Sexy Celebrity's Movie Commentaries!

→ in
Tools    





This seems like a fair example of someone going in biased. Not that I would expect you to be open to other views, SC. Sorry, but you too often argue in bad faith, obsess over trivial details while ignoring or misconstruing necessary points, and seem to generally value "personality" over reason and open-mindedness, IMHO.

Anyways, Funny Games isn't a masterpiece but it's clearly made well and at the least it serves to inspire discussion on how violence is portrayed on film. I don't see any point in discussing it with *you*, however, in light of all your previous... observations.
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



I've not seen Funny Games, but from everything I've read; a) I don't need to, and, b) He probably did it better with Benny's Video, while Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer (and, to a lesser extent, TCM) did the same thing, better and earlier.



Well, everything I've read in the thread is: "scene 1238: sucks" in various idiomatic expressions. So given the premise that it sucks, the review wasn't very informative. But a good try anyway! And it has some merit though. Did you have to stop the video every time you posted or not? I would kind of admire you if it was the second case.



It's a film with an agenda, yeah. That doesn't make it bad. A mature and thoughtful viewer can appreciate a director's skill and acknowledge his intention/position while fundamentally disagreeing.



1. It wasn't a review, it was a commentary.
Fair. It's not that the word matters. A review or a commentary have really nothing to do on being or not informative.

2. It was a commentary SC style.
I kind of see this

3. I'm pretty sure he just posted without stopping it.
Then he's my hero.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
This thread has just reminded me of something. What the hell ever happened to the planned board-wide viewing of Pulp Fiction and the commentary it would have produced? Was that idea just forgotten about?



I think the film is a stinkfest. I would have said something if the movie was doing something good for me. It didn't. All it did was piss me off.
No surprise there, you're perpetually pissed off, it has nothing to do with the film. There is so much irony in the fact that you have the ability to speak.



Yeah, but the agenda should not make you go, "Oh, I like this movie a lot more because of its agenda. Because of its message."
Well, the agenda of a movie brings a certain perspective to the scenes. So yep, it has an influence on our perception of them.



Yeah, but the agenda should not make you go, "Oh, I like this movie a lot more because of its agenda. Because of its message." Even if that message isn't entirely clear in the movie, but will be heard later somehow by the director. The movie should be enjoyable on its own. I didn't think it was.
No, not every movie should be enjoyable in the same broad sense. Films can be enjoyed for different reasons, and trying to force a film to meet expectations based on other films only to be thwarted and then hate it for not being enjoyable in the same sense as those films speaks more of viewer petulance than the quality of the film.



No doubt. It isn't meant to make you "feel good". It's meant to get under your skin and make you question and think about things like your preferences, how violence is used in film...

Some people enjoy that, even if it involves thinking about uncomfortable subjects and questioning their own expectations.