“Literally, the balls are metaphorically out.” - Vern, December 2007
The best film critic on the webs has reviewed Lindsay Lohan’s opus I Know Who Killed me; and even more than usual he’s penned (or more likely typed) a masterpiece of modern film criticism.
Reading the work of Vern makes the traditional print media and Film Comment type intellectuals seem hopelessly dated. Obviously his shtick is part put-on but what’s authentic is his man on the street take on film criticism absent even the pretense of pretense; and an unorthodox but encyclopedic knowledge of film history, as told from the vantage point of the direct video racks and discount bins. Navigating by the landmarks of our cultural landscape, his humor and Hollywood outsider status is a scalpel with which to vivisects cinema. He’s the Columbo of film reviewing, in that you know when he’s on the case the bottom of it will be gotten to; bumbling his way into uncanny insight and awesome truths, inditing the guilty while exonerating the victims.
Vern makes the case that this troubled but fascinating film has been misunderstood by the superficial intelligentsia via their poor knowledge of Brian DePalma thrillers and Giallo detective stories. In typical vernesque style he manages to drift off onto a tangent eviscerating the entertainment / gossip media for all the normal shit they get get shit for but he does it with the humor, eloquence and style you wished you possessed the last time you told someone to fuck off.
“And yet year after year those fuckin morons put her on their covers, write about her on a first name basis, complain about her instead of just ignoring her, giving her more attention, more money, pretending to hate her and be sick of her. Britney, your 15 minutes is up, would you PLEASE stop being written about by me right now in this very magazine?”
Well said sir, well said. I ‘d link to his review but his web sight is located in the year 1997 back when people still used frames. So the best I can do is link to his sight and let you dig around for it (hint: it’s the first link on the page).
JT is looking pretty resigned and unenthusiastic in his big song and dance number. Notice that his laconic attitude is not shared by his back up dancers.
I’ve seen the film and I have no clue what’s on his shirt.
I love at 1:41 how he’s about to go into his signature JT brand of Michael Jackson moves but then just says fuck it.
Dan Rockwood here with another report on cinema available now at the cinema getting place. You will be interested to learn I just saw a major motion picture titled I’m Not There.
The titular absence refers to one Robert “Bob Dylan” Zimmerman a popular entertainer of some note. In his place is not one but five or six (depending on how you count) actors all playing different aspects (or something artsy like that) of the same dylanesque character. Here’s the run down of how that worked out: Cate Blanchet does the impersonation part the best which is weird cause she’s a woman; Ben Whishaw was my favorite but gets the least amount of screen time; Marcus “The Black Kid” Carl Franklin has three first names and was great; I don’t know what to think about Richard Gere unless his footage was part of a different movie that got edited in on accident; Heath Ledger is in the movie but I regrettably don’t have an accolade for him; and Christian Bale does the best musical numbers. Continue reading ‘Review’
9. nbakid2000 replies at 4th December 2007, 6:49 am :
He IS branching out, he’s doing Red State. Look it up.
Also, his movies don’t NEED to have great direction, all they are is TALKING. You don’t need great directors for scenes of people sitting at tables talking.
He’s actually becoming more popular, what with all the TV gigs he’s been getting. Also, if you don’t like him “on the stage” then why don’t you just ignore it. The reason he’s “on the stage” is because people apparently LIKE him and want more of him.
When you actually know what you’re talking about, then come back and debate whether Kevin deserves what he has or doesn’t.
10. RustyJames replies at 4th December 2007, 7:25 am :
@nbakid2000
“Also, his movies don’t NEED to have great direction, all they are is TALKING. You don’t need great directors for scenes of people sitting at tables talking.”
You’re way way off dude. Check out Richard Linklater’s work, especially Tape. Check out any Tarrantino flick for that matter. Or Sydney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men. A great director is someone with a sense for great cinema, and they bring it to whatever they shoot.
Smith is a filmmaker of modest talents.
11. nbakid2000 replies at 4th December 2007, 8:01 am :
No one is debating whether or not Smith is a great director - he’s even said himself he’s not a good one, he just does whatever. But he doesn’t NEED to be. There is nothing wrong with taking a camera and fixing it on two people talking (which is what he does). That is the point this whole thing is about, is whether or not it matters. It doesn’t. What matters in the scene is the dialogue.
Oh and I love how you brought up Tarantino *cough* Death Proof *cough* Sure it looked nice but did it hold my attention? No. In his other films, sure they looked great, and yes they had great dialogue. But the looking great wasn’t what made the scene good.
12. nbakid2000 replies at 4th December 2007, 8:05 am :
It’s nice to have a visual enhancer to the dialogue, I’m not debating that. I totally agree. But in Smith’s movies it’s people sitting around discussing sex. Do we NEED revolving camera shots and what have you? No.
BTW, he did have that that very nice shot in Clerks II with Dante and Randall arguing (the revolving shot, which VERY MUCH enhanced the scene). But that wasn’t a typical scene either. But no one’s mentioned that yet, have they?
When I’m watching a scene of two people talking I’m more focusing on the dialogue than whether or not the shot looks pretty and exciting.
13. RustyJames replies at 4th December 2007, 9:35 am :
It’s not about looking pretty or exciting, it’s about knowing how suck your audience into your scene.
Tarrantino *cough* Resevior Dogs, opening scene *cough*, people sitting around tables talking about sex. That scene is classic for reasons that go way beyond a circling camera. Tarrantino knows how to block his shots and give his actors elbow room. Check out the films of Howard Hawks.
There’s a cinematic punch to anything Tarantino shoots, yup Death Proof too.
So in review; flashy michael bay style camera work in every scene? unnecessary.
the touch of a great director? always necessary.
