MuffinMan Banned

Great review! I really think you're right... I haven't seen the movie...

Anyway, if you know some little examples of great films: "Battleship Potemkin" do you know why it’s a film that kickstarted modern cinema? Because of the dynamic editing that had never been seen like that before... do you know why "Citizen Kane" is the watershed of modern cinema, not just for the shots: the depth of field and the long takes, but also for the dissection of editing (flashbacks)... do you know why "Breathless" was innovative? Because to "dechronologize" the actions are irregular, disconnected, and do you know how it’s done through editing... who knows why innovative films often start from editing... (a recent example? "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction" do you know why they are groundbreaking films for their particular editing, not just because they say fuck, shit, and son of a bitch every three seconds and shoot like crazy)?

Thank you for the clarification 3d (that it is not essential seems obvious to me).

"Anyway, editing and directing plans are two different things, just so you know." NO WAY!!! I didn't talk about directing plans but about sequences shot in a way that they can be edited in only one manner... then look, just watch the behind-the-scenes of a film to see a directorial assistant who serves, let's say, to "organize the set." I have never claimed to work in the film industry... a star is not synonymous with a good actor but a famous character... even Angelina Jolie is a star, but she's not necessarily a great actress... "often he was overshadowed by his personality; in him, there was too much talent for just one man"—a little less cliché phrases please, but what do you know, you were his assistant director(?), anyway, Marlon Brando (who was an actor) used to say that in cinema you go to see the director, in theater, the actors...

You have contradicted yourself, you know why directors (the good ones) create sequences where the editing can only be done in one way, precisely because they understand that editing is the foundation of a film... then you, who edit videos (I'd say I understand the same thing, and I also make short films), know more than Hitchcock, who perhaps made 5 or 6 masterpieces and knows more about cinema than you and I do? Then what the hell does it mean if he surrounded himself with stars? That was necessary to get even the ignorant to go to the cinema, who go for the stars (and he was right about the actors as well)... but what does the assistant director have to do with it???? Who is just a "simple" servant... that it's true that all the components coming together make the film a masterpiece, but editing remains one of the most important aspects.

Great review! The film is one of the masterpieces of the great Kim alongside "Bad Guy," "The Samaritan," and "Ferro 3." I instead found "Time" weak and confusing...

Good job! I absolutely have nothing about Elling!

but not only to Hitc...

@NES, simply because editing gives the rhythm, the construction of the story, etc... if you don't trust me, ask Hitchcock why.

No, I'm sorry Kant, but I don't agree. Equating effects to screenplay or even to editing (which is the most important thing) is not possible; I would rather place them on the same level as costumes, set design, etc... It would only be missing that a film is judged by special effects; if it doesn't have them, it's a piece of crap, but of course not! P.S.: but does this 3D hurt the eyes or not???