More on overrated A Beautiful Mind
Mike Isaacs
out what I thought was a reasonable possibility that this was a film worth
seeing -- especially since most reviews have suggested it is Opie's best
work since "Apollo 13."
If I sound snide saying Opie, I have no regrets because this is a movie made
by that little boy who sees the world only in simple television terms. ABM,
which is so God awful much of the way through it's almost staggering, has
put me in an absolute rage -- not only because of IT but because I simply
can't come to grips that we now exist in a culture that embraces this goopy
treacle as serious art. The Directors Guild of America, in a bit of a
surprise, nominated only one American director for its annual award this
year and left out Robert Altman ("Gosford Park") and David Lynch
("Mulholland Drove") and Todd Fields ("In the Bedroom") and Terry Zwigoff
(Ghost World"). But Ron Howard was the man. I want to run someplace -- maybe
back to the 70s -- but I don't know how to get there.
From what I understand, the book about John Nash's life on which this
picture is based, is pretty interesting and well-written. Howard and
screenwriter Akiva Goldsmith (who miraculously won a Golden Globe ) have
exorcised every complexity and dark reality from the written work; no longer
does Nash have a penchant for same-sex relationships, and no longer does
Nash's illness make him see aliens or have other fantasies that would have
blown the reality of his "illness'' right out of the water.
That's right, Howard and company use Nash's illness to manipulate the
audience in one of the more hollow and insulting screen gimmicks I've ever
seen. (SPOILER FOLLOWS if you're planning to see ABM):
For the first third of the movie (or was it a third of a day), Nash's
hallucinations are played straight so we don't realize some of the regular
characters in the film are figments of his diseased mind. That may have
worked well in "The Matrix" if you like that sort of thing, but it's simply
preposterous and offensive here. After seeing "Vanilla Sky,'' which I
intensely disliked, I realized we now have a new film genre on our hands
called MINDBENT. The worst uses of the genre spend time pulling the ground
out from under the audience in the name of serious art; in reality, the
gimmick often is used to disguise the complete Enron-like bankruptcy of any
serious ideas or artistic vision.
The worst of the television-actors-turned-directors share a simple-minded,
reductive way of handling any kind of complex or dark material. In Penny
Marshall's "A League of Their Own," I wince at the scene where the Geena
Davis character is in the locker room, fearing that her husband will be
injured or killed in the War. In comes a war flunky to hand over a note to
some unlucky woman-soon-to-be-widow about the death of her husband.
Marshall's only way of portraying that moment is to artificially build
suspense by playing with the audience's expectations: the moment comes down
to whether it is Davis's husband who will soon be 10-feet under. In other
words, the only thing on Marshall's mind is jolting the audience -- making
them sweat in the name of dramatic impact. It doesn't matter that SOME woman
will feel unimaginable grief in a few minutes: Just as long as it isn't our
star. The scene doesn't have anything to say about the war or death in the
military. It's there to spice up the movie, to jack up the drama, without
any organic connection to anything real. It's a television moment of the
worst kind.
Which leads me back to ABM. Not only is the gimmick used for the first third
of the film and not very well, may I add, but there's a quieter moment at
the end of the film that is a window to the movie's sorry soul. Nash is
older now and on his way to recovery. He hangs out at the Princeton Library
doing his work quietly, trying to ignore the regular figments of his
imagination that intrude on his mind from time to time. In comes a student
asking about Nash and whether he's the same Nash who did such great work a
million years ago, etc. etc. No one else is in the library, of course, so
that the scene can play as the most demeaning kind of contrivance. The movie
is playing with us the same way Marshall played with us in "A League of
Their Own"; the way it's filmed is intended to make us wonder whether this
character is another figment of Nash's imagination. And, of course, we get
the predictable payoff moment later when his teary-eyed wife comes to the
library and sees him working productively with the kid and other kids at a
desk. It's real by God -- it's real! Start the Rocky music or in this case,
the overbearing, loud, unwelcome James Horner "Field of Dreams"-like score.
Howard here has no interest in rendering Nash's life or expressing an
organic vision about mental illness or doing anything other than taking
audiences on an artificial ride and then trying to tear emotions from their
hearts. It's so stiflingly hollow that the first impulse is to scream from
your seat.
Russell Crowe can be a great actor, and there's all kinds of talk about him
winning a consecutive Oscar this year. He's given nothing to play here
really, and this is not close to one of his best performances. (Don't even
mention it in the same breath with the work he did in "The Insider.") He's
all tics and lopsided walks and he gets to age 50 or so years so he meets
Oscar's stringent requirements in every way. He has a sort of Gumpian and
Rain Man innocence even when he's "playing" arrogant and nasty at the
beginning of the film. You just can't help but sort of love him even when
he's an ass. At all times, Howard and Crowe make sure his darkest traits
never play too dark; he's artificial and a television conception from the
moment we meet him. Nash's courtship with his future wife is poorly written
and often gooey so there is little chemistry that ever ensues in the early
scenes of them getting to know each other.
Which makes Jennifer Connelly's performance even more remarkable. Somehow,
somewhere along the way, Connelly makes the pain of dealing with a
non-functional husband feel real and significant. Against all odds, against
a screenplay that doesn't give her almost anything at all, against a
director whose every impulse is toward safety and artificiality, Connelly
breaks through in terrific ways. She's the best thing about the movie --
hands down -- and a star in the making. Given the crap she must wade
through, the performance is nothing short of amazing.
But Howard and company make sure the film has everything going against it
for anyone with taste. Predictably, the movie ends with Nash winning the
Nobel Prize and delivering a TV-movie-of-the-week speech intended to pull
at the heartstrings. It violates every "reality" we have come to know about
the character. That's how bad TV-actors-turned-directors operate: At a
climatic scene, they let their heroes say or do anything to get an unsubtle
audience effect even if it cuts completely against the character we've --
ahem -- come to know.
I've gone on long enough. (I know, too long). Maybe I'm the one who has the
diseased mind. But at the risk of sounding arrogant and elitist, I am
dumbfounded by the idea that people believe this pre-fabricated Oscar junk
is a great movie or anything remotely better than what can be found on bad
cable television day in and day out. That there is a school of thought out
there (and a lot of award hardware) indicating this is cinema to be taken
seriously leaves me very dejected to say the least.
Mike Isaacs
Rollie Essex
but maybe you should just relax a little. We all have movies that are widely
described as "great," but that we find dreadful. For example, the longest
year of my life was the two hours I spent suffering through "The English
Patient." I was (and remain) astonished and annoyed that so many people
thought this was a great movie, but life goes on ...
"Mike Isaacs" <isaac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a31m70$r7f$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
ChiaCow9
This review expresses exactly I feel- except worded much more convincingly. He
is not taking the film too seriously- I can't believe that this completely
unchallenging film is taking home the Best Picture awards.
I found the "hallucination twist" very offensive.
