John Wayne and the original True Grit are awesome, and from the looks of the trailer, this remake seems to be honoring them both. I'm looking forward to seeing it.
I don't know, I'm kinda wary of them after A Serious Man
I mean, what the hell was that?
Metal_Mario99
One of the best movies of the past decade. :s
Why?
I mean it. Why? Because I have no idea what the hell that movie was even about. If you could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.
What am I, a film school? If you want to know what it was about, consult IMDB or some variant site. I love it; the esoteric subject matter is bound to confuse and alienate a large portion of the audience (including myself, but you know, that's what Google is for), but it harbours an extraordinary sense of humour as always, and a bleak as hell outlook, another common trait for the pairing that I admire.
[QUOTE="super_mario_128"] One of the best movies of the past decade. :s
super_mario_128
Why?
I mean it. Why? Because I have no idea what the hell that movie was even about. If you could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.
What am I, a film school? If you want to know what it was about, consult IMDB or some variant site. I love it; the esoteric subject matter is bound to confuse and alienate a large portion of the audience (including myself, but you know, that's what Google is for), but it harbours an extraordinary sense of humour as always, and a bleak as hell outlook, another common trait for the pairing that I admire.
If the movie's story is incomprhensable then I think it's safe to say that it's not a good movie.
I mean it. Why? Because I have no idea what the hell that movie was even about. If you could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.
vadicta
What am I, a film school? If you want to know what it was about, consult IMDB or some variant site. I love it; the esoteric subject matter is bound to confuse and alienate a large portion of the audience (including myself, but you know, that's what Google is for), but it harbours an extraordinary sense of humour as always, and a bleak as hell outlook, another common trait for the pairing that I admire.
If the movie's story is incomprhensable then I think it's safe to say that it's not a good movie. It's not the movie's fault YOU couldn't comprehend it.
[QUOTE="super_mario_128"] One of the best movies of the past decade. :s
super_mario_128
Why?
I mean it. Why? Because I have no idea what the hell that movie was even about. If you could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.
What am I, a film school? If you want to know what it was about, consult IMDB or some variant site. I love it; the esoteric subject matter is bound to confuse and alienate a large portion of the audience (including myself, but you know, that's what Google is for), but it harbours an extraordinary sense of humour as always, and a bleak as hell outlook, another common trait for the pairing that I admire.
So, you can't tell me why it was great? That's one thing we have in common, then, because I sure as hell can't tell you why either.
I mean it. Why? Because I have no idea what the hell that movie was even about. If you could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.
Metal_Mario99
What am I, a film school? If you want to know what it was about, consult IMDB or some variant site. I love it; the esoteric subject matter is bound to confuse and alienate a large portion of the audience (including myself, but you know, that's what Google is for), but it harbours an extraordinary sense of humour as always, and a bleak as hell outlook, another common trait for the pairing that I admire.
So, you can't tell me why it was great? That's one thing we have in common, then, because I sure as hell can't tell you why either.
He explained why he thought it was great in the very post you quoted.
I mean it. Why? Because I have no idea what the hell that movie was even about. If you could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.
vadicta
What am I, a film school? If you want to know what it was about, consult IMDB or some variant site. I love it; the esoteric subject matter is bound to confuse and alienate a large portion of the audience (including myself, but you know, that's what Google is for), but it harbours an extraordinary sense of humour as always, and a bleak as hell outlook, another common trait for the pairing that I admire.
If the movie's story is incomprhensable then I think it's safe to say that it's not a good movie. It required more of an attention span than "complex" movies like Inception, but it was anything but incomprehensible.
I mean it. Why? Because I have no idea what the hell that movie was even about. If you could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.
Metal_Mario99
What am I, a film school? If you want to know what it was about, consult IMDB or some variant site. I love it; the esoteric subject matter is bound to confuse and alienate a large portion of the audience (including myself, but you know, that's what Google is for), but it harbours an extraordinary sense of humour as always, and a bleak as hell outlook, another common trait for the pairing that I admire.
So, you can't tell me why it was great? That's one thing we have in common, then, because I sure as hell can't tell you why either.
I gave you two reasons as to why I liked the film. I haven't seen it for about half a year now so I can't remember some of it; next time I watch it I'll be sure to write a trenchant dissertation on it and send it to you personally.
[QUOTE="super_mario_128"] What am I, a film school? If you want to know what it was about, consult IMDB or some variant site. I love it; the esoteric subject matter is bound to confuse and alienate a large portion of the audience (including myself, but you know, that's what Google is for), but it harbours an extraordinary sense of humour as always, and a bleak as hell outlook, another common trait for the pairing that I admire.
super_mario_128
If the movie's story is incomprhensable then I think it's safe to say that it's not a good movie. It's not the movie's fault YOU couldn't comprehend it.
