|
roffle posted:So, for American Psycho-- He imagined it. This exchange: Bryce: He makes himself out to be a harmless old codger, but inside... inside... Bateman: [voice-over] ..."but inside" doesn't matter. Patrick is admitting to himself, and the audience, that he is not special or unique or different from his co-workers. If his murderous thoughts were actually manifested and he killed people, he would be, but he only has thoughts. He's only a depraved individual in his own head, and that doesn't mean anything to anyone else. At least that's what I thought. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Jul 21, 2008 |
#
¿
Jul 21, 2008 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
It was just a Bill Murray cameo. I don't think he was intended to be anyone's dad. It's just funny, to have his character seem important and then leave him behind.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2008 21:21
|
|
|
jjack229 posted:What is up with the recurring theme of humans are good but flawed (or more specifically those qualities that make us good also make us flawed, but it is worth it because we are so good)? Old post, I know, but some of this is anti-Commie relics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2009 17:37
|
|
|
The Maestro posted:The concept of art/media replacing life experience is not that new or confusing, you guys are just jumping on the kook because he bothered to bring Japanese women into the equation. And everybody knows only the gooniest of goons talk about Japanese women The problem with both the Sevigny posts and the Japanese women posts is that he's not actually specifying what is so weird and un-natural, and therefore we have no idea if he's making a real point about art replacing life or if he just can't fathom that people have sex in different ways. I've seen the Brown Bunny scene and I honestly have no idea what the gently caress he's talking about when it comes to the scene being different than how real people interact. It looked fine to me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 04:13
|
|
|
Are there examples of movies made by reasonable talent that were so bad that even the makers didn't really want to release them?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Anyways, one hypothesis is that as directors have lots of success, they start getting blank checks, and they sort of go nuts and take big risks that often don't work out. That's kind of the premise of this podcast, which goes through the filmographies of directors to answer these sorts of questions. They have a Cameron miniseries and a "Spielberg in the 80s through 00s" series, so you can listen to those two if you want an answer better than mine. It's a great podcast and I highly recommend it! It could also be simply that the people and processes around their movies change. Different producers, writers, editors, different types of projects offered to them, etc. Spielberg's latter years are definitely not 'going nuts and taking big risks.' Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Jan 22, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Do you have anyone in mind other than Spielberg (who I think made some of his best movies in the 00s) and Cameron (who has made, by my last count, one movie in the 00s)? My "very good 80s and 90s directors" list includes people who made some bomb-rear end 00s movies: Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Leos Carax, Jim Jarmusch, Peter Greenaway, Wong Kar-Wai, and Michael Mann (Miami Vice is good, fight me). Looking at a random list of "Best 80s Directors" that I just found online (it's really more 'anglo directors who made some well-known movies in the 80s): John Hughes Steven Spielberg John Carpenter Robert Zemeckis Rob Reiner Martin Scorsese James Cameron John Landis Ridley Scott Richard Donner Oliver Stone David Cronenberg David Lynch Ivan Reitman Harold Ramis Terry Gilliam Werner Herzog Robert Altman John Hughes just didn't do anything after the 80s. Carpenter just mostly retired in the 00s. Zemeckis spent the whole decade doing those weird CGI movies, he's probably the most glaring 'turned to poo poo' example here. Rob Reiner, I dunno. He was never that good. Landis has the whole 'deaths while shooting a movie' thing, though his career took a few years to really slow down (was that because of how long the trial was? I don't know). Ridley Scott just loves making movies regardless of their quality. He arguably had his resurgence in the 00s. Donner just had some projects that weren't too good. He's old as hell. Stone went out of style and is another clear 'turned to poo poo' example. Cronenberg's had some of his biggest critical successes in the 00s. Lynch has mostly just not done anything. Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis were probably never particularly good directors in the first place. Gilliam has an old gypsy curse. Herzog has always been a bit hit or miss. Altman died. from the 90s, into the 'got worse' pile, you can toss in Spike Lee.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2019 15:10
|
|