yea i'm no history of rock professor, but i'm pretty sure Jim Morrison was long gone way before that movie came out.
but what would you expect from someone who was probably born after kurt cobain died....
I thought it was decent. I haven't seen it in a while but I seem to recall thinking it reminded me of 'Tribes' as I watched it.
I hate to admit it but I liked 'Cousins.' But that had more to do with my obsession with Isabella Rosselini than anything else.
yea i'm no history of rock professor, but i'm pretty sure Jim Morrison was long gone way before that movie came out.
but what would you expect from someone who was probably born after kurt cobain died....
This wouldn't be so funny to me if MH didn't make it a stand-by of his repertoire to assume he's older and wiser than everybody who disagrees with him![]()
ha
i think Stone's idea was more of molding Morrison and Bacchus into Val Kilmer's character to create a larger-than-life version of the band. it was fiction, but then again most history is fictionalized, and it was intended to be.
shakespeare (not comparing stone and shakespeare) wrote a play called Julius Caesar. it was based on historical significances but was far from fact. historical fiction is nothing new.
why don't you write Jim an email and ask him yourself, MH? i think he lives somewhere in Paris now.
I think the general consensus is that at one point Stone was very good and at some point in the 90's he started to churn out crap. I think the it's the point at which he stopped making mainly good movies and started churning out mainly crap that is the heart of the debate.
His early efforts were more often than not good...
ok, so it's been a long time since I talked about Stone and The Doors
but the other members of the band DID discredit the movie
Densmore and others
I said Morrison and others, a mistake, big deal.
my post remains fact when you correct the Morrison part
hey doofus, anyone makes mistakes. The BAND DID DISCREDIT THE MOVIE, I said "morrison and others" so obviously I made a mistake.
I am 26, not 66, so I didn't live through, I only know all of this stuff by memory, and I made a MINOR mistake.
The fact is, the band members did discredit the movie.
Considering that his death was included in the movie... I'm thinking that's a good bet.
yeah, woops
should have wrote "the band and others"
guys like densmore and others discredited the movie.
still the same .
As is the case with this entire thread, really comes down to a matter of opinion. I've seen his earlier films and didn't like them. Natural Born Killers, released 1994, was the first (and remains the only) of his films that I didn't think was crap.
what an ignorant dumbass. You didn't even watch the movie, we know now.
In it whether he did or not.
Probably not.....I mean you are talking about 30-40 year difference in release dates. Different viewing audiences. The potential audience for any film is now much larger.So Independence Day is a better film than Lawrence of Arabia.
It's definitely more watchachable than any Daniel Day-Lewis movie outside of Gangs of New York. The only truly good, watchable movie Daniel Day-Lewis has ever featured in prominently.
It really wasn't that successful of a film considering how talked about and hyped up it was. It was hyped by every critic in the business and lots of stupid people fell for it. I myself attempted to sit through it twice, at the theater.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.
And yes I consider myself stupid for doing that. Extremely. I should have known it was not my fault I fell asleep in it the first time, that it was indeed the personal charisma and acting ability of Daniel Day-Lewis that caused that.
Last of the Mohicans came out after JFK, it grossed @130 million dollars less. It's certainly not any kind of success when compared to JFK, and I'd say it was an out and out failrue considering all the critical hype it got.
The only truly successful movie Daniel Day-Lewis has been in was Gangs of New York. It also had a massive amount of critical acclaim, and there's a guy named Leonardo in that particular film that tends to pull big audiences.
I don't. I think he's entirely a construct of film critics and the Academy and without a massive amount of hype(and even with it) he is a poor audience draw who makes unmemorable movies.I think his relative popularity makes him popular.
He is without a doubt the most over-rated actor in history.
No but they did get people to see it by hyping the out of it and awarding an Oscar or so to it. Considering the amount of hype it got, it wasn't successful at all.
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.
Why not?
I think the big acclaim it got was that the cinematography was ground breaking and would revolutionize films... like that.
I mean Pauly Shore movies used to pull in 30-40 million in the early 90's being critically panned and with a guy whose primary talent was making you want to see him get his ass kicked....and that's actually better than the average Daniel Day-Lewis movie does that is unaccompanied by 15 Oscar nominations and universal critical hype.
Relax, man -- I was just taking a piss. I'll be the first to tell you I make mistakes all the time. Big ones.
OT -- I honestly do think it's funny you choose to lecture people about your vast and worldly experience at the worn, decrepit age of 26, but whatevs: that's you, and dad-gummit, we like ya!![]()
so I just saw DEATH PROOF
or, more like it, I had to turn it off because it was more of the same.
Tarantino = DISGUSTING BLOOD AND GORE GIMMICK director. Legs flying out of windows, close up shots of bloody women, disgusting.
Movies for kids who like to go "OOOOH LOOK AT THAT! DID U SEE THAT? AWESOME, DAMN!!!"
oh, and he loves to overuse the 60's-70's retro theme.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)