I found the emotional scenes forced
The ending was a repulsive way to tie-up loose-ends nice and neatly
Such emotional reactions wee terrible placed(Connelly's anger release in the
bathroom was too soon, too sudden, too awkward)
It is an average film at best, but nothing special.
mike
>
> I've gone on long enough. (I know, too long). Maybe I'm the one who has the
> diseased mind. But at the risk of sounding arrogant and elitist, I am
> dumbfounded by the idea that people believe this pre-fabricated Oscar junk
> is a great movie or anything remotely better than what can be found on bad
> cable television day in and day out. That there is a school of thought out
> there (and a lot of award hardware) indicating this is cinema to be taken
> seriously leaves me very dejected to say the least.
>
> Mike Isaacs
I agree with you. I too gave it a chance, thinking maybe it would be a
daring look into the mind of a schizo(I don't know hat gave me that
idea, since its a Ron Howard film. Fight Club is much braver and
better at that aspect) -- and I was pissed to find that its just
simply more Oscar bait swill. I'm surprised this isn't a Miramax
flick. I can't stand anymore of these fucking movies that are made and
timed specifically for one purpose -- a little gold statue.
Concerning Crowe -- Three or four years ago(LA Confidential time), I
was dying for someone to recognize his great work, now I wish everyone
would forget about him.
Concerning Oscars --Golden Globes and Oscars are all about the safest,
most non-threatening choices that can be made. Look at 1999 --
American Beauty, best picture. When that TV melodrama came out all the
fucking braindead sheep in mainstream America were like "Baaaaah, edgy
family drama, baaaaaaah. Me vanguard cinema goer now, baaaah" Those
same people would choke on a truly daring and smart film like
"Election" -- which nobody saw. I don't know 3 people who even saw it.
What am I talking about? I must go make a cheese sandwich now.
Mike
A Better Chungking_Cash
You and everyone else who claims whatever is popular with people is
horrible cinema and writes paragraph after paragraph on a soapbox
ranting how terrible a film like "A Beautiful Mind" is. Last year was
no different when I read posts claiming "Almost Famous," "Traffic,"
"Crouching Tiger...," or "Requiem for a Dream" (to name only a few)
was "the worst film I have ever seen."
I wonder what kind of films these same people enjoy if those listed
above are so terrible? Even the most overrated films I have seen in
this last year ("Memento," "Muholland Drive") are still decent films.
God-awful cinema is "The Exorcist II: The Heretic" or "The Waterboy."
"A Beautiful Mind" hardly qualifies if you know anything about good
filmmaking.
Kevin FilmNutBoy
after each paragraph.
--Kevin
***
"To you, I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the loyal opposition."
Kevin FilmNutBoy
He didn't claim it was the worst film he's ever seen. He said it was phony,
treacley Oscar bait. He's right. Opie wanted his chance to Shine.
And YOU'd agree if "you knew anything about good filmmaking." So there.
SDM
movie loses focus on Nash and his wife and starts meandering from the
sixties up to the nineties. Crowe's brilliant in a much better part than he
won last year's Oscar for, Connelly's excellent as "the wife", Paul Bettany
(?) is good in the Jude Law role, and I always like the sleazy charm Josh
Lucas brings to his characters (especially in "The Deep End").
The fact that the movie withholds the identities of some of its
characters was fine by me. It would have been annoying to identify each and
every one of them as they appeared; and besides the point if you're trying
to portray the insidious nature of Nash's problem. I don't see much of a
connection to "The Matrix" in this film though, not like "Fight Club". Do
you mean the fact that Neo's entire world is illusory?
The scene that irked me as contrived, made-for-TV dreck was the baby
bathing one, not the one with the young student, who I never mistook for
being something that he wasn't (The library wasn't empty in that scene
either. They met in Nash's little corner of the place, then Nash went over
to a table where you could see other students in the background). I thought
they would at least double crossed the audience's expectations and had the
kid be perfectly safe while Nash was having an emergency of his own.
Mike Isaacs
talks about some of the severe criticisms I have of the film. It doesn't
simply draw a conclusion lambasting anyone who disagrees with what's deemed
popular by mainstream audiences or critics these days without a shred of a
response about the movie itself.
As for our disagreement over the scene at the end: Perhaps I should have
written more clearly. Whether there were people in the library or not, the
movie purposefully isolates the two characters. I strongly believe its
intention was to create confusion in the audience about Nash's new admirer.
Howard goes out of his way to make us realize there is no one else around to
witness the student talking to the Nash, which is why we get the following
dismal scene of Connelly witnessing Crowe not only working with that student
but other kids as well.
There are all kinds of different ways to portray mental illness. To do so
honestly is certainly not an easy feat. But any notion that this movie is
excused for confusing its audience because that emulates the way Nash is
confused is completely unconvincing. That reasoning suggests Howard can
throw tired, banal crap at the audience for an hour and then make the case
that everything is excusable because it never really happened.
The Howard gimmick plays as unconvincing justification for some very lazy,
tired ways to jack up the audience. Furthermore, it nor anything else in the
movie offers any fresh insight into the character of Nash or the state of
mental illness in general.
Howard's best movie, "Apollo 13," works because the director gets out of
the way of the material and makes a key decision: He doesn't rush over the
story or artificially heighten it with gimmicks. Just the opposite. "Apollo
13" goes to the trouble of taking a complexity -- how to get the astronauts
home -- and detailing the solutions so they are understandable to audiences.
The movie is fascinating in that it doesn't talk down to us but it's often
enlightening about a very specific dilemma.
"ABM" takes the opposite approach. It would have been far more difficult,
grant you, to play straight with the audience and try to make a movie about
mental illness that doesn't rely on hollow gimmickry. For that matter, it
also would have been more rewarding and more challenging had Howard tried to
show what Nash's genius was about and the advances he made in the world of
mathematics and economics. But the movie has little interest in
accomplishing either of these feats: it's only after the audience's response
and it's willing to get it in the easiest ways possible.
If you want to see a disease-movie that plays straight with the audience,
take a look at the wonderful "Lorenzo's Oil,'' which I know is not about a
mental illness but it's certainly about a debilitating disease. It's a
harrowing, painful movie that most audiences ignored and that Oscar didn't
even wink at let alone embrace as it soon will "A Beautiful Mind." But here
was a film that transcended at every turn easy sentimentality and artificial
filmmaking. It fascinated and enlightened by respecting its audience enough
to educate straightforwardly about the disease being suffered and the raw
pain and desperation of those victimized by it.
Again, I could go on and on some more, but suffice to say "A Beautiful Mind"
simply never begins to have the courage or desire to take this approach. Or
the artistic honesty and integrity for that matter.
Mike Isaacs
"SDM" <smros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u59l0qq...@corp.supernews.com...
WLL
>daring look into the mind of a schizo(I don't know hat gave me that
>idea, since its a Ron Howard film. Fight Club is much braver and
>better at that aspect) -- and I was pissed to find that its just
>simply more Oscar bait swill. I'm surprised this isn't a Miramax
>flick. I can't stand anymore of these fucking movies that are made and
>timed specifically for one purpose -- a little gold statue.
I really really wish they made more movies like the "Fight Club". A Beautiful
Mind was hard to stay awake to, except for Jennifer Connelly, but even that got
boring quick. Seemed like a documentary would have been more appropriate than
a full length feature. This kind of stuff however is what critics thirst for.
