Wait a minute! Star Wars IV a masterpiece, not even close. While its definitely not as bad as 3, 5 or 6 how could it be considered a masterpiece? I think Wrath of Kahn is infinitely better than all of the other Star Trek movies. BTW, Crash was great, no masterpiece.

I finally saw the whole thing. I had attempted a viewing a few months earlier, but I turned it off after 20 minutes, thinking it was a self-important sermon. Someone convinced me yesterday to watch it in its entirety. It gets a lot better after the first 20 minutes, but it's still a pretty dumbass movie.

CRASH portrays racism the way Sunday school portrays drug use.

quote:

CRASH portrays racism the way Sunday school portrays drug use.

Yeah but I used to smoke pot at Sunday school (conformation classes!), so I loved it! There's nothing quite like getting bible stories told to you by an 80 year old woman with one working eye while you're completley blitzed. It was awesome.

I get your point, it was such a broad stroke that it lost alot of the nuance in the theme. But I think its a "masterpiece" because it clearly stated the directors intent, whether you agree or not, it respected the actors performances by giving them very clear motivations and time to confront the motivations; it captured the SO CAL atmosphere without glamorizing or bastrdizing (like training day did) and the script was very tight in terms of clear growth and decline for ALL the characters. Of course that same definition makes "PREDATOR" a masterpiece... hmmm I guess it is! GET To THE CHOPPER!

BUY PRODUCT
http://www.studentfilms.com/film/get.do?id=1202

quote:

But I think its a "masterpiece" because it clearly stated the directors intent

You know how easy it is to clearly state intent? It would take me about three seconds of screen time.

If the stated idea is utterly trite and actually offensive in its generality and smugness, then that film can't be considered worthwhile.

"If the stated idea is utterly trite and actually offensive in its generality and smugness, then that film can't be considered worthwhile."

Considering the source, the irony is palpable.

I also think it's easy to forget ones intent and make a movies theme muttled in its own confusion. I like when someone has something to say and uses the medium to say it, clearly and deliberatly. The whole "capture life as it unfolds" or simple nuetrality just isn't my thing.

But to each is own, so take a breath and we'll agree to disagree on CRASH's worth. Oscar and all.

BUY PRODUCT
http://www.studentfilms.com/film/get.do?id=1202

quote:

Oscar and all.

Huh?

Again, nothing is wrong with a film promoting some idea or theme. However, simply because a film *says something* doesn't mean it's automatically valid. In the case of Crash, obviously the film is "saying something" but what's being said is mindblowingly stupid.

FWIW, Total Recall and Predator are better than Crash.

I didn't like it because it focused absolutely on one issue, racism, and gave it superficial treatment. The characters were left largely undeveloped because the script forced them to explore only their interactions and traits related to ethnic identities.

Really a disappointment, especially when we can find so many fascinating historical characters who were arguably both brilliant and wholeheartedly racist. Joseph Conrad and Henry Ford leap to mind. I'd like to see a narrative deal with individuals like those. Of course, such a film would garner heaps of criticism and wouldn't stand a long shot at an Oscar, but I'd take it over Crash any day.

On another note, I saw Brokeback Mountain yesterday. Surprised me. I liked it a lot.

quote:

Really a disappointment, especially when we can find so many fascinating historical characters who were arguably both brilliant and wholeheartedly racist. Joseph Conrad and Henry Ford leap to mind.

Hitler! Of course it took sixty years for the Germans to manage to make a film about it, and it still drew intense criticism despite a Jewish director. Who cares.

I would disagree and would argue CRASH was not solely about racism, but how people are forced to interact and eventually break away from their idealized lives. To dismiss it a having a singular theme is to misinterpret the movie.

Take Terrance Howards relationship with his wife, his inability to give her the attention she craved and his focus on work ; the racial incident incited them to address the deeper issue.

Same with Matt Dillions character, he blamed his personal issues on race relations but at the end of the day is left to deal with an ailing father .

Sandra Bullocks character is less about a racist woman and more about an insolated one who has put status above personal relationships.

The movie is really about how our culture blames race for issues that are inherit in being human. And how PC thoughts and actions or racist thoughts and actions won't help in matters of humanity. It goes way farther than simple racism as it portrays these characters in terms of issues we all have to face, whether its a dying parent, a broken marraige, an elitest attitude, a struggling business ect.. I think that's why it spoke to so many people and won 3 oscars.

I can understand that angle, REDking, but I stand by my first impression. I know plenty of people who will argue to the death that it's a great film, but I personally felt cheated by it.

