Reply With Quote
Spielberg is the king of making 3/4 of a great movie and then killing it with a terrible ending.
and minority report
and war of the worlds
Spielberg is the king of making 3/4 of a great movie and then killing it with a terrible ending.
What? Those movies were classics. But regardless, The Frighteners was a really great movie. I liked it alot. He did a good job directing it.
What? Addams Family movies were some funny ass movies. They have these dry comedic lines that are brilliant.
I disagree completely. And I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, only that I disagree. For me, the books were much better than the movies. Probably because I read the trilogy (and The Hobbit) at least half a dozen times before the movies were even created, much less released. Much of the imagery in my imagination was different from that of the movies. Maybe "hate" is too strong a word for my opinion of the movies but, compared to the books and what they meant to me as a kid, I didn't like the movies.
I liked The Frighteners. Didn't like the Rings Trilogy.
I saw the Addams Family in the theatre. A few funny scenes and some funny lines but, overall, I didn't care for it. I thought Addams Family Values was straight horrible. Just didn't like it at all.
Tim Pope (The Crow: City Of Angels). Well, can't really say I hate him overall as a director. But, The Crow: City Of Angels was possibly the tiest movie I ever paid to see. My wallet can't talk but I'm sure it felt raped after I paid 8 bucks to see that abortion of a movie.
Schumacher. Tony Scott. And ing Spielberg and Lucas.
All four have made movies that I've liked, for the record, but in every case it was in spite of their direction rather than because of it.
I thought JFK was a train wreck and Nixon was quite good. Stone has made a bunch of crap since then.
why danny boyle? seriously i've liked everything he did
And naturally, I disagree. I don't think they are even on the same map in terms of entertainment value, if only because Nixon and Kennedy do not compare in terms of interest.
But let's say you give Nixon the edge:
1. In terms of managing a truly all star cast to good or great performances. I'd say both Nixon and JFK rank among the greatest films of that sort. All that said, JFK has the more impressive cast.
2. In historical accuracy(and I don't go to see movies for historical accuracy, although I will judge ones that I think suck by that criteria). Ok fine.
JFK still has the ultimate trump card, because in JFK Stone actually got Kevin Costner to maintain some semblance of an accent at least 30% of the time for the entire movie. That is inarguably a top 5 Directorial acheivement of all time...therefore, not complete crap. Automatically and instantly, far from it in fact.
JFK FTW
The Doors was a good movie
But Nixon didn't have Costner in it at all.
Advantage: Nixon.
In fact, the worst part of that movie was where it referenced JFK, complete with the snare drum soundtrack clip.
JFK FTL.
Normally you might be right, except that unfortunately for you(and me) Nixon had a lot more Nixon in it than JFK.
Which is why:
In fact, the worst part of that movie was where it referenced JFK, complete with the snare drum soundtrack clip.
JFK FTL.
Still doesn't trump my initial argument. You see whether there was or wasn't enough Kennedy in JFK, whether what was or was not in the film concerning JFK was well done, or not, it's still not as relevant to this particular discssion as the fact that there was was definitely too much Nixon in Nixon, Anthony Hopkins be damned,.
JFK FTW
That was the best part -- JFK had no JFK in it.
That sums it up to me.Still doesn't trump my initial argument. You see whether there or wasn't enough Kennedy in JFK, whether what was or was not in the film concerning JFK was well done, or not, it's still not as relevant to this particular discssion as the fact that there was was definitely too much Nixon in Nixon, Anthony Hopkins be damned,.
JFK FTW
JFK wasn't even interesting enough to be a character in a movie called JFK -- that or there hasn't been a filmmaker honest enough to explore his character the way Stone did Nixon.
JFK FTL.
Crappy TV miniseries makers? Maybe. I haven't seen them.
The Doors was a piece of movie because it was a complete lie.
The Doors themselves went to the media to denounce the movie and expose Stone for trying to pass it off as anything but complete fiction
same thing with JFK, Alexander, andetc....
complete bull , revisionist history movies. Stone sucks .
Natural Born Killers and Any Given Sunday are the only ones I like of his
oh, and I haven't seen Inglorious Basterds yet
but Quentin Tarantino really is a blood and gore gimmick hack. i can imagine teenagers enjoying all the extreme violence and exaggerated blood in them.
Death Proof was basically a foot fetish reel disguised as a feature film. At least Russ Meyer was obsessed with breasts.
Well first of all, JFK did indeed have some JFK in it.
