Timewaster's Guide Archive

If I understand 42 correctly, he's not saying that those *words* imply it, but that the people *using* those words imply it. And yes, I'm going to have to say that those words in reference to this subject are most often used to excuse behavior and enforce an acceptance of it. I'm not saying this is *always* the case. Just most often.

And I have heard advertising for it that explicitly states that you *should* see it.

Every serious Oscar type movie has advertising that tells you that "You have to see this movie." It's just standard advertising rhetoric. Even commercial films such as "Austin Powers" (which is by far more morally objectionable than anything in "Brokeback Mountain") features that sort of thing on it's ads.

The bottom line about this movie is, see, or don't. I don't see why so many people have to make such a big deal about whether or not they are going to see it or not. It is just a movie.

One movie that I just realized we left out is Sofia Coppola's "Marie Antoinette," with Kirsten Dunst. That's one I am very curious about.

I didn't say it wouldn't be critically acclaimed or not win awards, I just said that the (I assume) target audience found the concept ridiculous.  

That, of course, has no bearing on the actual content of the film, or the direction, or whatever.  

I do wonder, however, that this film has everyone up in arms and offended (or trying very hard not to be), and no one is offended or speaking out against the new trend in torture movies (The Saw, Hostel).  Kind of a sick statement about our society in general I think.

I totally agree about the "Hostel" point. You could not be more right about that. Look at how many young people saw the "Kill Bill" movies and loved  them?

No one who isn't gay is going to see "Brokeback" and decide "Hell, I think I might try that. Nothing good on TV anyway." Anyone who is leaning that way may, possibly, be prompted to talk to someone about what they are feeling. Not a bad thing, as far as I'm concerned.

As for the target audeince issue, I don' see "Brokeback" and "Rent" as being aimed at  the same target audience just becasue they both have gay characters. "Rent" was an in your face, flamboyant (which I liked, don't freak out), wheras as "Brokeback" is not onlya subtle drama, but one in a western setting. Totally different audiences.

"Rent" was aimed at the musical thatre crowd, which admittedly includes a lot of gay people, but still, it's more about the music than anything else. "Brokeback" is really not specifically aimed at at a gay audience - it's an Ang Lee movie, which means it's it is not aimed at anyone is particular, it's just aimed at people who appreciate excellence in filmmaking.

Fell, the people who will discount an opinion entirely on the basis that it doesn't agree with the unwashed masses are exactly the sorts of people whose opinion has absolutely no value.

Take it easy on Fellsy - he's the man. And while I agree with your point about basing your opinions on what you think, rather than what people tell you, watch who you are calling "unwashed." I bathe at least twice a week, thank you very much.

I would like to see it, but wont due to the rating reasons.

Also I've heard some rumblings about the movie being very inaccurate historically and the author of the book this movie is based off of being very anti-Israel.

The historical accuracy is hard to determine, considering it's based on classified information, but yes, there has been some dispute, which is why Spielberg makes it clear the film is "Inspired" by real events. However, some of the complaints about historical accuracy come for a Black September terrorist who is merely upset that he wasn't consulted, and his complaint is that the film doesn't portray that some of the targets were not directly copnnected to the Munich massacre. This is complete ignorance on his part, because the film confronts that issue head on.

As for the anti-Isreal thing, that is being commonly repeated, but the film is simply not anti-Israel. It's merely fair and balanced.

Either I missed a step, or there wasn't a 10 worst list.  I was curious about that one.  It would be harder to narrow down.

Yes, there was a ten worst list, after the ten best list.

I was actually just reading through the worst list, and I noticed that we take two pretty hard slams at Anthony Hopkins, right in a row, talking about movies he wasn't even in! Talk about harsh. I feel the need to point out that we actually think Hopkins has given some truly great performances. Sorry, Tony.

Is there something essentially wrong with that?

Now, I have no interest in seeing or reading anything related to the PHantom of hte OPera with the possible exception of Scooby Doo adaptations, but I enjoy a good Jackie Chan flick despite the lack of character development or coherant plot in most of them. Because it's just darn fun to watch him do his thing. It's pure spectacle. And I really want to know, why exactly is that wrong?

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with spectacle, as long as it's not trying to pass itself off as more than that. I never saw "Pantom" on stage until last year. I had heard so much trashing of it, so I went into it expecting nothing but spectacle, and it was satisfying. On the other hand, I had been told so much about what a profound, life changing experience "Les Miserables" was. Let me tell you, that is nothing but spectacle. But I still enjoy it, for what it is.

I have not seen a musical that wasn't mainly just a spectacle - that's the nature of the genre. "Rent" was very much a spectacle, but a darn good one. If a few songs can evoke emotion along the way, then that's great, but the fact it, they exist for the flashiness.

Mow, personally, for the most part, I'm not a big Chan fan - I would literally poke my eyes out beofre seeing "Rush Hour" (though in fairness, that has more to do with Chris Tucker),. But I agree with the point. There's nothing wrong with enjoying some good solid eye candy, grandiose entertainment now and again. It's totally arbitrary what floats your boat.

actually, the stage version of Rent never specifies a year--kind of interesting that the movie did.

It's definitely not a Utah kind of movie--although I think it's kind of sad that Phantom is.  That implies that Utahns are attracted to anything mainstream no matter how poorly done.  which, I guess, is why the Hale Center Theatre is doing so well.

I still think "Phantom" was very well done. Gerard Butler gave a great performance, even if his voice was not perfect, but he sold the heck out that role! I mean, he the emotion and depth he brings to it is awesome.  And Emmy Rossum was so much better than to awful Sarah Brightman. All in all, I thought the film was better than the stage version - certainly more coherent. I think people had their minds made up about it before they even saw it, just because it was a Joel Schumacher film.