I actually enjoyed "Brotherhood of the Wol"f way more than a "Beautiful Mind"
and "Black Hawk Down". In fact the cable special on the Black Hawk Down
incident I saw after the movie was more interesting than the movie really.
Not a bad movie at all, but after sitting thru it it would have been fine as a
documentary on the history channel or HBO.
Peace!
-----------------------------
visit http://www.wyndelllong.com/
-film, art, free mp3's & stuff -
Melquiades
>As for our disagreement over the scene at the end: Perhaps I should have
>written more clearly. Whether there were people in the library or not, the
>movie purposefully isolates the two characters. I strongly believe its
>intention was to create confusion in the audience about Nash's new admirer.
>Howard goes out of his way to make us realize there is no one else around to
>witness the student talking to the Nash, which is why we get the following
>dismal scene of Connelly witnessing Crowe not only working with that student
>but other kids as well.
That scene was definitely played as Mike describes it. We're supposed to
wonder (fear) whether the kid is real or not, and be uplifted along with Mrs.
Nash when we discover he is.
Bob
WLL wrote:
>
>
> I really really wish they made more movies like the "Fight Club". A Beautiful
> Mind was hard to stay awake to, except for Jennifer Connelly, but even that got
> boring quick.
Very interesting. I felt just the opposite. I found "Fight Club to be a crashing
bore ( Truly. I "crashed" [ fell asleep] during the film. ). ABM held my
attention closely, and I found it a fascinating film.
Which only goes to prove "Each to their own".
Bob
SDM
> wonder (fear) whether the kid is real or not, and be uplifted along with
Mrs.
> Nash when we discover he is.
Then I misjudged it, because at first I thought it was going to be a set
up for the kid to accuse Nash of plagiarising his ideas to ressurect his
career, which would have been torture to sit through.
Thomas Andrews
"Melquiades" <cla...@mindspring.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:a33hvc$79u$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Bzzzt. We are shown the character, and we are meant to wonder if he is
real,
but Mrs. Nash is never (at least on screen) shown as knowing about this
person.
Her relief was not that the student was real, but that Nash has finally
started
interacting with people on a relatively casual basis - that he is breaking
his
isolation.
=thomas
Melquiades
Correct... both the audience and Mrs. Nash are uplifted/relieved, but for
different reasons.
A Better Chungking_Cash
> treacley Oscar bait.
However, posters like Issac and yourself still fit into the same vein
as these people who think every film is "crap." If I'm not mistaken he
used the term "God-awful" to describe "A Beautiful Mind" which was a
very good film. Because Ron Howard did not elaborate more on John
Nash's other hallucinations (like aliens) and his homosexual liasons,
this some how makes "A Beautiful Mind" a phony God-awful film?
He must hate every film ever made that was based on actual events.
> And YOU'd agree if "you knew anything about good filmmaking." So there.
Your comebacks are so sharp and whitty you should consider a career in
stand-up with that kind of brilliant rhetoric. Here, bust a filmnut on
this...
Rollie Essex
"ChiaCow9" <chia...@aol.com>
Well, OK. I enjoyed it, but to each his/her own. My point wasn't that the
movie was bad or good but rather referred to the seemingly tortured and
tormented tone of the post. I only meant that it really isn't worth making
yourself miserable because a movie you think is terrible -- or just so-so --
is reaping raves and awards. It's going to happen from time to time if you
go to the movies a lot. I guess it's understandable if you think the movie's
popularity is a symptom of some social trend or behavior that you find
abhorrent, but if the objections are purely artistic ... rage and despair
seem a bit over the top.
Mike Isaacs
but that doesn't negate what I'm saying. By the audience seeing Mrs. Nash
seeing her hubby with the kids and others, it coinfirms for us that no -- he
ain't imagining things again. That he has taken a slide -- just the
opposoite. So we're uplifted by that "reality" and Mrs. Nash is uplifted and
the music is uplifting and it's all just an orgy of uplift. A cheap, easy
gimmick to be sure.
Mike Isaacs
"Thomas Andrews" <tho...@best.com> wrote in message
news:9gh58.43$1F2....@sea-read.news.verio.net...
Mike Isaacs
passionate about movies and that's why it's so distressing to see artificial
banality like this regarded as serious art. After a detailed post about
major problems I've had with the movie, you've yet to respond to any points
raised. The position you seem to take is that I'm at fault because I've
knocked a popular, highly-praised film from its pedestal. How dare I? I'd
love to hear how you've decided that I think every film is crap.
On another note, I stand by the assertion that much of "ABM" is God awful,
because I think it is. And I also believe that the community of cultural
criticisim in the last 20 years has eroded away to such a degree that we now
hold up as great movies what never would have passed as even good movies in
a better day and age.
Mike Isaacs
"A Better Chungking_Cash" <to_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:19717407.02012...@posting.google.com...
ron salvatore
>> He didn't claim it was the worst film he's ever seen. He said it was
>phony,
>> treacley Oscar bait.
>
>However, posters like Issac and yourself still fit into the same vein
>as these people who think every film is "crap." If I'm not mistaken he
>used the term "God-awful" to describe "A Beautiful Mind" which was a
>very good film. Because Ron Howard did not elaborate more on John
>Nash's other hallucinations (like aliens) and his homosexual liasons,
>this some how makes "A Beautiful Mind" a phony God-awful film?
The point isn't that it ignores his "other" hallucinations, but that it turns
his illness into an X-Files episode, complete with espionage, a shoot out, a
car chase and a Sixth Sense-style twist. It's a movie that assumes its audience
won't be interested in the man's illness and his personality, and so it brushes
a lot of this material aside in favor of thriller elements. I'm sorry, but it
does.
Sure, the espionage stuff serves to suck viewers into Nash's madness, but is it
not a cheap and "phony" ploy? I believe it is. Nash was a fascinating, complex
man, and A Beautiful Mind trivializes him and his illness.
ron
Mike Isaacs
this movie. It is a frustration over just what you describe: "the movie's
popularity (being) a symptom of some (cultural) trend." We are so far
removed from serious film criticism now, so ready to embrace the safest and
least daring stuff that it has become distressing. At one time, young
American directors such as Martin Scorsese and Robert Altman and Francis
Coppola and Brian De Palma (and others) made movies that mattered in voices
that had never been heard in quite the same way before and their films felt
relevant to everyday life (as opposed to bad television dramas) and
insightful critics did them justice with insight and sharp writing that is
all but impossible to find now. It certainly feels like a different time in
American film now -- actually in American culture now -- and not for the
better IMHO. And I couldn't agree with you more about "The English Patient"
by the way.
Mike Isaacs
"Rollie Essex" <ess...@home.com> wrote in message
news:TJo58.8018$X64.3...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>> He didn't claim it was the worst film he's ever seen. He said it was
>phony,
>> treacley Oscar bait.
