Sexy Celebrity's Movie Commentaries!

→ in
Tools    





The Pulp Fiction group watch thing is still in the pipeline. It was being spoken about just the other day. I can't remember where now.

Oh, yes, Michael Haneke! Oh, yes! I should listen to your message! I should love your movie! Yes, Michael. Your movie was so, so much better than all of those other violent movies I like. Yes, Michael, I should be ashamed of myself for liking all of those other movies that are so much better than your own.
I don't think the point is that you like it or that you do/don't like violence in films. I think it's that you see and feel or, at least, question the difference between what happens on-screen and actual violence.

As Haneke said, "'Anyone who leaves the cinema doesn't need the film, and anyone who stays does!"
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
If Sexy gives this
, he'd probably have to give Haneke's The Seventh Continent and Time of the Wolf negative
.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Ironies abound, I guess.

I didn't vote for it, myself. Anyways, SC's reaction to Funny Games says a lot, though not as he intends. He validates it more with every post about it.

It's also noteworthy how little violence there actually is in FG despite the vitriol it elicits, It's certainly not a gorefest. Much of its power probably stems from the realistic anguish and humiliation of the family while violence is often only implied. Perhaps Haneke was pointing out the obvious once again: that letting viewer imagination fill in the blanks can be extremely effective, whereas FX can become numbing or alienating?



Oh, please. It has no power at all. That "realistic" anguish and humiliation wasn't convincing at all to me. I've seen worse acting pull off something more real. I don't blame the actors, though -- I blame the movie itself. I blame Haneke. Funny Games is drained of life. It's like watching the corpse of a vampire victim.
That's an interesting, eh, stance but I don't think very many would agree, especially in the remake's case. The emoting is quite convincing.

I suspect this is most likely another case of you contradicting the obvious to bolster your misguided opinion but hey, we all have our quirks. I really can't address you on this particular point any further since you are so clearly incorrect that it simply isn't possible to meaningfully address it.



But why are you here? Maybe I should get all Haneke on you and ask what you're getting out of stopping by. Same with Wintertriangles.
Because I have opinions too, SC.



Of course we can stop. I wasn't directly addressing you on the last page. You engaged my post and we went from there. If you wish to withdraw, you need only not respond about it to me.

I'm not preventing you from expressing yourself or not expressing yourself. You are allowed to say what you wish of a film and I am allowed to say what I think of what you expressed. No one is prevented from posting by what another person posts.



Okay, well, I'm going to do another movie commentary. This time for:



NIGHT OF THE DEMONS (1988)

Which I have never seen before. It's directed by Kevin Tenney. I've always wanted to see this. I have no idea if it's going to be good or not.
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	1282726268_3bd3ec1fc13b1c733c6f7b35a284cff24510fefe.jpg
Views:	556
Size:	191.6 KB
ID:	10870  



Linnea Quigley is in this.

Cheesy animated opening credits. This doesn't look very promising, but might be fun.



A fat man just mooned somebody without even pulling down their shorts. What is the point of mooning if you don't even show your buttocks?