Evan -- Yeah, Hitler also leapt to mind, but he's less of an ambiguous figure. Plus, his character has been dealt justice on screen already. I assume you're refering to Downfall, a near masterpiece, but I still hold that the depth of his character was probed better by Michael Sheard in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

I thought Downfall was rather mixed, actually, despite a towering performance from Bruno Ganz as the Führer.

The problem with Crash (from the small bits that I've seen) is that it reduces race and racism to a known quantity. The film's thesis: everyone is racist to some degree. Profound.

Also, it's like a cheap TV show or soap opera. Haggis can't help but reveal his origins in the treacly melodrama. MDB suffered from the same problem. I hate films that claim to tackle "issues" but end up regurgitating the same tired crap.

Honestly, I live in fear of what monstrosity Haggis will come up with next. It will surely win an Oscar or two or three. Didn't he contribute to Eastwood's also-treacly-looking Iwo film coming up?

"The problem with Crash (from the small bits that I've seen)"

K, I'm surprised you would comment so pointedly about a movie you havn't seen. But your point stands well with alot of the popular criticism of the film, so I don't discount it. It's always interesting to me how "word of mouth" and even a particular style of marketing can inform peoples opinions without them forming opinions independently. It goes to show how influential critics are. No flame intended on that although I realize it comes close, sorry! I do enjoy your posts and the fervor you have for the medium!

I thought Million Dollar baby was well written and faced some interesting conflicts, what did you guys think of that one?

I really disliked MDB. The way it explored death, etc. was completely stale IMO. It came across like a soap opera with higher production values. And I really didn't care for Eastwood's music, sorry.

Mystic River was also unimpressive. Hm - I guess I haven't been fond of any of Eastwood's directorial efforts, as cool as he was under Leone as the Man with No Name.

Also, my brother saw 'Crash' for me. I generally trust his opinion and BS meter as it falls relatively close to my own.

I would like to see it to confirm my suspicions, but on the other hand there are so many excellent films that I don't think I should waste my time.

quote:

I thought Million Dollar baby was well written and faced some interesting conflicts, what did you guys think of that one?

I've sat through the worst of movies you can possibly imagine but this is the only one I've actually stood up to walk out of (it was my sis' birthday and she wouldnt let me). It was during that scene where the family comes and tries to get Swank to sign the contract with the pen in her mouth. It was probably the most desperate and pathetic cry for sympathy ive ever seen in a film, just a poor moment. id like to say the problem was all Haggis (well it was), but Eastwood's been a big dissapointment lately to me. as usual with directors his first film Play Misty for Me is still his best.

I liked MDB as I said before but I agree with HDK that that particular scene was poorly performed. The mom was such a "Jerry Springer" mom and the whole scene was sort of awkward. But just like the visable dolly tracks in Citizen Kane, every human endevour has flaws. As a whole the movie was well done.

Once again we'll agree to disagree.

I liked Million Dollar Baby much better than I liked Mystic River. That said, it still has that very unlifelike feeling that most Eastwood-helmed movies do. I didn't know Haggis wrote it until now.

quote:

I liked Million Dollar Baby much better than I liked Mystic River.

They were both awful, though. I couldn't reconcile the massive, unwarranted critical praise with the actuality of these films - stale and trite.

I think critics go soft on him because he's Clint Eastwood. Good actor in Leone's stuff. Not as interesting as a director, or in his own.

quote:

I think critics go soft on him because he's Clint Eastwood. Good actor in Leone's stuff. Not as interesting as a director, or in his own.

I agree completely. His movies are presented just like his Leone characters -- tall, cocky, intentionally quiet but begging to be noticed... and sometimes wearing a poncho.

Have you seen anything about his WWII two-film project? Who better than Clint Eastwood to give us the Japanese perspective of the war?

quote:

Have you seen anything about his WWII two-film project? Who better than Clint Eastwood to give us the Japanese perspective of the war?

Right. I just saw a TV spot for the American part. It looks pretty bad, frankly. Kind of a low-rent 'Private Ryan' look, and treacly canned music that sounds awful. Maybe it's a temp track, but it shouldn't be when the film is coming out in less than two weeks.

And it's written by PAUL HAGGIS.

I will probably see the Japanese part to see if Watanabe Ken is able to save it, and also to consider how much it smacks of orientalism.

I am at least intrigued by Eastwood directing the Japanese side of the war, but I am very skeptical of his ability to do so. I've seen most of Kurosawa's films on the war, or post war life in Japan, and they seem authentic and real because Kurosawa experienced these events first hand. I will see it solely as a comparison to some of Kurosawa's films.