>
>However, posters like Issac and yourself still fit into the same vein
>as these people who think every film is "crap." If I'm not mistaken he
>used the term "God-awful" to describe "A Beautiful Mind" which was a
>very good film. Because Ron Howard did not elaborate more on John
>Nash's other hallucinations (like aliens) and his homosexual liasons,
>this some how makes "A Beautiful Mind" a phony God-awful film?
>
>He must hate every film ever made that was based on actual events.
Probably only the bad films.
>> And YOU'd agree if "you knew anything about good filmmaking." So there.
>
>Your comebacks are so sharp and whitty you should consider a career in
>stand-up with that kind of brilliant rhetoric. Here, bust a filmnut on
>this...
If my comeback seemed insipid, it was because I was quoting your own words back
to you.
The Capt
> I am
> passionate about movies and that's why it's so distressing to see
artificial
> banality like this regarded as serious art. After a detailed post about
> major problems I've had with the movie, you've yet to respond to any
points
> raised. The position you seem to take is that I'm at fault because I've
> knocked a popular, highly-praised film from its pedestal.
Whoa!!!! Do you actually believe that you have moved this movie one micro
from it's pedestal because of your one little ranting newsgroup post? I may
also agree with you about some of your criticism of ABM, but I also know
that my opinion is just that, opinion. And it effects the opinion of the
folks in the film industry who have the real power not one wit. If they read
a torrent of Internet posts (which they most likely do not) expressing a
negative critique, maybe they would rethink their selections... for about as
long as it takes to read the latest box-office grosses.
>
> On another note, I stand by the assertion that much of "ABM" is God awful,
> because I think it is. And I also believe that the community of cultural
> criticisim in the last 20 years has eroded away to such a degree that we
now
> hold up as great movies what never would have passed as even good movies
in
> a better day and age.
Remember now..... that's YOUR opinion. Don't expect that it will move the
mountains in the direction that YOU want. Other folks just might think you
are wrong....
A Better Chungking_Cash
> passionate about movies and that's why it's so distressing to see artificial
> banality like this regarded as serious art.
My point was is that if you think "A Beautiful Mind" is a God-awful
film, than I seriously question your passion for film. Each person is
entitled to their own opinion and I firmly believe that you have every
right to feel the way you do, but to call the film as a whole
"God-awful" shows a lack of knowing what the art of filmmaking is.
Point in case: "A Beautiful Mind" has recieved outstanding reviews by
professional film critics and some very good audience reactions.
>After a detailed post about
> major problems I've had with the movie, you've yet to respond to any points
> raised.
I read your post from top to bottom and found it was nothing more than
soapbox rants Mike and I just didn't feel like responding to most of
it. One poster even suggested you lighten up a little--good call.
>The position you seem to take is that I'm at fault because I've
> knocked a popular, highly-praised film from its pedestal.
Not all, ever since March of 2001 I have been battling people who
think "Memento" is the greatest film of the year. Before that it was
the gratutiously overrated "The Matrix." I don't mind that you didn't
like "A Beautiful Mind," again to each their own--I didn't like
"Memento"--which has caused several arguments here. What got me was
that you described "A Beautiful Mind" as "God-awful" like it was
"Freddy Got Fingered" or something.
>How dare I? I'd
> love to hear how you've decided that I think every film is crap.
I never did make that assumption. I clearly stated in another post
that you fit into the same vein as the posters who HATE everything
that is popular on the big screen these days and post huge rants about
it. It's amazing that it was impossible for you to find anything good
about the film.
>And I also believe that the community of cultural
> criticisim in the last 20 years has eroded away to such a degree that we now
> hold up as great movies what never would have passed as even good movies in
> a better day and age.
And I would certainly agree with you on this point Mike, though I
enjoyed "A Beautiful Mind" quite a bit. I think Hollywood has been in
a slump for a long time, but the new millenium has been the worst.
Notice how popular foreign films are this year? Most Top 10 lists have
a good number of them in the top 10 or under runners up ("Ameros
Perros," "In the Mood for Love," ect.)
I also believe that people have taken "good" films and praised them as
masterpieces ("Lord of the Rings") and have taken deeply flawed films
and regarded them as great entertainment ("Memento").
A Better Chungking_Cash
> his illness into an X-Files episode, complete with espionage, a shoot out, a
> car chase and a Sixth Sense-style twist. It's a movie that assumes its audience
> won't be interested in the man's illness and his personality, and so it brushes
> a lot of this material aside in favor of thriller elements. I'm sorry, but it
> does.
>
> Sure, the espionage stuff serves to suck viewers into Nash's madness, but is it
> not a cheap and "phony" ploy? I believe it is. Nash was a fascinating, complex
> man, and A Beautiful Mind trivializes him and his illness.
I guess I just didn't have the same reaction Ron. I've tried to do a
little research on the real John Nash, Jr. and find out what all went
on with his illness and homosexual affiars, but I haven't found much.
My mom told me she read an article about it in the newspaper...but she
still loves the movie unconditionally.
A Better Chungking_Cash
Which had nothing to do with my point: if you can only quote back what
I just said (and add "so there") than you shouldn't have wasted my
time with a response at all.
PSmith9626
I know Nash and I agree.
But no other movie has expressed what math research is like as well as this.
best
penny
>Nash was a fascinating, complex
>man, and A Beautiful Mind trivializes him and his illness.
I think that right after he teaches his MIT class, they started to make a
different movie. I wish they had not.
Ne plus Ultra--John Nash
PSmith9626
There is an excellent book with the same title as the movie by Sylvia Nasar.
Read that.
best
penny
Mike Isaacs
> film, than I seriously question your passion for film. Each person is
> entitled to their own opinion and I firmly believe that you have every
> right to feel the way you do, but to call the film as a whole
> "God-awful" shows a lack of knowing what the art of filmmaking is.
> Point in case: "A Beautiful Mind" has recieved outstanding reviews by
> professional film critics and some very good audience reactions.
And my point is the fact that the movie has received outstanding reviews
from today's critics means little in refuting that it's a God awful movie.
Gee, Richard Roeper thought it was great so anyone who doesn't -- or even
think this film is pretty dreadful -- doesn't know film? The great critic
Pauline Kael (and no, I'm not comparing myself to Pauline Kael) blasted with
all the passion she could muster the following movies: "Terms of
Endearment," "Dances with Wolves," "Ordinary People," "Field of Dreams,"
"The Exorcist" and I could go on and on. All of these movies "received
outstanding reviews by professional film critics" -- whatever that means --
and yet I don't think she would have any problem labeling each one of these
pictures "God-Awful." Did Kael know anything about the art of filmmaking?
If you disagree with my rant, as you call it, that's fine. But holding up
some insane idea that anyone who believes this Ron Howard tripe is
God-Awful must not know filmmaking is terribly unimaginative. What you've
done -- whether intentional or not -- is attempt to marginalize any thinking
outside the box. And this box has been created by a group of dubious TV-type
critics who fight each other for the most banal accolades so they can appear
on the ads.
>
> I read your post from top to bottom and found it was nothing more than
> soapbox rants Mike and I just didn't feel like responding to most of
> it. One poster even suggested you lighten up a little--good call.
