beddo said:
Don't be a pretentious and patronising idiot. You failed to read my comment as I had intended; 'film snobs' don't actually seem to enjoy films. This often seems to be the case because they have a tendency to judge them based on 'the vision' of the director and not the actual content.
I think Stanley Kubrick's films are awful. Space Odyssey is one of the most boring things I have ever seen. It lacked subtlety, there was no emotion, the story was weak. The end sequence when he 'evolves' it was just a tedious use of the then available special effects.
Clockwork Orange, what an incomprehensible mess. Non believable storyline and outrageous characters. Totally boring and a waste of time and effort to watch it.
One of my favourite films is Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl. It's fun, exciting, engaging, you can watch it more than once. It's just an entertaining film.
I hate all these pseudo intellectual commentaries on life that are put into films. If these people were actually intelligent then they would write a book about it!
Pretentious? Me? I never even
pretended to have watched most of the movies by these 'great' directors. I've seen FMJ by Kubrick, AI (half by Kubrick) and The Seven Samurai and that's it. My earlier post in this thread was about how much I love big bangs in my movies.
Patronising? I wasn't the one whose response to an innocent OP was
dripping with veiled distaste. Your new post only shows exactly how much bile you were quietly directing at Hey Joe in the first place; I just called you on it.
As for your problems with Stanley Kubrick's movies, I really couldn't say one way or the other as I've already admitted I haven't watched them; but it should be noted that a writer I'd definitely class as an intellectual said one of the big themes of 2001 was a lack of emotionality, the process of distancing oneself from emotions. Don't ask me if that's true, but if it is then for the movie to lack emotion would mean SK succeeded with this 'vision' of his and successfully conveyed his meaning, which I would class as content. There was a message and you got it: you just concluded it was a failing when others claim it was the point.
As for your favourite movie...the content is what? Pirates, Johnny Depp playing a gay drunkard and sea battles? Seriously, I was willing to admit you had a valid point of view until then. Sure the movie is fun, engaging, blah blah blah - I loved it. But it's definitely not heavy on this content you speak of - a word as empty of meaning here as you've implied directorial 'vision' is.
Your last line is just silly. Books are the only medium for intelligent commentary? Tell us, in your infinite wisdom, do poems pass your test? Do plays make the cut?
Saying that film snobs don't enjoy films is preposterous; they wouldn't watch them otherwise. I suspect you simply don't like how much they analyse the movies they watch - something I'm not too fond of either, but I don't carry a chip on my shoulder about it. You've got no good reason; you just hate that they 'suck all the fun out of it'. Everything you've written is the ravings of one trying to explain why they just can't stand something.