ajejebrazorf

No, dear Dave, I've listened to Dream Theater far and wide; luckily, I've gotten past the phase of being a fan of a band a long time ago. I simply consider this (as well as the next one) diarrhea.

Why does the name of this group remind me of explosive diarrhea?

Oh, here’s who Daverio is, I think I've even caught a glimpse of him a few times, but I really have no idea what kind of character he is. Back to us: true feelings will make you laugh, but after all the roundabout ways I've already articulated, I was hoping I wouldn't have to clarify further, my goodness. Anyway, I may have a sensitivity like a goat, but you give this a 3, Taxi Driver a 4, and Lolita a 5, in the face of MY proportions! To your criticisms (tv-movie, predictable rhetoric, soundtrack abuse?! And Barry Lyndon or 2001 will abuse the soundtrack? Come on) I don’t even know how to respond, they seem so out of this world. Seriously, this time we’re on different planets, it feels like criticizing Touch of Evil for not being funny or Coltrane for having too many solos, I wouldn’t even know what to say... come on.

Um, who the hell is Daverio? (I’ll read the answer tomorrow, if I can manage to sleep after this unsettling question)

What wisdom of Uncle Tom and the children is pure heart: true feelings. It's a humble and genuine film. As for Kubrick, I have a clear conscience: he was alongside Chaplin and Scorsese, and more than them, the director with whom I discovered cinema; I know almost every quirk of his and I loved him madly. Allow me not to give 5 to everything and to say that I like Lolita much less; you can democratically give 5 to everything :D The same goes for Allen; there's a lot to discuss: I'm too curious to see what people think about Match Point on Debaser, as it’s been one of the films of his that I’ve liked the most from the start (more than Zelig, just like me and Annie), while the majority of critics and people, including die-hard Allen fans, have harshly criticized it... and for now, I’ll stop here. We’ll see.

No, I didn't turn a blind eye, it's just that that line certainly doesn't change the course of the film (as far as I remember). It's produced by Disney, so it's for the masses; it's terrifying, come on. Damn, even the lawyers from The Simpsons wouldn't stoop to such lows, come on. Your 7-year-old cousin would watch Straight Story, and I'm not saying he wouldn't get anything out of it since it's a linear film, but I doubt he'd fully appreciate it; at 7, you don't think about the world of an old man, nor do you understand it at all. As for me, I like cinema, whether it's Herzog or Cameron's action film; you're the snob, my dear. And you're slow in the sense that you criticize films of a certain style, and Elephant Man fits right into that, with its black-and-white photography and the supposed important messages (not for me, but you mentioned Wellesian photography, which I don't know what it means but we understood each other). Ah, and obviously from his point of view, Caz is right; what can you say? The film bored him, period, indisputable. Precise and concise: a model to follow in practice, but I still quite enjoy cinema and all the talk about it :)

Well, excuse me, but the fact that the argument is just hinted at doesn’t change much: it didn’t have to show the two of them punching each other. A twenty-year feud is a serious matter, and a character with a twenty-year feud isn’t a good guy (nor a bad guy), but begins to acquire psychological nuances that Lynch’s Merritt doesn’t have (practically an angel in the body of a monster). It seems we’ve agreed on the slowness, especially since, for example, Home Alone or "My Father the Hero" (there’s a cultured reference for you) or Payback by Mel Gibson are fast movies, but can easily be considered TV movies (or am I wrong?), due to their target audience and intentions. But the TV movie setup is just useless: do you seriously think it's a film meant to please the masses? Besides, I could flip the argument again: you call this a TV movie; I could say that Elephant is a pretentious snob movie with its black and white cinematography. Of course, I’m exaggerating and don’t truly believe that, but the sensibility of such criticism is the same. TV movie, pfft (quote). By the way, you fall into the reverse snobbery, whereby if the director is of a certain type, their films must be pretentious. And this snobbery is, after all, just like that of those who reject a certain kind of entertainment cinema a priori...

naaa, naaa, you got upset because I touched on your favorite movie and now you're spouting nonsense about this film, and as Jannacci used to say, "you don't even have the aim" :D The old man in Straight Story is not just a good person, he doesn't only have positive traits. He is human, which is different. He fought with his brother, whom he hasn’t spoken to in, I don't remember if it’s twenty or thirty years; this is not pure goodness as you say. As for the fact that Merrick's story is true, I'll respond to you in turn with "who cares," since what matters is not the story itself but how it is presented in the film, and you don't need me to remind you that the same story can be viewed in many different ways and can be used to convey different messages. Then, "It's a TV movie. Is it slow? Isn't that often an approach for a bad TV movie?" definitely not; otherwise, Tarkovsky and Bergman would be shown in prime time constantly. A characteristic of TV movies is their banality, that much is true. I don't think this one is. And come on, what kind of criticism is "But how sad is the middle-aged couple kissing while she is at the stove"? There's a similar scene, for example, in Herzog's film "Stroszek," or in Fritz Lang's "The Big Heat." Just to say that you’re not saying anything, little fool :D

Okay, this is a different tone. So, it’s true that Merrick is fearful, scared, docile, and tender, but these are all positive traits. He has no shadows. It’s this simplification that I don’t like. I’m not saying that in every film characters must have depth or be portrayed with extreme realism (in a true story, for example, even if the character emerges, the thing isn’t so strict; there are also, and perhaps above all, the images and landscapes), but in a film that aims to be a moral parable like Elephant Man, this naive perspective doesn’t suit me very well.

(we can also talk BUT please)