Secondly, I agree that the amount of JFK in JFK is a lesser or even moot factor when compared to how much Nixon was in Nixon.
It's exactly the point I am making.
JFK wasn't even interesting enough to be a character in a movie called JFK -- that or there hasn't been a filmmaker honest enough to explore his character the way Stone did Nixon.
JFK FTL.
Crappy TV miniseries makers? Maybe. I haven't seen them.
Or it could just be that the initials and focus on events leading up the event, the actual event, and what immediately followed the event, starring a slightly above average acting talent were of more interest than the totality of Nixon's life starring an Oscar winner with tons of both critical and commercial acclaim. Not to mention any all other films and things having to do with him.
A quick look at the box office reults of both films and all other films featuring Nixon prominently, would seem to indicate it's a strong possiblity.
There's also the fact that one of them was assasinated in office and is more or less left alone as an entertainment property out of respect....the major exception of course being a profit oriented man of the people named Oliver Stone.
If you believe there was a conspiracy, then 'JFK' is one the greatest films ever made. But if you're like me, convinced Oswald was the lone gunmen, the film loses it's luster. There is no denying that Oliver Stone is a great filmmaker. If you know any Vietnam Veterans, his three films, 'Platoon,' 'Heaven and Earth' and 'Born on the 4th of July,' hits home. It does for me.
He also wrote 'Salvador' and 'Scarface.' And I think he co-wrote 'Conan the Barbarian.' I consider him a great filmmaker.
His best film is The Hand .IMVHO
I didn't like either one of those. He already sucked for me by the time he made those.
Who played him?
Exactly.Secondly, I agree that the amount of JFK in JFK is a lesser or even moot factor when compared to how much Nixon was in Nixon.
It's exactly the point I am making.
More popular = better?Or it could just be that the initials and focus on events leading up the event, the actual event, and what immediately followed the event, starring a slightly above average acting talent were of more interest than the totality of Nixon's life starring an Oscar winner with tons of both critical and commercial acclaim. Not to mention any all other films and things having to do with him.
A quick look at the box office reults of both films and all other films featuring Nixon prominently, would seem to indicate it's a strong possiblity.
Nice.
There are some very popular Daniel Day-Lewis films out there.
No, there have been several films about JFK, but any one of note really boils down to one of two things -- the Cuban missile crisis and the assassination. Neither ends up really fleshing out JFK as a biographical character -- in fact, they tend to beatify him, which seems to be quite far from reality. I personally don't think the rest of his life is so boring or sacrosanct that it should be verboten to filmmakers, but that's me.There's also the fact that one of them was assasinated in office and is more or less left alone as an entertainment property out of respect....the major exception of course being a profit oriented man of the people named Oliver Stone.
Himself...
Usually yes....depending heavily on the factors defining popularity.More popular = better?
There are some very popular Daniel Day-Lewis films out there., I was wondering what this was about
There really aren't some very popular Daniel Day-Lewis films out there. Not without a damn good reason for it other than Daniel Day-Lewis. There aren't any as successful as JFK.
Just because DDL might be more interesting than Nixon(sometimes) doesn't mean he's popular.
Well it's not officially verbooten, just doesn't seem to be an idea many people in the film industry are comfortable with.No, there have been several films about JFK, but any one of note really boils down to one of two things -- the Cuban missile crisis and the assassination. Neither ends up really fleshing out JFK as a biographical character -- in fact, they tend to beatify him, which seems to be quite far from reality. I personally don't think the rest of his life is so boring or sacrosanct that it should be verboten to filmmakers, but that's me.
if it was revisionist history itd be called a do entary. directors cant have artistic license anymore? portraying a legend is more artistic than a fact. its a movie not a history class.
Wow.
I bet he won the Oscar for best file footage.
So Independence Day is a better film than Lawrence of Arabia.Usually yes....depending heavily on the factors defining popularity.
What was the reason for Last of the Mohicans? I don't really care much for or about DDL, but your rant about him was entertaining.
There really aren't some very popular Daniel Day-Lewis films out there. Not without a damn good reason for it other than Daniel Day-Lewis. There aren't any as successful as JFK.
I think his relative popularity makes him popular. He's no Shia LaBoeuf, I agree -- but he did get a bunch of people to see There Will be Blood by just sitting there and staring at the camera during a preview.Just because DDL might be more interesting than Nixon(sometimes) doesn't mean he's popular.
Why not?Well it's not officially verbooten, just doesn't seem to be an idea many people in the film industry are comfortable with.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
