No controversy intended, purely heartfelt opinions.
I'm well aware you live in a world entirely made up of falsehoods, stances and superficiality, but unlike dickwads like you, some of us actually mean what we say
Shakespeare in Love
- Thread starter electrogirl
- Start date
No controversy intended, purely heartfelt opinions.
I'm well aware you live in a world entirely made up of falsehoods, stances and superficiality, but unlike dickwads like you, some of us actually mean what we say
i found smugness in the little asides and barely registering gags full of references that only lecturers would get, little tidbits of obscurity to flatter the egos of thespy types.
It's not jus tboring, it's utter shite.
But nobody extolled the virtues of Spice World. Whereas Shakespeare in Love was held up as a great film. It wasn't. It was toss...
ruffneck23
front left
agreed with post 33, should have stayed on the thread......
zoooo
zero tolerance for walkers
Well that's worded much better than 'it's one of the two shittest films ever made'. Which is patently ridiculous.
You can keep repeating that. Doesn't make it true.
Fictionist
Serving Eargasms....
zoooo
zero tolerance for walkers
S'alright! It only needs saying once.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Don't remember it too well but I do recall thinking parts of it were like a Hollywood version of Carry On. Just a bit of silly fun, isn't it?
LOL!No controversy intended, purely heartfelt opinions.
I'm well aware you live in a world entirely made up of falsehoods, stances and superficiality, but unlike dickwads like you, some of us actually mean what we say
XXXIf your 'opinion' is that American Beauty is the worst film ever made, maybe you'd be better keeping your opinions to yourself? You're clearly on a different plane to the rest of us and I'm not sure we have the intellectual capacity needed to follow your reasoning. Consider migrating to another planet where, with any luck, you might make a little more sense.
P.S. Found a photo of you :
:
I'm well aware you live in a world entirely made up of falsehoods, stances and superficiality, but unlike dickwads like you, some of us actually mean what we say
LOL!
If your 'opinion' is that American Beauty is the worst film ever made, maybe you'd be better keeping your opinions to yourself? You're clearly on a different plane to the rest of us and I'm not sure we have the intellectual capacity needed to follow your reasoning. Consider migrating to another planet where, with any luck, you might make a little more sense.
You do seem ever so keen to get some sort of rise out of me, but beyond being a bit tiresome you barely register, to be honest. Run along...
Oh, I paid no attention to - was largely unaware of - the hype. It was recommended to me by a friend whose opinion I trust. I'd never heard of it.
So I watched it and what I saw was two consummate actors at the top of their game, acting out an intriguing script, ably assisted by an excellent supporting cast. Great and very believable performances from the younger cast members, Bening pitch-perfect, Spacey's performance in particular utterly breath-taking. Don't think I've been so consciously amazed by a performance before or since.
And then I watched the extras, with Mendes commenting, and was again amazed by his skill as a director and by Conrad Hall's cinematography. All the little touches that you probably wouldn't notice until they were pointed out revealed hidden depths to what was already a very enjoyable film. Never before nor since have I been so transfixed by a director's commentary. Jarhead sucked but, take my word for it, Mendes is a very, very talented director. I'll take your word for it that the film is derivative but to me it matters not.
We'll agree to differ.
So I watched it and what I saw was two consummate actors at the top of their game, acting out an intriguing script, ably assisted by an excellent supporting cast. Great and very believable performances from the younger cast members, Bening pitch-perfect, Spacey's performance in particular utterly breath-taking. Don't think I've been so consciously amazed by a performance before or since.
And then I watched the extras, with Mendes commenting, and was again amazed by his skill as a director and by Conrad Hall's cinematography. All the little touches that you probably wouldn't notice until they were pointed out revealed hidden depths to what was already a very enjoyable film. Never before nor since have I been so transfixed by a director's commentary. Jarhead sucked but, take my word for it, Mendes is a very, very talented director. I'll take your word for it that the film is derivative but to me it matters not.