14. RustyJames replies at 4th December 2007, 9:42 am :
@nbakid2000
“there is nothing wrong with taking a camera and fixing it on two people talking”
there is if you’re a shite filmmaker. I’m not saying KSmith is a shite filmmaker, just that he doesn’t know how to shoot a scene. David Gordon Green nailed it when he called Smith the special olympics of film making. He finishes the race slower but for some reason you clap harder.
I love An Evening With Kevin Smith part I and really enjoyed Clerks Animated.
15. nbakid2000 replies at 4th December 2007, 12:04 pm :
That would ACTUALLY be: “there is if you’re a good/great filmmaker”. Expecting anything more from someone who’s shit would be expecting unrealistic things.
I happen to be sucked into every scene Kevin Smith does, so I don’t consider him what you do - I happen to LOVE his stuff.
I’m not sure what else you could do with the “37″ scene in Clerks besides have a camera filming two people behind a counter.
16. Mykrantz replies at 4th December 2007, 12:12 pm :
If you are debating Kevin Smith’s camera usage skills, perhaps you are missing the point in his movies…
He makes enjoyable Dick and Fart Joke Comedies, usually with some heart. If you are looking for films with deeper meaning, more power to you, but I (like many people) go to the movies to shut off my brain and be entertained. I get enough reading between the lines following the daily news…
Even Freud realized that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
17. nbakid2000 replies at 4th December 2007, 3:24 pm :
EXACTLY but some people apparently need Tarantino style movies every time they view a movie. Every director has his own style - Kevin’s style (as he’s stated) is that he has no style.
18. RustyJames replies at 4th December 2007, 10:20 pm :
The people love their kevin smith and who am I too disagree. I guess you’re right, his films don’t need to be good.
19. nbakid2000 replies at 5th December 2007, 6:59 am :
Some of us appreciate them more than others are capable of.
He IS branching out, he’s doing Red State. Look it up.
Also, his movies don’t NEED to have great direction, all they are is TALKING. You don’t need great directors for scenes of people sitting at tables talking.
He’s actually becoming more popular, what with all the TV gigs he’s been getting. Also, if you don’t like him “on the stage” then why don’t you just ignore it. The reason he’s “on the stage” is because people apparently LIKE him and want more of him.
When you actually know what you’re talking about, then come back and debate whether Kevin deserves what he has or doesn’t.
@nbakid2000
“Also, his movies don’t NEED to have great direction, all they are is TALKING. You don’t need great directors for scenes of people sitting at tables talking.”
You’re way way off dude. Check out Richard Linklater’s work, especially Tape. Check out any Tarrantino flick for that matter. Or Sydney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men. A great director is someone with a sense for great cinema, and they bring it to whatever they shoot.
Smith is a filmmaker of modest talents.
No one is debating whether or not Smith is a great director - he’s even said himself he’s not a good one, he just does whatever. But he doesn’t NEED to be. There is nothing wrong with taking a camera and fixing it on two people talking (which is what he does). That is the point this whole thing is about, is whether or not it matters. It doesn’t. What matters in the scene is the dialogue.
Oh and I love how you brought up Tarantino *cough* Death Proof *cough* Sure it looked nice but did it hold my attention? No. In his other films, sure they looked great, and yes they had great dialogue. But the looking great wasn’t what made the scene good.
It’s nice to have a visual enhancer to the dialogue, I’m not debating that. I totally agree. But in Smith’s movies it’s people sitting around discussing sex. Do we NEED revolving camera shots and what have you? No.
BTW, he did have that that very nice shot in Clerks II with Dante and Randall arguing (the revolving shot, which VERY MUCH enhanced the scene). But that wasn’t a typical scene either. But no one’s mentioned that yet, have they?
When I’m watching a scene of two people talking I’m more focusing on the dialogue than whether or not the shot looks pretty and exciting.
It’s not about looking pretty or exciting, it’s about knowing how suck your audience into your scene.
Tarrantino *cough* Resevior Dogs, opening scene *cough*, people sitting around tables talking about sex. That scene is classic for reasons that go way beyond a circling camera. Tarrantino knows how to block his shots and give his actors elbow room. Check out the films of Howard Hawks.
There’s a cinematic punch to anything Tarantino shoots, yup Death Proof too.
So in review; flashy michael bay style camera work in every scene? unnecessary.
the touch of a great director? always necessary.
@nbakid2000
“there is nothing wrong with taking a camera and fixing it on two people talking”
there is if you’re a shite filmmaker. I’m not saying KSmith is a shite filmmaker, just that he doesn’t know how to shoot a scene. David Gordon Green nailed it when he called Smith the special olympics of film making. He finishes the race slower but for some reason you clap harder.
I love An Evening With Kevin Smith part I and really enjoyed Clerks Animated.
That would ACTUALLY be: “there is if you’re a good/great filmmaker”. Expecting anything more from someone who’s shit would be expecting unrealistic things.
I happen to be sucked into every scene Kevin Smith does, so I don’t consider him what you do - I happen to LOVE his stuff.
I’m not sure what else you could do with the “37″ scene in Clerks besides have a camera filming two people behind a counter.
If you are debating Kevin Smith’s camera usage skills, perhaps you are missing the point in his movies…
He makes enjoyable Dick and Fart Joke Comedies, usually with some heart. If you are looking for films with deeper meaning, more power to you, but I (like many people) go to the movies to shut off my brain and be entertained. I get enough reading between the lines following the daily news…
Even Freud realized that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
EXACTLY but some people apparently need Tarantino style movies every time they view a movie. Every director has his own style - Kevin’s style (as he’s stated) is that he has no style.
The people love their kevin smith and who am I too disagree. I guess you’re right, his films don’t need to be good.
Some of us appreciate them more than others are capable of.