Highbrow flix, low brow ramblin’s
Look, I’m no one special. I just read the same movie shit everyone else does. So when I say I’ve got “news” I mean “here’s something I read from wickedawesomemovies.blogspot.com last week”. Alright, it’s shit that’s out and about there. So I’m under no allusions that I’m telling anyone something they don’t know.
But seriously, RAPE BEAR. Lets just all agree that it’s awesome.
Also, this guy likes Pirates 3. Let me second his motion that y’all go fuck yourselves.
Popularity: 94% [?]
“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).
Popularity: 90% [?]
Sometimes when I make a reference to literature I cross out the actual reference and write Dostoevsky.
example:
Much like batman comics Dostoevsky this film is about the moral burden of free will.
Popularity: 91% [?]
It’s a scientific fact that people love lists of stuff. I love reading best / worst lists but I think the most revealing kind of list a movie critic can write is the “movies that other people like but I don’t” list. Nothing describes an individual’s personal taste like a list of idiosyncrasies.
Continue reading ‘A List of Popular Films That I Do Not Like’
Popularity: 100% [?]
Here’s a good article to read, Roger Ebert’s review of Blue Velvet. But it’s not his original review that they print in all his books, it’s a second (but still negative ) review that he wrote after interviewing the great David Lynch.
He doesn’t say so explicitly but it’s pretty obvious that this is his first sit down with Lynch and Ebert seems disarmed by Lynch’s own peculiar brand of being David Lynch. Of course we have the virtue of hindsight but imagine meeting David Lynch and not knowing what to expect.
Ebert is a great film reviewer but he has a natural gift of missing the point (see his review of the matrix. read that review and tell me he understood what that film was about). I understand that reasonable people can disagree about great films. No matter how great a film is it’s value is ultimately subject; I get that but after reading his two reviews I’m confident in saying that Ebert just doesn’t get this movie.
I think this second review explains a lot about Ebert’s problem with the film:
in ‘Blue Velvet,’ there are some scenes in which a woman is degraded and humiliated and made to suffer obscenely, and other scenes in which we’re supposed to giggle because the call letters of the local station are WOOD, and they give the time “at the sound of the falling tree.” Sorry, but I just couldn’t get my lips to smile.
I suppose I can see why one might confuse Blue Velvet for a spoof of some kind. Lynch approaches life from a slightly askew angle that grants even the most serious and deadpan scenario an aura of absurdity. Also there’s undeniably an element of humor to everything he does; but Lynch is the definition of sincere and he never descends into parody or mockery. What Ebert mistakes for parody is actually a very strange man’s idea of what normal people do behind closed doors.
Popularity: 25% [?]
You are currently browsing the Destroy All Films weblog archives for the dispatches category.
Longer entries are truncated. Click the headline of an entry to read it in its entirety.
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.