I accept your insult if that's how you feel. It was a rant. It also included
far more than just a rant saying I hated the movie. It talked about WHY I
hated the movie. A quick sample: It talked about the artificiality of the
gimmick; the omission of any darkness from the book; the contrived Russell
Crowe performance; the simplistic way TV directors tend to make movies (with
examples provided); the ending that was played completely out of character
from the character we had seen for the last couple of hours. These are just
some examples of what was in that rant and any of these points were points
to which you could have responded. You didn't. If you didn't like the tone
or you felt the rant was elitist, I can certainly accept that. As another
poster suggested, it was just an opinion. But it also had many points to
which fans of this movie could have responded. Your only point still seems
to come down to this: Anyone who believes this movie is God-awful doesn't
know film. That's as ridiculous as the movie we've been talking about.
Mike Isaacs
Moulin Nicole
"Mike Isaacs" <isaac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news>
> He has a sort of Gumpian and
> Rain Man innocence even when he's "playing" arrogant and nasty at the
> beginning of the film. You just can't help but sort of love him even when
> he's an ass. At all times, Howard and Crowe make sure his darkest traits
> never play too dark; he's artificial and a television conception from the
> moment we meet him. Nash's courtship with his future wife is poorly written
> and often gooey so there is little chemistry that ever ensues in the early
> scenes of them getting to know each other.
>
> Which makes Jennifer Connelly's performance even more remarkable. Somehow,
> somewhere along the way, Connelly makes the pain of dealing with a
> non-functional husband feel real and significant. Against all odds, against
> a screenplay that doesn't give her almost anything at all, against a
> director whose every impulse is toward safety and artificiality, Connelly
> breaks through in terrific ways. She's the best thing about the movie --
> hands down -- and a star in the making. Given the crap she must wade
> through, the performance is nothing short of amazing.
>
> But Howard and company make sure the film has everything going against it
> for anyone with taste. Predictably, the movie ends with Nash winning the
> Nobel Prize and delivering a TV-movie-of-the-week speech intended to pull
> at the heartstrings. It violates every "reality" we have come to know about
> the character. That's how bad TV-actors-turned-directors operate: At a
> climatic scene, they let their heroes say or do anything to get an unsubtle
> audience effect even if it cuts completely against the character we've --
> ahem -- come to know.
>
> I've gone on long enough. (I know, too long). Maybe I'm the one who has the
> diseased mind. But at the risk of sounding arrogant and elitist, I am
> dumbfounded by the idea that people believe this pre-fabricated Oscar junk
> is a great movie or anything remotely better than what can be found on bad
> cable television day in and day out. That there is a school of thought out
> there (and a lot of award hardware) indicating this is cinema to be taken
> seriously leaves me very dejected to say the least.
>
> Mike Isaacs
Rollie Essex
to, with Scorsese, Coppola, etc., was a fairly brief one in the long history
of movies, no? Aren't you basically talking about the 1970's? The '70's were
a weird decade in many ways. Trust me; I was there. Perhaps a variety of
factors coalesced during those years to produce the conditions you describe
and are unlikely to do so again. It may be unreasonable to imagine that
movies and film criticism can return to the same style and pattern, absent
the same set of social circumstances. What I mean is that perhaps you are
crying out for a past that cannot be recreated, not unlike those who mourn
the "good old days" of major-league baseball, rock-and-roll, or a variety of
other things that have changed and can't change back.
In any case, I assume you realize that your particular passion -- which you
are certainly entitled to hold -- is one of a distinct minority of the
movie-going public. People flocked to "The Godfather" and "Taxi Driver"
because they were entertaining movies, not because a small coterie of
critics had labeled them as great art.
"Mike Isaacs" <isaac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a35bf1$e9f$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Jim Powers
PSmith9626 wrote:
> dear ron,
> I know Nash and I agree.
> But no other movie has expressed what math research is like as well as this.
>
I only have an undergraduate degree in math and thus can scarcely imagine the
level at which Nash was working, but I felt this film had the ring of truth about
it. I found "Good Will Hunting" totally unconvincing in its suggestion that an
undisciplined and rebellious street kid could attain the frontiers of mathematical
achievement with nothing but native talent and a bit of self-study.
Kevin FilmNutBoy
Rottentomatoes.com lists at least 20 negative reviews for ABM. (My fave:
Charles Taylor at salon.com calls ABM "The biggest load of hooey to stink up
the screen this year.")
And many of the positive reviews aren't exactly raves.
>Your only point still seems
>to come down to this: Anyone who believes this movie is God-awful doesn't
>know film. That's as ridiculous as the movie we've been talking about.
Chunking seems to be one of those who either a) can't stand minority opinions,
or b) can't stand it when someone pans a movie he likes. Amusing.
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>>How dare I? I'd
>> love to hear how you've decided that I think every film is crap.
>
>I never did make that assumption. I clearly stated in another post
>that you fit into the same vein as the posters who HATE everything
>that is popular on the big screen these days and post huge rants about
>it. It's amazing that it was impossible for you to find anything good
>about the film.
He calls Connelly's performance "remarkable," "terrific," and "amazing." Maybe
he should have used a lot of exclamation points, so you wouldn't miss it.
Mike Isaacs
"Kevin FilmNutBoy" <filmn...@aol.commode> wrote in message
news:20020129222341...@mb-cs.aol.com...
> "Mike Isaacs" isaac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Rottentomatoes.com lists at least 20 negative reviews for ABM. (My fave:
> Charles Taylor at salon.com calls ABM "The biggest load of hooey to stink
up
> the screen this year.")
>
> And many of the positive reviews aren't exactly raves.
I especially liked the one that came from a Houston paper; it's an
unapologetic, angry rant that apparently made the reviewer who saw the movie
equally angry. Reading it made me feel as though maybe there is some sanity
in the world after all. I enjoyed the review so much, forgive me for
positing it here:
Mike Isaacs
-----
----------------------------
*1/2
Rated PG-13
(for language, sexual content,
and a scene of violence)
John Nash: Russell Crowe
Alicia Nash: Jennifer Connelly
William Parcher: Ed Harris
Charles: Paul Bettany
Hansen: Josh Lucas
Sol: Adam Goldberg
Dr. Rosen: Christopher Plummer
Directed by Ron Howard. Produced by Brian Grazer and Ron Howard.
Screenplay by Akiva Goldsman; inspired by events in the life of John Nash.
Distributed by Universal Pictures. Running time: 125 minutes.
Release date: December 21, 2001.
;;
LOONEY TUNE
A Beautiful Mind is a terrible thing to waste.your money and time on.
Because it's a piece of crap. What? How can that be? This is getting Oscar
buzz! It's released in late December! It has Russell Crowe! It's being cited
in critics' awards lists! It's directed by Opie! Yep, it has all the
sure-fire elements of an Oscar contender. And Universal Pictures is crossing
their fingers that everyone will be a sucker for that formula. You're
reading one guy who's not.
