Just saw the movie and it is awesome and one of my new personal favorites. good acting, good everything. I just finished reading the book a week ago and it stays true to the book. so i recommend it highly.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ktabes,

boo

boo? that really goes in depth of your critique on cinema, o wait hill dawson hates everything hollywood does, even if it is good, so i suppose if it was shot by a bunch of artsy retards on a video camera it would be better?

I thought it was alright. But it confuses me why they wanted to make a war movie(even if it isn't totally war-ish) over the gulf war, which shouldn't even have been considered a war, more like a skirmish or something. So there's not much action in it, which is kinda the point of the charator's breakdown, so it works. But I thought it was well made, and was good all around. Worth the money.

yeah for some reason everyone expected it to be like black hawk down with tons of action, and people totally missed the point of the movie

Yeah, the book is great, I plan on seeing the film soon. I'm not really sure I'd classify it in the "war film" genre unless you put Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket in the same class.

If anyone cares, this is yet another movie that was offlined in high definition in FCP. The apple website has an interesting PR article (read advertisement) on the editing of this film.

quote:

boo? that really goes in depth of your critique on cinema, o wait hill dawson hates everything hollywood does, even if it is good, so i suppose if it was shot by a bunch of artsy retards on a video camera it would be better?

well, im not really a critic myself, i dont think critics really challenge cinema to be any better, they more tend to judge a film based on its genre, and will call it a good film if it fits into that, or plays around with it well. and unless you call "The Thin Red Line" a hollywood film i will agree that i dont like any of the war films hollywood has made, ever. although i will say i am a little confused about when caring about art, or expression, became something for retards. but if thats what an artist is now, a retard, id prefer to become one.

hill, i seriously think you forget what movies are about and what they are suppose to do.

and everybody's a critic, the average person is a critic, after seeing the movie i over hear a couple discussing how they didnt like it and they actually gave specific reasons, and i wouldnt imagine they are film buffs, or filmmakers, so thats why people show movies, thats the whole purpose of this website, thats why we have a review system so to say your not a critic is you calling yourself a no good poopyface liar.

and if you think the only reason why people make films is for art and expression then you deserve to be classified with the artsy retards.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ktabes,

It seems like an unusual turn for Sam Mendes? Even though "Jardhead" is a different type of movie for Sam Mendes, was anyone able to see his talent working in the picture? I'm a big "American Beauty" fan and like his work but don't know if he was able to use his talent on "Jarhead" like he did with "American Beauty" and "Road to Perdition."

Thinkingman

quote:

hill, i seriously think you forget what movies are about and what they are suppose to do.

what films are SUPPOSED to do? i must have missed this somewhere. i just make the types of films i think haev somethig to say, the types of films that i feel need to be made, and i like those same kinds of films, the types of films that arent made for money, and aren't greenlit by a bunch of executives who only care about ticket sales, and only understand bells and whistles and explosions. i prefer a film that is amde when a bunch of ppl get together and decide to do something, for themselves. if ppl simply wanted to make their film their way they would just get soem crappy video camera and start shooting, because its easier, it just is. i spent 6 hours making a film thats 125 minutes so far, i couldnt do that in hollywood, not only would i be unable to, they wouldnt let me. i havent seen jarhead and i wont anytime in the future, ive come to learn that the best films ive seen i havent paid a cent into, no ticket no rental, just films that is ee for free because the ppl whove made them will do anythign to have others see them, including giving them up for free. ive had films on this site get reviews, ill read them, but i dont take them personally, and i dont listen or consider them because i ultimately make films for myself, ppl have always had good reasons for disliking myfilms (their reasons for disliking them are always better than the few reasons ppl have for liking them as a matter of fact), but i leave their films for them to make, i make kine, and i like em, and i like good films like mine that are made outside of the hollywood system, films that could not be made inside of the system, even when ppl tried. sure, i may be very hipocritcal for saying jarhead is crap without watching it (ud all expect that from me). but im not gunna listen to britney spears' next abum on the chance that THIS TIME MIGHT BE DIFFERNT, MIGHT BE GOOD. and neither would you. and yes, saying britney spears will never make anything worth listening to is hipocritical, because hey, u never now, but im not waiting for it to happen. if hollywood would make the films that ppl on this site make it wouldnt exist, instead theyre busy making the same old same old. ultimately i dont know what makes a good film, im no longer concerned about that cause ive come to temrs with the fact that im only a marginal person, so i make marginal films myself, an i like films that will take the time to look at genuine people and real lives. i was on the hollywood side for prolly 17 years, and i grew up, what else can i say. i used to like star wars and jaws and QT and Kubrick, but i grew up and just started to meet the real world, just the tip of it. hollywood can take me away from life like no other films can, but i cant learn anything from them, they dont changed who i am, these films dont ask me any questions, and sometimes i need that, an easy watch, but i dont lie to myself about what it is.

quote:

and if you think the only reason why people make films is for art and expression then you deserve to be classified with the artsy retards.

no, im quite aware of the $$$ factor

I know of a few artsy retards that make more money a year than any of you will, ever.

quote:

instead (Hollywood's) busy making the same old same old.

Same old same old sells. People don't buy purple oranges.

quote:

so i suppose if it was shot by a bunch of artsy retards on a video camera it would be better?

that really goes in depth of your critique on cinema.

