21st Hall of Fame

Tools    





The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
It was a hypothetical question designed to make people think about what it was about Pride that they liked so much...I liked the movie myself, but I think it's construction was mediocre. I suspect all the praise that it received is because of it's subject matter and not because the director was awesome at film making.
I wouldn't say it's an instant classic or a masterpiece. But it's heart warming. And not only because of the theme, or else every queer film would be instantly good. The director knew how to tackle this story and the atmosphere of the movie is perfectly in balance to what is trying to be portraied. The film doesn't want to be anything more than it is, and I respect that.



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



I liked the movie OK. But I wonder if the exact same movie and cast was made BUT instead of gay activist they were environmental activist...would the film then still get the same high praise here as it has?
You realize Pride is based on actual events, right? Changing it from gay activists to environmental activists would have made the story a complete fabrication.



You realize Pride is based on actual events, right? Changing it from gay activists to environmental activists would have made the story a complete fabrication.
Didn't you read my review??? Go read my review. Then reread my question as you didn't understand it. (I'll give you a hint, I WASN'T suggesting the movie SHOULD be changed, I was asking if people would still like it as much if one element of the story was changed)



Didn't you read my review??? Go read my review. Then reread my question as you didn't understand it. (I'll give you a hint, I WASN'T suggesting the movie SHOULD be changed, I was asking if people would still like it as much if one element of the story was changed)
Changing "one element" changes other elements. A lot of other elements. It isn't that simple.
And don't make assumptions about what I did or did not understand.



Didn't you read my review??? Go read my review. Then reread my question as you didn't understand it. (I'll give you a hint, I WASN'T suggesting the movie SHOULD be changed, I was asking if people would still like it as much if one element of the story was changed)
Changing "one element" changes other elements. A lot of other elements. It isn't that simple.
And don't make assumptions about what I did or did not understand.
Changing the element of the story, especially one so integral to the plot, would have made a completely different movie. So of course it would have been viewed differently, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have been made better or worse.
It’s not exactly a fair question. It was a film made about the LGBT community supporting the miners strike. It made for an odd pairing. That was the point.



Changing "one element" changes other elements. A lot of other elements. It isn't that simple.
And don't make assumptions about what I did or did not understand.
That's funny, as you made a wrong assumption about what I was saying.



You realize Pride is based on actual events, right? Changing it from gay activists to environmental activists would have made the story a complete fabrication.
Here this is for you, I gather you didn't bother to read my review as you didn't rep it.


Pride (2014)

I liked it. I liked the overall story, especially as it covered an interesting event in time that I'd never heard of. And I liked that it had the potential for rooting for the underdogs with a happy ending too. I thought the film was well cast and I liked the leads...and I even liked where it was filmed, as it seemed authentic to me. But I wanted more story. I wanted to know more about these people and how the times that they lived in effected them. It felt like each scene was more of a brief montage than a complete chapter. It's like the film jumps into the middle of a scene without giving us much time to experience any emotions. This made the film seem choppy and hard to follow at times.

It was all so: quick, fast and loud...and then the scene is over and the next one starts...In that way it reminded me of Suspect's sci fi nom Coherence (2013) feeling like a movie where everything starts and ends in the middle.

If Pride had been in the hands of a more capable director who was able to flesh out the individual stories more, this might have been an Oscar contender.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Here this is for you, I gather you didn't bother to read my review as you didn't rep it.
Where I disagree with your review is in the fact that the director never wanted to go deep into the characters. It was not a mistake, it was an artistic choice. This film's strength is the group work, the cast as a whole. Each individual character is used as a tool to build this general idea. It's probably what I liked the most about it, the fact there's virtually no main characters.



That's funny, as you made a wrong assumption about what I was saying.
And what assumption is that?

Here this is for you, I gather you didn't bother to read my review as you didn't rep it.
I already read it. I don't rep every review I read.
But there you go making assumptions again.



Where I disagree with your review is in the fact that the director never wanted to go deep into the characters. It was not a mistake, it was an artistic choice.
I agree it was the director's artistic choice. Then again most any missteps in film making could be credited to artistic choice. In this case I say it was bad artistic choice. IMO of course, then again who else's opinion would it be.

This film's strength is the group work, the cast as a whole. Each individual character is used as a tool to build this general idea. It's probably what I liked the most about it, the fact there's virtually no main characters.
If you see it that way, then that's your truth, I wouldn't tell you that you're personally wrong. Though I personally think the film was done too cliched at times and should have been more deeply invested into character development.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
I agree it was the director's artistic choice. Then again most any missteps in film making could be credited to artistic choice. In this case I say it was bad artistic choice. IMO of course, then again who else's opinion would it be.

If you see it that way, then that's your truth, I wouldn't tell you that you're personally wrong. Though I personally think the film was done too cliched at times and should have been more deeply invested into character development.
I see what you mean, and of course we're only discussing opinions. I usually like character development, but I think this movie never aimed at that, so I won't miss it if it's not there. As I said, I value when a film knows what's it trying to be and doesn't take itself too seriously.



I see what you mean, and of course we're only discussing opinions. I usually like character development, but I think this movie never aimed at that, so I won't miss it if it's not there. As I said, I value when a film knows what's it trying to be and doesn't take itself too seriously.
That's cool



Apparently my question is going to be ignored.
I've already posted my thoughts, go back and re-read them. I'm not in the habit of re-explaining myself over and over...and quite frankly this is getting to be a bore. Though I do thank Neiba for being able to discuss this on an intellectual level.



I've already posted my thoughts, go back and re-read them. I'm not in the habit of re-explaining myself over and over...and quite frankly this is getting to be a bore. Though I do thank Neiba for being able to discuss this on an intellectual level.
I honestly don't know which assumption you think I've made and if you don't think I understand the question than perhaps you should help me to understand it rather than repeatedly insulting my intelligence.



I honestly don't know which assumption you think I've made and if you don't think I understand the question than perhaps you should help me to understand it rather than repeatedly insulting my intelligence.
Now, you just made an assumption about me didn't you? I didn't insult your intelligence, you only perceived it that way. See how that works? Perception is often more about how one interprets things, than how another person meant it to be viewed.

BTW, I do think you're intelligent and I do think you're worth talking to. I've made a lot of effort in the last 5+ years to get to know you, and in all that time, you've rarely talked to me in a friendly light way. I've PMed you friendly messages and when you bothered to reply it was a short cold reply...So, you'll have to forgive me if I now perceive you as jumping down my throat every time you respond to me. Perhaps you don't actually do that, but I often perceive many of your post to be angry. Like I said perception is a tricky thing.