Moreover, I'll go out on a limb and actually say that Oscar himself won't be
suckered. The Little Golden Guy doesn't always pick the best movies each
year, but he doesn't fall for pandering either (well, unless it's pedaled by
Miramax). Although getting pre-release hype because of the players involved,
don't count on Academy members being duped by this screaming grasp at Oscar
glory.
Academy members may have middlebrow standards, but they ain't stupid. This
is blatant histrionic mugging directed squarely at Oscar voters and I'll be
shocked (and disappointed) if they fall for it. Update: given the mounting
January buzz, it appears I need to brace for a serious jolt.
As I sat in that screening room-which, for two hours, was a torture
chamber-a song began to loop in my mind. Mary J. Blige's "No More Drama"
suddenly popped up and wouldn't leave. (You know, kind of like Tom Cruise
and "Good Vibrations" in Vanilla Sky.) Easy Freudian analysis would suggest
that it was an involuntary coping mechanism kicking in so as to deal with
the fact that I had sat through way too much drama. This movie was about to
drive me insane (how wickedly apropos, given the subject matter).
Unfortunately even that did little to pacify my irritated sensibilities
because A Beautiful Mind still drove me up a wall. This isn't just bad, it's
embarrassing. Everything is performed in extremes to the point where the
actual story plays second fiddle to unrepentant "look at me" hysterics. The
script is merely a starting point to set up opportunities for emotional
outbursts, tirades, and literal gnashing of teeth. At it's mildest, A
Beautiful Mind is an eye-roller. At its worst-from Crowe being dragged down
a hall kicking, screaming, and slobbering to Jennifer Connelly throwing a
glass up against a bathroom wall while shrieking in anger-it's
cringe-inducing.
One of the many claims to self-importance A Beautiful Mind makes is that it'
s "inspired by true events". The key word here is "inspired", followed
closely by "events". When "inspired" is used in lieu of "based on", that
means the filmmakers have basically taken the premise-the kernel-of truth
and then just went ahead and wrote their own fiction.
"Events" further emphasizes this fact. That word replaces "story" because
the story we eventually see up on screen really didn't happen. It's not
true. It's a bogus one formed from the loosely assembled amalgam of actual
occurrences. In other words, let's take the fascinating basis of John Nash's
life but then rewrite his otherwise boring account (well, boring in shallow
terms of Hollywood blockbuster requirements) into a psychological
thriller/love story/disability melodrama/Oscar wannabe.
A Beautiful Mind is a gross example of how by-the- numbers business guile
railroads material with strong potential. That's how usually reliable
artists end up making garbage like this; it's how they ruin something which,
at its core, is pretty intriguing. The primary inspirations for these
filmmakers and studio heads are easy dollar signs and a possible spot in
Oscar history. Which, truth be told, is just another attempt at free
marketing. So as to make more money. Sadly, I'm sure there'll be enough
business to validate their formula and schlock like this will continue to
churn through the studio assembly line. Oh, more of this-I can't wait.
Okay, it's time to turn this rant into a review. Opening in the 1950s, a
young John Nash (for which Russell Crowe is a little long in the tooth for)
enters into an Ivy League education via a scholarship. The guy, while odd,
is a mathematical genius. Yes, genius-to the point that he disproves and
redefines one of the foundational principles of mathematics. In true
"inspired" fashion, the impetus for this revelation is a failed attempt at
picking up chicks at a bar (talk about scripted). Anyway, the guy's smart.
However, he must also be made into a lovable underdog too. That's why these
early college years play out like a glorified high school scenario. Nash-our
hero-is a timid social leper who's mocked by the "cool" students, led by the
most snobby popular guy of the bunch. Predictably, Nash eventually shows the
snob up and earns everyone's respect. It's a cheap, easy archetypal
storyline that has been done far too often.
Just as the story gets off on the wrong foot, so does Crowe's John Nash.
Both crash into the same dead end wall, too. Part Rainman, part Gump, with a
weird quasi-accent that's too mannered and rehearsed, there's nothing
natural or believable about the performance delivered here by last year's
Oscar winning actor. He acts the idiot savant/social goof role, but he never
internalizes it. It's a performance entirely on the surface. We never lose
sight of the fact that we're watching Russell Crowe act. It's not John Nash
curling his lip or twitching his hand; it's Crowe using obvious physical
ticks rather than subtle, absorbing subtext.
Likewise, the entire film is simultaneously too flashy yet uncreative. A
good example: blurry swirling shots race around Crowe so as to put us
"inside" his swirling mind. James Horner's pensive/inspiring score
accentuates this elementary symbolism via camera movement. Audio-enhanced
edits further expose the bald-faced attempts at audience manipulation. Ron
Howard has the right stylistic ideas but he exercises no restraint. Indeed,
he seems to be going for the jugular in every scene. His direction is style
pretentiously masquerading as substance; it's too much. It makes for a slick
production, but artistically it's as obvious and insulting as the
mechanically plotted screenplay.
And speaking of screenplay, you have to start with the history of its
infamous writer: Akiva Goldsman. With such wieners as Batman & Robin and
Practical Magic to his credit, Goldsman's either writing bad action movies
failing to pass as cool or bad melodramas failing to pass as serious. With
contrived set-ups, forced relationships, and overly-scripted dialogue,
soliloquies, and orations, this is clearly the latter. Aside from one
well-conceived turn, this has all the heartless calculation of a Syd Field
screenplay.
Take the compulsory love thread as an example. Nash is a professor no one
likes but he's asked out by a hottie student (does Jennifer Connelly ever
age?) with no establishing reason or attraction. She just, well, struts into
his office real cute like and asks him out on a date. He goes from his wall
of coldness to shy smiles and physical twitching and we're all supposed to
sigh, "Ooooooh, how adorable." Whatever.
The scene just happens because the script needs it to. The film must have
its love story but the filmmakers don't have the patience to develop it. He'
s the lead, she's the babe, and we're just supposed to swallow as it's
crammed down our throats. Sorry. Not this throat.
As alluded to earlier, there's actually an attention-grabbing turn halfway
through. It's the film's lone moment of creativity and distinction. But
sadly, as with everything else in this farce, it's mishandled and the film
just goes from bad to worse. The turn only makes one angrier as the
realization hits how good this film actually could've been. Unfortunately
the filmmakers didn't trust their material or the intelligence of their
audience so we end up with a great premise laughably executed.
It'd be easy to lay all the blame squarely at Goldsman's feet, a man whose
reputation is already the stuff of jokes. But in reality this is a team
effort. Everyone's at fault- Crowe, Howard, the whole lot-and that's the sad
and surprising truth.
The film ends with a clichéd finale in front of a huge crowd where the hero
nutshells the sappy theme-already bludgeoned over our battered heads-in a
speech of eloquence that's supposed to move us to tears, inspire us to rise
to our feet, and applaud.just like Nash's audience does to a perfectly cued
soaring orchestra. Said sappy theme is that our problems can't be solved by
the mind or by logic, but only by our-gasp!-hearts. Sniffle, tear, and puke.
What a shameful and shameless attempt at tear-jerking.