Actually it is. If the movie can't make itself understandable, then what's it worth?
[QUOTE="super_mario_128"] What am I, a film school? If you want to know what it was about, consult IMDB or some variant site. I love it; the esoteric subject matter is bound to confuse and alienate a large portion of the audience (including myself, but you know, that's what Google is for), but it harbours an extraordinary sense of humour as always, and a bleak as hell outlook, another common trait for the pairing that I admire.
cybrcatter
If the movie's story is incomprhensable then I think it's safe to say that it's not a good movie. It required more of an attention span than "complex" movies like Inception, but it was anything but incomprehensible.
Oh, of course, because I must be damn near retarded if I couldn't follow such a complex masterpiece as that. Look, there's a reason why a Coen Brother's movie would go straight to DVD with no marketing the way it did. And that's because everyone knew it was no good. Also why the cast lacked any significant presence.
If the movie's story is incomprhensable then I think it's safe to say that it's not a good movie.
vadicta
It's not the movie's fault YOU couldn't comprehend it.
Actually it is. If the movie can't make itself understandable, then what's it worth? What is it with everyone in this thread missing other people's points.... There's a reason why he emphasized the word "YOU" in that post.
If the movie's story is incomprhensable then I think it's safe to say that it's not a good movie.
vadicta
It's not the movie's fault YOU couldn't comprehend it.
Actually it is. If the movie can't make itself understandable, then what's it worth? Don't know whether you're trolling or not anymore. Nevertheless, a movie doesn't have to cater to the perceptive qualities of its audience; if you were unable to understand it, watch it again; if you're still unable to understand it, consult further reading material or such things. If you're not interested enough in understanding what a film has to say to spend a meagre amount of time doing research on it if it confuses you, then you don't have any business complaining about how 'incomprehensible' it is.
If the movie's story is incomprhensable then I think it's safe to say that it's not a good movie.
vadicta
It required more of an attention span than "complex" movies like Inception, but it was anything but incomprehensible.
Oh, of course, because I must be damn near retarded if I couldn't follow such a complex masterpiece as that. Look, there's a reason why a Coen Brother's movie would go straight to DVD with no marketing the way it did. And that's because everyone knew it was no good. Also why the cast lacked any significant presence. I'm not entirely sure if you're serious. The characters had more depth and distinguishable personalities to them than most movies out there. As far as commercial success is concerned, not appealing to the lowest common denominator shouldn't be something to hold against a film.
[QUOTE="super_mario_128"] It's not the movie's fault YOU couldn't comprehend it.
super_mario_128
Actually it is. If the movie can't make itself understandable, then what's it worth? Don't know whether you're trolling or not anymore.
Well, he couldn't possibly be sincere, since A Serious Man was such an awesome movie. I mean, it's so obvious, right? So he must be trolling. There's no other possible explanation for his disagreement with you.
Actually it is. If the movie can't make itself understandable, then what's it worth?
Metal_Mario99
Don't know whether you're trolling or not anymore.
Well, he couldn't possibly be sincere, since A Serious Man was such an awesome movie. I mean, it's so obvious, right? So he must be trolling. There's no other possible explanation for his disagreement with you.
I wouldn't question his sincerity if his critique consisted of more than 'I couldn't understand it therefore it is bad'.
[QUOTE="super_mario_128"] It's not the movie's fault YOU couldn't comprehend it.
super_mario_128
Actually it is. If the movie can't make itself understandable, then what's it worth? Don't know whether you're trolling or not anymore. Nevertheless, a movie doesn't have to cater to the perceptive qualities of its audience; if you were unable to understand it, watch it again; if you're still unable to understand it, consult further reading material or such things. If you're not interested enough in understanding what a film has to say to spend a meagre amount of time doing research on it if it confuses you, then you don't have any business complaining about how 'incomprehensible' it is.
If the movie doesn't contain all the information within itself to be understood, then what makes it good, is my question. If the answers aren't self-evident, then there are no answers to be found.
People always seem to think that complex and conveluted mean the same thing.
If the movie doesn't contain all the information within itself to be understood, then what makes it good, is my question. If the answers aren't self-evident, then there are no answers to be found.
vadicta
It's like those TV commercials that show you something, then tell you to go to the company's online website to "see what happens next".
Film looks great. However, why does everyone seem to think this is a remake of the 1969 film, this is just a 2010 adaption of the book the 1969 film was based off of.
[QUOTE="vadicta"] If the movie doesn't contain all the information within itself to be understood, then what makes it good, is my question. If the answers aren't self-evident, then there are no answers to be found.
Metal_Mario99
It's like those TV commercials that show you something, then tell you to go to the company's online website to "see what happens next".
Yeah, I'll get right on that.