We'll agree to differ.
why would I take your word for that? I've seen all three of his movies and all three have sucked. That to me isn't signs of directing greatness, really
Watch his commentary on American Beauty and then tell me he isn't someone who's highly-skilled at what he does. (Or, let me save you the effort - just trust me on this..)
Of course, whether you like a film or not depends on many other factors..
Well let's see. I've watched three films directed by him and thought they were all awful. Now of course, it could be complete chance that he's been involved in all three and that other factors were the downfall of each work. But I suspect that's not particularly likely, eh?
As for his commentary - well, I'm sure Celine Dion could give a very compelling account of how she writes her songs, but that doesn't mean I have to believe it
As for his commentary - well, I'm sure Celine Dion could give a very compelling account of how she writes her songs, but that doesn't mean I have to believe it
Well, I enjoyed SiL. I enjoyed it as a date movie, and I enjoyed it as a film to see with someone else who - despite not being a lecturer either - also got lots of Mr Stoppard's little jokes.
Fuck's sake, Shakespeare is full of little jokes that only a courtier would have got at the time. 'Cos they're only little, they don't get in the way of the play.
Fuck's sake, Shakespeare is full of little jokes that only a courtier would have got at the time. 'Cos they're only little, they don't get in the way of the play.
Well, I've already said that I didn't rate Jarhead either. Haven't seen Road to Perdition so I can't comment on that one - but can you accept that he might be a very technically competent director, regardless of whether I, you or anyone else likes his work or not? The script, the quality of the acting and other factors play an equally large part in the final outcome. A skilled cast can turn an average script into a brilliant film. A great script can bring a mediocre director plaudits that he probably doesn't deserve.
I accept that you don't like his oeuvre to date. This speaks not to his technical skill. And what I'm saying is that, from the insights offered, he impresses me as someone who's very, very good at his job.
No, I don't think she could. But in any case it wasn't so much what he said as the insights he gave into the skills of the various crew members involved. I didn't have to take him at his word - the evidence was there on film for all to see, and his role as a commentator lay only in pointing it out.
scifisam
deleted
What little jokes did Shakespeare have in his plays that a bright commoner wouldn't have understood?
All the people I knew who lectured about Shakespeare and his plays loathed this film. Those jokes weren't there for them, they were there to make the play seem more cerebral, but they were mostly wrongly placed and just awful, so they failed at that.
I really don't see what point you're making. You could make a comparison to a particularly proficient musician, technically skilled in every sense, who makes shockingly bad records. I suppose you could then argue they were a great musician, but it's a fairly pointless standpoint.
Making a film isn't supposed to be a purely technical craft, and if Mendes' apparent technical accomplishment doesn't translate into good films, his level of skill is an irrelevance.
Oh, and even you - who are defending him - like one of the two films of his that you've seen, and think the other one sucks. Well, if you want to still believe Mendes is a skilled director, feel free, but it's a thoroughly pedantic stance.
Making a film isn't supposed to be a purely technical craft, and if Mendes' apparent technical accomplishment doesn't translate into good films, his level of skill is an irrelevance.
Oh, and even you - who are defending him - like one of the two films of his that you've seen, and think the other one sucks. Well, if you want to still believe Mendes is a skilled director, feel free, but it's a thoroughly pedantic stance.
I'm not a literature lecturer, so I don't keep these things in working memory: I'd have to look them up. Stuff that identifies characters with actual courtiers, that sort of thing.
Well, I'm not out to make a point really, and certainly feel no emotional attachment that would make me blindly defend him. I'm just responding to this and your follow-up comments:
So my response is that I've seen him comment at length on his craft and came away very impressed with his level of competence. Could I swap the phrase "highly skilled" for the original, vaguer and slightly more controversial "very, very talented"?
Because:
I want to agree with this. I certainly agree that there's a lot more to making films than mere technical skill. But the word "good" here troubles me. Does it come down to more than mere personal opinion? I loved his debut, was left cold and a bit puzzled by the non-event of his second and haven't seen the third. Whereas you clearly have an intense dislike for all three.
Care to define "good"?