I sure hope this isn't the point in Ron Howard's career where he falls into
that gawd-awful maudlin-morphing pit that Rob Reiner succumbed to in the
early 90s. That slow but sad descent was painful to watch. I dread having to
endure something like that again.
PSmith9626
That is correct. Ramanujian did well, but he worked like hell. To make it in
math you need talent and lots of intense work.
best
penny
>I found "Good Will Hunting" totally unconvincing in its suggestion that an
>undisciplined and rebellious street kid could attain the frontiers of
>mathematical
>achievement with nothing but native talent and a bit of self-study
I completely agree.
Annasplace
worth watching. I like movies--some are great (to me), some are "middlin' ",
and some are awful. There are many that are not great (to me) but that I like
anyway. I'm probably out of the mainstream on great art, so I will just
continue on--going to see movies that may or may not be great, but enjoyable
nonetheless.
Anna
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>Whew--I'm glad I'm not a serious film buff! Oh the pressure to find a film
>worth watching.
It's a thankless task, but someone's got to do it. Or else people like Opie
and Penny Marshall and Jerry Bruckheimer and Ridley Scott and Michael Bay and
George Lucas and Todd McNeeley will take over the world.
Maybe it's too late. Maybe they already have.
Viva la resistance!
Polar
wrote:
You're brave, Anna! Aren't you afraid to go down your driveway
at night - just in case some of our "passionate cineastes" might
be layin' for yuh!
Though not a "serious film buff" (whatever *that* is!), I spent
[censored] years in the business, and have watched the decline of
American film-making with dismay.
I see few American films because they just aren't worth watching.
And I do research my movies as carefully as possible before
spending my limited time.
See today's hilarious article in the L .A. times about when/why
moviegoers walk out.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/printedition/calendar/la-000007420jan30.story
--
Polar
A Better Chungking_Cash
How many times did I mention I was in the minority of people who
didn't like "The Matrix," "Memento," and "Muholland Drive"? as well as
being in the minority of posters who enjoyed "The Phantom Menace." At
times Kevin I am the minority!
> or b) can't stand it when someone pans a movie he likes. Amusing.
Once more, how many times did I tell Mike that he has every right to
his own opinion as I do mine? My problem is the to what degree he
loathed the film. I think that's absolutely ridiculous.
Anyways I'm not going to respond anymore. Everytime I do I have to go
digging through past 25 posts and sometimes beyond. No one cares
anymore and neither do I.
A Better Chungking_Cash
> from today's critics means little in refuting that it's a God awful movie.
> Gee, Richard Roeper thought it was great so anyone who doesn't -- or even
> think this film is pretty dreadful -- doesn't know film?
Once again Mike let me try and explain it to you...I DON'T CARE
WHETHER YOU LIKED THE FILM OR NOT I JUST THINK IT IS RIDICULOUS THAT
YOU DESCRIBED IT AS "GOD-AWFUL." In your rants I admit I missed your
praising of Jennifer Connely's performance, so I will take the heat
for that, but the direction of the film, the acting, the art
direction, the costumes, ect. were certainly above the level of
"God-awful." When you talk about filmmaking you have to look at the
film as a whole. Didn't care for the story? certainly that's debatable
but an all-around "God-awful" rating seems just too ridiculous to take
seriously.
>The great critic
>Pauline Kael (and no, I'm not comparing myself to Pauline Kael)
blasted with
> all the passion she could muster the following movies: "Terms of
> Endearment," "Dances with Wolves," "Ordinary People," "Field of Dreams,"
> "The Exorcist" and I could go on and on. All of these movies "received
> outstanding reviews by professional film critics" -- whatever that means --
> and yet I don't think she would have any problem labeling each one of these
> pictures "God-Awful." Did Kael know anything about the art of filmmaking?
I've never seen "Terms of Endearment," but yes I would question her
taste on good cinema by refering to any of the other films as
"God-awful." As a matter of fact this is one reason why I never paid
any attention to Kael because she was prone to hate just about
anything and in the case of "Dances with Wolves," "Ordinary People,"
"Field of Dreams," and especially "The Exorcist" then their's my
proof.
>What you've
> done -- whether intentional or not -- is attempt to marginalize any thinking
> outside the box. And this box has been created by a group of dubious TV-type
> critics who fight each other for the most banal accolades so they can appear
> on the ads.
Yeah, I'm nothing like that Chungking guy who thought outside of the
box on "Memento," "The Matrix," "Muholland Dr.," "Magnolia," "The
Conversation," "The Untouchables," "The Fugative," "Shadow of a
Doubt," "The Birds," and "The Big Lebowski."
>It also included far more than just a rant saying I hated the movie.
It talked >about WHY I hated the movie.
They were rants none the less and I began to get slleeeppppyyyyy.
>Your only point still seems
> to come down to this: Anyone who believes this movie is God-awful doesn't
> know film. That's as ridiculous as the movie we've been talking about.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree Mike, because I refuse to post
to this argument any longer.
A Better Chungking_Cash
> he should have used a lot of exclamation points, so you wouldn't miss it.
Perhaps you are the one who needs to read his posts closer: you
responded to the previous post of mine about how most of the reviews
are hardly raves.
Mike described them as "outstanding."
Anyways, I'm out.
Mike Isaacs
> > And my point is the fact that the movie has received outstanding reviews
> > from today's critics means little in refuting that it's a God awful
movie.
> > Gee, Richard Roeper thought it was great so anyone who doesn't -- or
even
> > think this film is pretty dreadful -- doesn't know film?
>
> Once again Mike let me try and explain it to you...I DON'T CARE
> WHETHER YOU LIKED THE FILM OR NOT I JUST THINK IT IS RIDICULOUS THAT
> YOU DESCRIBED IT AS "GOD-AWFUL."
Unbelievable. I, too, will say all of this for the last time my friend. It
just ain't worth it anymore. So this it: Why you would not try to
intelligently debate the points I and a minority of others raised to SUPPORT
why "ABM" is God-awful still escapes me. This is not a matter of whether you
care about my opinion or not; it's a matter of creating an assinine
judgemental standard that invalidates any argument outside the norm without
making any effort to show a shred of insight defending the movie. How you
don't get that is beyond me. This isn't an argument against your point of
view; it's an argument that you have no point of view. You don't try to
defend the acting, the directing, the screenplay. You have nothing to say
and no critical thinking to offer in the debate of this film.
>In your rants I admit I missed your
> praising of Jennifer Connely's performance, so I will take the heat
> for that, but the direction of the film, the acting, the art
> direction, the costumes, ect. were certainly above the level of
> "God-awful." When you talk about filmmaking you have to look at the
> film as a whole. Didn't care for the story? certainly that's debatable
> but an all-around "God-awful" rating seems just too ridiculous to take
> seriously.
Again, the label of God-awful did not stand alone in my rant. Read the post
again and try defending the contrived story, the acting, the directing, the
screenwriting. Or don't read the post again. Say anything constructive about
the movie. I had many problems with "ABM," obviously, and I went to the
effort to say what they were. To simply extract my label for the film of
"God-awful," which I still very much believe most of it is, without
responding to any of the points I raise to support that label is bankrupt of
any serious thinking. Your response to my conclusion that the film is
God-Awful may as well have been phrased this way: "Is not. All the critics
I've read say it isn't so there." I wonder if you stuck out your tongue at
me, too.
