Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

FLAME! Re: Review: The English Patient

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Garfield

unread,

Dec 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/1/96

David Friedman, aspiring glamor photographer, consumer of precious
oxygen
and bandwidth, not much else, wrote about _The English Patient_:

>Didn't like it.
>
>As I attended the advanced screening, I looked over the audience to see what
>type of people received tickets to this screening, so I could get an idea of
>who the target audience was, as a clue of what I was in for. I had no idea
>what the movie was going to be about I decided that the target audience must
>have been senior citizens, old enough to remember WWII, the main setting of the
>film.
>
>The movie opened very promisingly, and I was suddenly interested in the
>characters, and what would become with them. At the start of the film, we see
>a 2-seater airplane flying through (what I understood to be) German-occupied
>desert in N. Africa. They are shot down by the Germans, and the pilot is badly
>burned. I wanted to know, Who was this guy? Why was he [SPOILER DELETED]?
>What's going on? The rest of the film told, mostly through flashbacks, the
>story of how these two had met, had an affair, and ended up in a plane flying
>over the desert.
>
>Unfortunately, except for the opening, most of the film was terrible trash.
>The acting was all very superb, but the script and the plot and the music made
>the two hours and 45 minutes seem like days.
>
>The script had dialogue like, "I planned on killing you when I found you," with
>the predictable response, "You can't kill me. I died years ago." Whatever.
>Trite.
>
>The movie was so melodramatic. It seemed like I was supposed to care about the
>characters, but I had a hard time caring when I didn't really think they cared
>themselves. Sure, Ralph Fiennes cried, which I guess was supposed to show that
>he cared, but in the film it seemed more like a gimmick than anyhting else.
>
>Oh, no! [MORE SPOILERS DELETED] Please! Don't try to milk any more sympathy
>out of me; you're not going to get it!

Thanks for the spoilers, asswipe.

>Around two hours into the film, I didn't care about the characters at all
>anymore. I just kept thinking, "Get to the part where they die."
>
>The music, slow and dragging, only helped to make the film seem longer.
>
>And I haven't even touched on the meaningless characters throughout the film,
>such as the nurse taking care of the badly burnt victim, who falls in love with
>him. Then, rather unexplainedly, unexpectedly, insignificantly, and with about
>45 minutes left to go, she falls in love with someone else. A turbined man who
>disarms bombs for a living. During one moment (that was supposed to be tense,
>I guess) he is trying to disarm a bomb and (Oh, no!) it might go off and kill
>him. I didn't care if he lived or died; I just wanted the scene to be over
>with already.

You're a photographer? Your eye to detail (and I've seen your
photography
"portfolio") is as good as that of a naked molerat. Your photography
"skills"
make your models as pretty as naked molerats. Your listening skills are
as
deficient as your eye to detail. Does the nurse fall in love with him?
Doesn't she say explicitly, "I'm not in love with him. I'm in love with
ghosts."
Does she fall "unexplainedly, unexpectedly, insignificantly" in love
with the
turbaned (a turbine is something your "portfolio" should be fed through,
look it up
in a dictionary) man? Picking up on subtlety (look it up in a
dictionary) sure
isn't your strong point.

>After the film, as I watched all the senior citizens file out of the theatre
>mumbling about what a terrible film it was, one particular woman, looking about
>100 years old, wearing a glittery "Paris" shirt, proclaimed for all to hear,
>"That was the worst movie I've seen, in my entire life."

Wow, David Friedman and glittery "Paris" shirt woman should form a club
called
"We're Stupid, Got Bad Taste, and Damn Proud of It!" (For proof of
David
Friedman's bad taste, check out his photography "portfolio.") How did
your
club manage to get tickets to an advanced screening? It sure went to
waste.

>I haven't read the book, which (from what I hear) is supposed to be excellent.

You can read? You can hear? Are you sure? You certainly didn't pay
attention
to the movie. Or perhaps ypu can only understand movies with the
subtlety of
professional wrestling plot twists?

>I don't know if his is a case of a movie trying too hard to be like the book
>(e.g. Bram Stoker's Dracula) or not sticking closely enough to the book, or
>what. All I know is it was long, dull, and trite.

Hear the probability theory about locking monkeys up in a room with
typewriters
and eventually one will come up with a Shakespearean play? If David
Friedman's
posting is a clue, those monkeys are making fast progress. A monkey
with a point-
and-click camera would certainly come up with more interesting pictures
than the
asswipes in David Friedman's "portfolio."

Will someone please not lock David Friedman up in a room with a computer
with
internet access?

