Samuel Dravis Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by SeleneRayne I have never saw this movie before, but from the sounds of it, I have mixed reviews, it sounds like people say it's one of the greatest movies ever, and some say they were so bored, they thought a sharp stick in the eye looked better than the movie. Some people say something's great just because its a 'classic', perhaps in it's own time, but now it has very little reflection on the current world. I say, Dickens, etc had their time, now move over and let us have our own. They may be excellent, use english perfectly, have the best angles ever achieved before then, etc, but if they don't relate to the contemporary world, they have no meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by SeleneRayne .....and some say they were so bored, they thought a sharp stick in the eye looked better than the movie..... yes Selene, Kain is as entertaining as a stick in the eye.......umm...I mean umm.....Citizen Kane *awaits subsequent death threat from Kain* mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Never heard of CK. What sort of a movie is that? Oh, and is Kain the lead actor in it? Then it has 99.9999% chance of boring... *screams* Oops! *scrams* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poggle Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Plot Summary for Citizen Kane (1941) Multimillionaire newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane dies alone in his extravagant mansion, Xanadu, speaking a single word: "Rosebud". In an attempt to figure out the meaning of this word, a reporter tracks down the people who worked and lived with Kane; they tell their stories in a series of flashbacks that reveal much about Kane's life but not enough to unlock the riddle of his dying breath Its orson welles finest work except the voice of unicron in transformers the movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 I'd like to thank all who got on here and whined about a movie they generally havent seen and definitely dont seem to understand... I got out my CK 2 disc special edition last nite.... man, what an experience.... salutes Orson Welles, for havin the mustard to do what he did, Herman Mankiewicz for contribution to the screenplay, the mercury theatre actors, and Bernard Hermann for yet another wonderful score... now kiddies, get back to your ROTK DVD good isnt it, yes *looks forward to Ep3, in hypocritical fashion* mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Originally posted by Samuel Dravis Some people say something's great just because its a 'classic', perhaps in it's own time, but now it has very little reflection on the current world. I say, Dickens, etc had their time, now move over and let us have our own. They may be excellent, use english perfectly, have the best angles ever achieved before then, etc, but if they don't relate to the contemporary world, they have no meaning. ok, here we go. In 500 years time, I wonder if anyone will find relevance or amusement in most of the junk that passes for literature today. *pats Shakespeare on the head, Hugs his copy of Macbeth* mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 ok, here we go. In 500 years time, I wonder if anyone will find relevance or amusement in most of the junk that passes for literature today. *pats Shakespeare on the head, Hugs his copy of Macbeth* mtfbwya Why should I care about what people think in 500 years? I'll be frolicking with the grubs, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 ok, here we go. In 500 years time, I wonder if anyone will find relevance or amusement in most of the junk that passes for literature today. Like MAD Magazine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Knight of Keno Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Citizen Kain? Did someone say Citizen Kain? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_One Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Citizen Kane? Lawrence of Arabia? Star Wars? Lord of the Rings? Pah! 3 words: The Big Lebowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted June 3, 2004 Share Posted June 3, 2004 Originally posted by The_One The Big Lebowski My roommate at college made me watch this movie last semester. Now, typically, I enjoy all the same movies as him, and we disagree basically only on Star Wars and Fight Club. And now we disagree on The Big Lebowski. I was sitting there watching this movie just waiting for it to get good. Or interesting. Or entertaining. Or EVEN MIND STIMULATING. But it wasn't. BLEH BLEH BLEH on the big lebowski. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted June 3, 2004 Share Posted June 3, 2004 I was really looking forward to TBL, but it let me down, the only saving grace was john turturo's character, hilarious ! mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted June 3, 2004 Share Posted June 3, 2004 The Big Lebowski? Boring? OK, you guys asked for this... *gets out his AK-74* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_One Posted June 3, 2004 Share Posted June 3, 2004 Watch it again. And again. And again. Trust me, it gets better each time. A lot of the stuff you miss or don't understand the first time - the more you watch it, the funnier it gets, to the point where you could watch it every day and never tire of it. That is why it's such a great movie. It's up for debate whether it's the greatest movie ever made, but there's no question of it being the funniest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted June 3, 2004 Share Posted June 3, 2004 big lebowski rules... as do all coen brothers films (except the man who wasn't there...) There seems to have been a very radical shift in the way films are shot and edited over the last 5 years. Things have moved into a much more fluid, mtv like, cgi enhanced, action packed, quick cut way of doing things. Watch action films from 10 years ago, for example, and they seem failry dull by comarisson, as we expect them to get straight into the action in the first five minutes. Kane is a classic, but it is a purist's film. Many of the shots in it had never been done before, some were thought to be impossible. And I have seen the story rehashed 100s of times in tv episodes and so on. The central performance is also brilliant. It was never meant to be a "fun" film. It was supposed to be intelligent, thought provoking and moving. Current films are fsar more slick, and in many ways much better, but they do seem to have (on the whole) lost a lot of the magic and heart that used to exist in the medium. ----- CGi as a medium isn't bad. No mediums are bad, there are always good and bad uses. THe problem I have with it a lot of the time is that, a lot like graphics in computer games, it is just a quest to stick in as much CGi as possible and make it bigger than the last guy... often at the expense of the film, characters and plot. Any pixar film, for example, has both good visuals, but also great characters, plots, emotions and so on. I LOVE all their films. Gollum, Yoda... both worked well as characters and were belivable. CGi battles in AOTC and Two Towers were both great, realistic and heart pounding. On the other hand, just sticking in CGi doesn't make the film good. Look at TPM, Blade 2, daredevil, etc... And with LOTR, Troy, SW, Chronicles of riddick, etc... we seem to have reached a point where they are competeing just to have the biggest CGi army, rather than the best use of an army. I'm of the opinion that special effects (of all types) are best when you don't notice them. The best special effect in jurrasic park was an early facial mapping scene that no-one noticed. Directors now almost seem to want to make their CGI stand out in order to show that they have big budget CGi... and when cgi stands out (usually though bad compositing) it really looks fake. Basing a film on special effects is a bad idea, as they date rapidly. That is why you need a decent film to contain them. This is why the original SW films already look more realistic than TPM which looks SO FAKE already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.