Video is so subjective it's not even funny. Don't even try to say anything's good or bad, because there's always one guy out there who likes the "bad" ones and undermines humanity's entire opinion on things.

quote:

what films are SUPPOSED to do? i must have missed this somewhere. i just make the types of films i think haev somethig to say, the types of films that i feel need to be made, and i like those same kinds of films, the types of films that arent made for money, and aren't greenlit by a bunch of executives who only care about ticket sales, and only understand bells and whistles and explosions. i prefer a film that is amde when a bunch of ppl get together and decide to do something, for themselves. if ppl simply wanted to make their film their way they would just get soem crappy video camera and start shooting, because its easier, it just is. i spent 6 hours making a film thats 125 minutes so far, i couldnt do that in hollywood, not only would i be unable to, they wouldnt let me. i havent seen jarhead and i wont anytime in the future, ive come to learn that the best films ive seen i havent paid a cent into, no ticket no rental, just films that is ee for free because the ppl whove made them will do anythign to have others see them, including giving them up for free. ive had films on this site get reviews, ill read them, but i dont take them personally, and i dont listen or consider them because i ultimately make films for myself, ppl have always had good reasons for disliking myfilms (their reasons for disliking them are always better than the few reasons ppl have for liking them as a matter of fact), but i leave their films for them to make, i make kine, and i like em, and i like good films like mine that are made outside of the hollywood system, films that could not be made inside of the system, even when ppl tried. sure, i may be very hipocritcal for saying jarhead is crap without watching it (ud all expect that from me). but im not gunna listen to britney spears' next abum on the chance that THIS TIME MIGHT BE DIFFERNT, MIGHT BE GOOD. and neither would you. and yes, saying britney spears will never make anything worth listening to is hipocritical, because hey, u never now, but im not waiting for it to happen. if hollywood would make the films that ppl on this site make it wouldnt exist, instead theyre busy making the same old same old. ultimately i dont know what makes a good film, im no longer concerned about that cause ive come to temrs with the fact that im only a marginal person, so i make marginal films myself, an i like films that will take the time to look at genuine people and real lives. i was on the hollywood side for prolly 17 years, and i grew up, what else can i say. i used to like star wars and jaws and QT and Kubrick, but i grew up and just started to meet the real world, just the tip of it. hollywood can take me away from life like no other films can, but i cant learn anything from them, they dont changed who i am, these films dont ask me any questions, and sometimes i need that, an easy watch, but i dont lie to myself about what it is.

......All of that over "boo"?

Uh, this is the same guy who makes monstrously bloated shorts shot on cheap video cameras with awful sound and lighting, flat, cliche dialogue, and an aesthetic that emphasizes poor quality, right? Artistic expression is clearly part the goal of any legitimate cinema, but using the claimed pursuit of it as an excuse for shoddy craftsmanship is pathetic.

quote:

Artistic expression is clearly part the goal of any legitimate cinema, but using the claimed pursuit of it as an excuse for shoddy craftsmanship is pathetic.

Agreed.

But let's be careful not to get personal, everyone.

quote:

Uh, this is the same guy who makes monstrously bloated shorts shot on cheap video cameras with awful sound and lighting, flat, cliche dialogue, and an aesthetic that emphasizes poor quality, right? Artistic expression is clearly part the goal of any legitimate cinema, but using the claimed pursuit of it as an excuse for shoddy craftsmanship is pathetic.

actually, im into features now

quote:

Originally posted by Hill Dawson Kane:

what films are SUPPOSED to do? i must have missed this somewhere. i just make the types of films i think haev somethig to say,

no, im quite aware of the $$$ factor

the other thing im talking about is entertainment not money, people watch movies to be entertained you dont think about the money, the average american doesnt take this into consideration, only people like us who beat off to filmmaking.

and if you make films because you have something to say is rediculous because i dont really care what you or anyone like you have to say, but if you can mix what you have to say into a compelling and awesome story, that my friend is the key to everything good of filmmaking.

hill you just seem to hate everything everyone else likes just because everyone likes it and the reason everyone likes something is because its good, you just think your such and individual you blank everyone else out that doesnt know squat about movies or anything in mass media so you seem smarther than other people, i know this because i was once the same way.

im just trying to say most people including myself make movies for people to watch and enjoy. i know my personal goal whenever i make one of my stupid movies it to make something so my friends and family will get a good kick out of it. otherwise i would never get my friends to help out and act in my movies.

I make my projects for myself, and to an extent, I don't care about reviews.

The key phrase there is "to an extent" - obviously if you structure your work around what you hope an audience will get out of it, you're close to the next Michael Bay. On the other hand, if everyone tells you that your work is awful, there may be some reason for that.

You're into features? Great. Are they watchable by anyone except you?

This has nothing to do with what anyone thinks of Hollywood - it's the central question of art. Is it valid if no one else comprehends it but its creator? Is self-expression enough?

I screen my work in the hope that there are people who will understand the statement that originated on celluloid. I don't let their comprehension define my creative process, but it is important in the sense that it enables the work to acquire meaning outside the space of my head. If no perceptions of the work matter but your own, you can cancel that term out of the equation and imagine that you made it. It would be just as good. There's no need to reconstruct an imagined concept if you only care about your own perception of it.

The fact that you produce anything at all shows that there must be some underlying desire to show it to an audience.

boo hoo.

You're all a buncha slaves!

I will see this movie just because Donnie Darko is in it. And Sam Mendes rocks.

quote:

You're into features? Great. Are they watchable by anyone except you?

Do I have to break this out again?



Seriously though, let's settle down now.