I have no problem with dissenting opinions, but who is this David
Friedman,
and why is he such a brazen idiot? His commentary on TEP is as
insubstantial,
venomous and overtly stupid as it gets, so I figured I'd take a tour of
his online
photography portfolio (I've curated and reviewed art exhibits) to see
what artistic
mettle he had (none). I weep for the lost time, bandwidth, and the
unrecyclable
silver chloride crystals in his film, forever condemned to be a part of
his glamor
photography aspirations.

What follows is my story of survival after slogging through this
"portfolio."

Didn't like it.

The "portfolio" opened idiotically, with a girl opening her mouth VERY
wide
for a tootsie roll. I wanted to know, Why is she opening her mouth so
wide for a
tootsie roll? Is she going to swallow her fist next? Why is she
looking at the
camera, and not paying attention to her tootsie roll - she could poke
her eye out!
Is she trying to be sexually suggestive, about to give a demo of her
fellatic prowess,
or is she just really hungry? How trite. Tootsie Roll should sue for
misuse of
their product.

Unfortunately, like the opening shot of this "portfolio," most of the
film was
terrible trash.

Two photos into the portfolio, I just didn't care anymore. I just kept
thinking, "Get to
the part where David Friedman runs out of film. Or his batteries die."
Please, don't
try to milk any more sympathy out of me - you're not going to get it!

The "portfolio" had pictures like a dolled-up chick with a snake.
Whatever. Trite.
So, is the girl supposed to be scared of the snake, or the snake of the
girl - could
go either way. Is there supposed to be a frisson in the viewer who
finds him/herself
looking at this girl, this Eve, and her snake? Whatever. Trite. Can a
girl who
applies makeup on herself with the delicacy of Tammy Faye really pass
herself of as
Eve? Is the girl going to eat the snake? I pity the snake. If I was
this girl and
these were the glamor shots I paid for, I'd ask for my refund.

Oh, no! More drudgery! Point-and-click photography is invented and
every Tom, Dick
and David Friedman thinks he has a "portfolio" worth taking out of the
darkroom.

Photo no. 4 is an autumn landscape at sunset. Please! Ho-hum.
Boring. Whatever. Trite.

The portfolio was so its been done before. It seemed like I was
supposed to care about
the photos, but I had a hard time caring when its so uninspired and with
point-and-click
photography being so commonplace and all.

Photo no. 5 is a Tiffany-wannabe complete with beret and knee-high
boots. Her legs
are folded most unusually. David Friedman sure succeeds at making his
models look
as stupid as he is. His models should sue for physiological and
psychological damage.

His internet service provider, slow and dragging, only helped to make
this online
"portfolio" tour seem longer.

In photo no. 6 David Friedman discovers the visual delight of receding
perspective.
So did Leonardo da Vinci - 500 years ago. Try something new, or are you
incapable of this?

In photo no. 7 a man leans back into a picture of Noah's ark. That
better not be a
painting - it's not nice to touch paintings, let alone lean into one.
Especially when its
all for the photography exercises of a non-talent aspiring glamor
photographer.

Photo no. 8 has billiard balls and pool cues. With this choice of
subject matter, perhaps
David Friedman should try out airbrush paintings. On black velvet. But
that would require
more manual skill than clicking a button. You need more than one brain
ganglion for that.

Photo no. 9 - a church at the corner of West Cherry and North Beaver.
David Friedman
must've stumbled into this one by accident, his lone brain ganglion
saying, "Hee-hee, this
would make a funny picture!" Whatever. Trite. How sophomoric, but
David Friedman
likely never got that far in school.

Photos no. 10, 11, 12 - more proof that point-and-click photography
certainly has
gone far. Oh, the wonders of idiot-proof cameras! Oh, those poor
silver chloride
crystals irreversibly consigned to be a part of David Friedman's flaccid
photography
efforts! I pity those poor crystals!

The world of glamor photography will be barely stirred with David
Friedman's
"artistic" contributions. His "portfolio" is long, dull, and trite.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"O spiteful one! Tell me who to smite and they shall be smoten!" Homer
Simpson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ryan McGinnis

unread,

Dec 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/3/96

Hey, I like that. You actually labeled your flame. I wish everyone would start
doing this...

+-+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Ryan McGinnis ()_() TLKiaWoL
mcg...@iastate.edu (_) Jay's Mosh
http://www.pionet.net/~mcginnr (The Lion King)
Sarafina: "What do you th think, Suh Suh Suhrab
Suhrab Suh-- dear?"
(Why Sarafina only got one line)
+-+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

0 new messages