> >The great critic
> >Pauline Kael (and no, I'm not comparing myself to Pauline Kael)
> blasted with
> > all the passion she could muster the following movies: "Terms of
> > Endearment," "Dances with Wolves," "Ordinary People," "Field of Dreams,"
> > "The Exorcist" and I could go on and on. All of these movies "received
> > outstanding reviews by professional film critics" -- whatever that
means --
> > and yet I don't think she would have any problem labeling each one of
these
> > pictures "God-Awful." Did Kael know anything about the art of
filmmaking?
>
> I've never seen "Terms of Endearment," but yes I would question her
> taste on good cinema by refering to any of the other films as
> "God-awful." As a matter of fact this is one reason why I never paid
> any attention to Kael because she was prone to hate just about
> anything and in the case of "Dances with Wolves," "Ordinary People,"
> "Field of Dreams," and especially "The Exorcist" then their's my
> proof.
Let's recap you responses: In the most unthinking way possible, you have
repeated posts asserting that anyone who hates -- and for the most part, I
did HATE -- "ABM" is ridculous, but without a shred of effort to defend the
movie. Then you make arguments that contain lazy assertions that simply are
either untrue or of which you have no evidence. Examples: There was nothing
I liked at all in the film yet I spent a full paragraph praising Connelly's
performance. Oops. Your mistake. Then it's that I must hate all movies
because I hated this one although you have no evidence of how I feel about
any other movie. Oops again. Now, you've decided to take shots at a movie
critic widely regarded as one of the greatest who ever lived and have
concluded "she was prone to hate just about eveything." Oops for a third
time. That assertion is just -- well -- as wrong as wrong can be. But
getting things right doesn't seem to be much of a priority for you.
I offer for you this short list off the top of my head:: "Citizen Kane,"
"The African Queen," "The Godfather" movies, "Nashville" or almost anything
else by Altman," "Taxi Driver" and Mean Streets," "Drugstore Cowboy,"
"Moscow on the Hudson," "Carrie," Dressed to Kill," Blowout," "Jaws" and
Close Encounters of the Third Kind," "Casualties of War," "Shoot the Moon,"
"Personal Best," "Bonnie and Clyde," "The Manchurian Candidate," "Down and
Out in Beverly Hills," .. Well, I could literally name dozens and dozens and
dozens more movies Kael gave absolutely passionate raves to. I guess she
wasn't prone to hate quite everything as you claim, now was she? Do you know
anything about her reviews? But why should this post break your perfect
streak for inaccuracy? I know I'm wasting too much time on this post but
again I say this will be my last response to you. What you have said again
and again is either so untrue you should never have started writing it or so
devoid of any critical thought it just ain't worth the time I'm now taking.
>
> >What you've
> > done -- whether intentional or not -- is attempt to marginalize any
thinking
> > outside the box. And this box has been created by a group of dubious
TV-type
> > critics who fight each other for the most banal accolades so they can
appear
> > on the ads.
>
> Yeah, I'm nothing like that Chungking guy who thought outside of the
> box on "Memento," "The Matrix," "Muholland Dr.," "Magnolia," "The
> Conversation," "The Untouchables," "The Fugative," "Shadow of a
> Doubt," "The Birds," and "The Big Lebowski."
>
> >It also included far more than just a rant saying I hated the movie.
> It talked >about WHY I hated the movie.
>
> They were rants none the less and I began to get slleeeppppyyyyy.
>
> >Your only point still seems
> > to come down to this: Anyone who believes this movie is God-awful
doesn't
> > know film. That's as ridiculous as the movie we've been talking about.
>
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree Mike, because I refuse to post
> to this argument any longer.
I love debating film and I've enjoyed the passionate disagreements I've had
with many people about this film. Not with you. We haven't had a
disagreement about this film. Your unthinking, one-note notion that had
nothing to do with the film itself never rose to the level of debate. Don't
categorize this as a disagreement over the film. It gives yourself far too
much credit.
Mike Isaacs
Melquiades
>> Chunking seems to be one of those who either a) can't stand minority
> opinions,
>
>How many times did I mention I was in the minority of people who
>didn't like "The Matrix," "Memento," and "Muholland Drive"? as well as
>being in the minority of posters who enjoyed "The Phantom Menace." At
>times Kevin I am the minority!
>
>> or b) can't stand it when someone pans a movie he likes. Amusing.
>
>Once more, how many times did I tell Mike that he has every right to
>his own opinion as I do mine? My problem is the to what degree he
>loathed the film. I think that's absolutely ridiculous.
This makes no sense. You're claiming that everybody is entitled to his own
opinion, but you refuse to accept somebody's opinion if it is too extreme in
differing from your own? Can't have it both ways.
If he believed the movie was "God-awful," that's what it was for him. Just
because you found merit in the film, it IN NO WAY means he is wrong.
Bob
A Better Chungking_Cash wrote:
> .
>
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree Mike, because I refuse to post
> to this argument any longer.
Don't try to confuse Mike with facts. His mind is made up.
Bob
Mike Isaacs
Exacly what fact was stated in this thread? Please advise..
Mike Isaacs
"Bob" <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3C58C1D5...@ix.netcom.com...
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>A Better Chungking_Cash wrote:
>> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree Mike, because I refuse to post
>> to this argument any longer.
>
>Don't try to confuse Mike with facts. His mind is made up.
Bob, you're usually right, but you're 100% wrong on this one. Mike presented a
rather conventional, well-reasoned (negative) review. Chunking countered with
childish non-arguments, and not a single fact or thought out opinion.
Don't know how you missed that.
Bob
Kevin FilmNutBoy wrote:
> Bob chil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >A Better Chungking_Cash wrote:
>
> >> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree Mike, because I refuse to post
> >> to this argument any longer.
> >
> >Don't try to confuse Mike with facts. His mind is made up.
>
> Bob, you're usually right, but you're 100% wrong on this one. Mike presented a
> rather conventional, well-reasoned (negative) review. Chunking countered with
> childish non-arguments, and not a single fact or thought out opinion.
>
> Don't know how you missed that.
>
> --Kevin
>
>
MIKE? KEVIN? You are BOTH taking me far too seriously. I was just trying to
lighten up the situation with an obviously old joke. Look, its a matter of
opinion. I think ABM is one of the best films I have seen in the last several
years. Others disagree. OK. Fine. IF ABM swept every award at the Oscars, I still
wouldn't make a dime out of it. So, where does that leave us? Well, it leaves me
being misunderstood, trying to make a joke. It leaves Kevin wondering where the
hell I was coming from, and leaves Mike saying WHAT FACTS? Mike. There were no
facts. That is what I was trying to point out.
OK. Can we stop this now?
Bob
Mike Isaacs
I apologize for misinterpreting...and yes, we can stop this now.
Thanks,
Mike Isaacs
"Bob" <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3C596431...@ix.netcom.com...