I just don't understand why people are getting so pissed over this. I mean, I've loved every one of the Coen Brother's other films. But the opening is inconsequential to the rest of the story. It never attempts to draw any lines between the two. And, just when the story is building up and you think the climax is about to pull everything together, is just ends, leaving a bad taste in your mouth. I laughed a couple times, but nothing much. It just wasn't a good movie. I don't know why everyone's so butthurt over it.
Film looks great. However, why does everyone seem to think this is a remake of the 1969 film, this is just a 2010 adaption of the book the 1969 film was based off of.Mythomniac
Actually, it looks to me like they're really hewing closely to the original film. It's not a Gene Wilder/Johnny Depp Willy Wonka situation.
If the movie doesn't contain all the information within itself to be understood, then what makes it good, is my question.vadicta
But it does, the issue here is with you: that YOU couldn't piece all the information presented to come up with a coherent answer as to its meaning. And I'm not insulting you here, to clarify, since I didn't know what the hell had happened when I first watched it.
If the answers aren't self-evident, then there are no answers to be found.vadicta
Which can be rewritten as: if the answers, WHICH ARE IN THE MOVIE, aren't self evident, then there are no answers. Which is a contradiction.
People always seem to think that complex and conveluted mean the same thing.vadicta
A Serious Man is widely regarded as their most personal film, as it does portray a good deal of their childhood, or so I hear, so I feel that it's natural that the film isn't easily accessible, but this doesn't make it bad by any means. A film-maker shouldn't be constrained into making every detail explicit simply because their audience doesn't possess the knowledge required to decipher the secrets of the film.
If the movie doesn't contain all the information within itself to be understood, then what makes it good, is my question.
vadicta
But it does contain all the information to be understood. It's just not spelt out for you all the time, but more so something that you put together yourself.
A Serious Man is widely regarded as their most personal film, as it does portray a good deal of their childhood, or so I hear, so I feel that it's natural that the film isn't easily accessible, but this doesn't make it bad by any means. A film-maker shouldn't be constrained into making every detail explicit simply because their audience doesn't possess the knowledge required to decipher the secrets of the film.super_mario_128
I just never understood why that can't be made explicit. What's another ten minutes in a film to make the movie accessable?
And I belive it's a filmaker's job to present his story, thoughts, ideas, expericenes etc. to the audience in a way that they can decipher. I mean, I understnad that there is a market for this sort of stuff. But I don't consider it artistic. I just consider it lazy.
I mean, there's no reason a person should have to do his own personal research on a film in order to be able to fully appreciate it.
That would be funny if you used it in the appropriate context, but you didn't. You can easily look up the meaning/interpretations of A Serious Man, which is what I refused earlier; what you asserted is essentially an opinion, though an interesting one if you could adequately support it. If you don't want to then w/e.
I just never understood why that can't be made explicit. What's another ten minutes in a film to make the movie accessable? And I belive it's a filmaker's job to present his story, thoughts, ideas, expericenes etc. to the audience in a way that they can decipher. I mean, I understnad that there is a market for this sort of stuff. But I don't consider it artistic. I just consider it lazy. I mean, there's no reason a person should have to do his own personal research on a film in order to be able to fully appreciate it.vadicta
Well when a director has a vision in mind, he'll present it in a manner he considers suitable. Adding an extra scene to explain all the preceding/following events for those unwilling to think about the film can both destroy their vision and ruin the film as a piece of art. I don't value any narrative that spoon-feeds the plot to me, and no director who engages in such a facile approach to film-making is worth much.
[QUOTE="Metal_Mario99"]What am I, a film school?super_mario_128
That would be funny if you used it in the appropriate context, but you didn't. You can easily look up the meaning/interpretations of A Serious Man, which is what I refused earlier; what you asserted is essentially an opinion, though an interesting one if you could adequately support it. If you don't want to then w/e.
I just never understood why that can't be made explicit. What's another ten minutes in a film to make the movie accessable? And I belive it's a filmaker's job to present his story, thoughts, ideas, expericenes etc. to the audience in a way that they can decipher. I mean, I understnad that there is a market for this sort of stuff. But I don't consider it artistic. I just consider it lazy. I mean, there's no reason a person should have to do his own personal research on a film in order to be able to fully appreciate it.vadicta
Well when a director has a vision in mind, he'll present it in a manner he considers suitable. Adding an extra scene to explain all the preceding/following events for those unwilling to think about the film can both destroy their vision and ruin the film as a piece of art. I don't value any narrative that spoon-feeds the plot to me, and no director who engages in such a facile approach to film-making is worth much.
You see I love how I make a valid statement about the role of a filmaker in presenting his ideas and then you insult my intellegence by acting like I'm begging to be babbied by every peice of art that comes my way, and yet I'm accused of trolling here. Yup, that makes perfect sense.
Log in to comment