took on a great deal of poignancy in the film because it was so totally in line with what might have happened, and so unnecessary. (Pilate sends a man down to the punishment squad with instructions that he be "severely" punished and you get what Gibson portrayed, including the head sergeant putting a stop to it a little late(he had other things on his mind)) Christ was enduring what he had to in order to fulfill prophecy and die at the hands of the Jews. The physical torture was merely the road he had to travel to get to that end. And no matter how unnecessarily bad it got he couldn't quit if he wanted to fulfill his father's will. And, for me at least, the suffering that happened in the garden is totally inaccessible. I have no basis for comparison and therefore no understanding of what it is like to spiritually suffer for the sins of others. The physical torture, while seperate, is the only part of Christ's trials I have any hope of understanding. Watching his treatment spiral down in such a totally realistic way made the knowledge that it was merely the icing on the cake much deeper and more real for me.
On top of that was the absolutely impeccable and realistic performances of the supporting cast. In most LDS films Christ and everyone who has anything to do with him is portrayed as ultra-serious, ultra-pious, totally-in-control-at-all-times, and thus stiff and unrealistic.
And the feeling I got from Caviezel's performance that even Christ was operating on faith all the way to the very end was especially precious to me.
-
I agree with Mr.P on the Terminal, infact every movie I saw in the theater last year was better then it.
I also agree with Moredew on Passion. I don't need a movie to tell my why I beleave the way I do, especialy one so graphic. If there was less blood and touture, and had more about Crists life and minestry I would see it.
But thats why we have oppion peices like this, since not all of us think the same way.
-
So you also agree with me on Passion.
-
I guess, but I skipped your, skars and serveral other's posts becaue I stopped reading after Moredew's.
-
I posted before moredew, and moredew was agreeing with me.
-
I guess, but I skipped your, skars and serveral other's posts becaue I stopped reading after Moredew's.
How rude.
*Skar sets Spriggan on fire.
-
Spriggan is a postist!
-
Incidentially, I don't recognize the reviewers name. Does anyone else?
-
He's a friend of mine. He's currently the entertainment director at "The Mayan" He and his brother wrote and produced a successful play in the Salt Lake theater scene called, "MorMan" (a satirical comedy) and are currently in negotiations with the same company that produced "Charly" for the screenplay. (Charly will probably only be familiar to HoM and a couple others in Utah)
-
I've seen it. Not all that good, but then, Jack Weyland's stuff was never high-quality literature to begin with. It wasn't terribly bad for what they had to work with.
-
My brother in law used to be the entertainment director at the Mayan, years ago when it first opened.
-
Eh, I just don't read most of the posts in threads. I skim, so I missed your first one Jeffe because it was too long and I didn't want to read that much.
-
Im just playin... ;D
-
Was Charly near as good as the book? I loved the book (as an 11-year-old...)
-
Well, it made my cry but I felt used and dirty at the blatant emotional manipulation.
And I think that about halfway through filming all the supporting actors were killed in an airplane crash. The director replaced them all with dressed up wooden mannequins. I couldn't tell when I watched the movie but that's what I heard.
-
Um, Skar, are you joking? Because that's really sad. I did wonder where all the rest of the characters went at the end, though. It was rather sparse.
-
Sigh. Sorry. I was joking. I could have just said all the supporting actors had about as much acting ability as a wooden mannequin but...well, sorry if I distressed you.
-
I thought you were joking at first, but I wasn't quite sure. I should have just gone with it. :)
-
The director replaced them all with dressed up wooden mannequins. I couldn't tell when I watched the movie but that's what I heard.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
-
I'll go with Skar on "the Passion"
As a Catholic it was a film that spoke directly to what I believe was the central part of Christ's mission. To suffer the pain of our sins. To be the Sacrificial Lamb and endure that which we deserve for sin.
The Passion spoke to me because it showed me what MY sins (as a flawed human) caused. Gibson was even in the movie as the Roman driving the Nail into Christ's hand because it was a kind of prayer for him, Gibsons recognition that his own sinfulness contributed to the suffering.
Alot of attention is given to the Passion in Catholic circles, with the Stations of the Cross, Meditations on the Passion, and the Crucifix.
The Film is a classic Passion Play, an old practice that enacted the Stations of the Cross. It held true to THAT form.
Look at it this way, You pick 1 story, once you pick that story, you stick to it, or you pick a diffrent story. Gibson picked the story told in the Stations of the cross. If you wanted a movie about the "message" you would have to see a movie based on THAT story. And I think that the story about the REST of his life HAS been done... multiple times with the Passion bieng treated as a 10 minute climax... But As I see it, The Passion IS Christ, it is WHY he was sent down and the fullfilment of his entire purpose..
I apreciate that the Catholic view may be diffrent, But Gibson as a Catholic spoke very well to me as a Catholic in this film.
Now I went and got all Theological on this, a thread about Hollywood... How embarassing..
As to the Oscars... Meh, meaningless back-patting
When I start seeing the national Plumbers award where the Plumbers of the world reward each other for good pipe-fittings, THEN I will care about the Oscars... Outside that, I think the Oscars feed into the ugly cult of celebrity that is a waste of my time
-
The thing about Passion of the Christ (which I have not seen) is that the audience reaction seems more dependent on your personal religious beliefs than for almost any other film. It has affected some people very deeply, offended others, and left others completely cold. I think that, more than anything, is why it wasn't nominated--it lives or dies for each viewer based solely on the baggage that viewer brings to the theater.
-
When I start seeing the national Plumbers award where the Plumbers of the world reward each other for good pipe-fittings, THEN I will care about the Oscars...
Well, I don't know if they give awards for pipe-fitting, but they do give awards for sexiest plumber: http://www.turnto10.com/entertainment/4068555/detail.html
-
what, no category for butt cleavage?
-
No, that's at the teen choice awards.
-
I think that, more than anything, is why it wasn't nominated
And I suspect a secular agenda... but thats just me