May 5, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I assume the people behind the movie don’t want to turn it into a cause but want the movie seen on its merits.
it’s a rather unfortunate title for a movie about gay cowbows.
According to IMDB this movie doesn’t get released until December 9. It doesn’t seem like there can be much worthwhile general discussion until then.
You can’t give the movie a pass just because it’s about gays. As a critic you have to ask those questions. Just to let it go and give it a pass would be terrible journalism. Are you supposed to like every movie that has a message and is about different people?
If you dislike this movie you apparently hate gay people.
I hated Dukes of Hazzard. Does that mean I hate rednecks?
On the other hand, do those who like it only feel that way because it’s about “different people?” Is everyone who admires it just giving it a pass because of the subject matter?
You mean to say that one of these guys broke his back mountin’ the other guys? That’s tacky!
I can see a lot of reviewers and critics giving it a pass because of the subjects material. Either way I don’t see it doing well at the box office.
i dunno, whenever i hear the title I think “Bareback Mountin'”.
It does sound like a porno.
Are we not allowed to hate rednecks now?
The guy who David was corresponding with wasn’t saying that David had to like it because of what it was or wasn’t about and nobody is saying that. He was saying that one of the primary reasons for not liking the movie was flawed.
These character would still be closeted in the 80s despite the fact that Stonewall and all that jazz had happened. They were country boys, packing up and moving to San Fran wasn’t really an option for them.
the title is tragic. but funny.
That guy took a negative review a little too personal. You think it was Ang Lee corresponding with Dave?
This movie can have great reviews and I still don’t think anyone will end up seeing it.
Give Heath Ledger credit. He’s not playing by anyones rules and does what he wants and works with who he wants. Might not be the best thing for his career but he seems to be happy.
do you really think ang lee would log onto this website? doubt it. that guy just didn’t like the idea that ol’ dave said it ain’t hard no more for gays to “out” themselves. does i sound redneck enough fer ya? and you can hate me all yous want, i don’t give a gosh dern….
You serious? I think Ang Lee is here everyday checking what people think of him, his movie, The Hulk, and J Lo’s career.
Ang Lee is Chester.
Tell Chester he ruined The Hulk. The jerk.
joefitz, u rock. chester did ruin The Hulk. hope he doesn’t make the sequel.
It’s ridiculous to say that those who are giving the movie good reviews are doing so because of the subject matter. That’s RIDICULOUS. It’s the kind of political statement that deserves to be called narrow-minded. I respect David for coming up with a review in which he said he didn’t like the movie, and I don’t that because he’s a hetero he couldn’t enjoy it. David wanted another movie, that’s it. And there are people who actually got into it and liked what they saw. Fine.
That said, if anyone knows anything about gay movies they can agree with me on the fact that most of them suck. Go to a gay section in any DVD shop (if there is one) and you’ll be hard-pressed to find any good movies. So when a movie of this pedigree (as of its source material, director, actors, whatever) suddenly appears in the horizon it has to be seen as important. The simple fact that it exists is important.
i’m trying to think of a gay themed movie that was good. with that as the sibject matter. maybe prison style lesbian flicks.
No one here simply loved Love Valour Compassion? Watching George Costanza act really queen like is worth the rental.
Yeah, queer cinema is definitely a not particularly good sub-sub genre. When it comes to romantic gay films there are only two I can think of that are good (and are actually really good): My Beautiful Laundrette and Beautiful Thing. The Sum of Us is pretty decent too (Russell Crowe!)
And then you have movies like The Adventures of Prescilla: Queen of the Desert and the like. Prescilla is a classic, thought.
However, “This movie can have great reviews and I still don’t think anyone will end up seeing it.”… you’ve GOT to be kidding me. This is definitely one of the more anticipated films. I’m not saying that it’ll gross squillions of dollars (I think I’ll be surprised no matter what it grosses) but there is a definite audience that is hanging out for the this film – and yes it may predominantly be gays and women but so what.
And the film was low-budget apparently so…
Mark, Ledger has actually said he deliberately took roles to “destroy” his career so that he could build it back up on his own terms.
Who is anticipating this movie besides a select few? Watching two men have a love affair from far away isn’t a huge draw.
Heath Ledger has been in some really, really bad movies. If thats how he wants to build a career than more power to him.
But I wouldn’t wish those roles on anyone.
I agree, the movie won’t make billions but it will definitely have a decent box office run.
For starters, the gay community of the world is anxiously anticipating this movie. I have a lot of gay friends and ALL of them, with no exception, can’t wait to see it. They may not break records, but you can count on them to go out and watch the movie and promote it with their friends and so on…
Also, it’s an Ang Lee movie, and one of the most anticipated movies of the fall, so people who actually love movies and who care about quality will also be out in droves…
Whats a decent run at the BO for this?
20$ million?
I’d be very surprised if it got even close to 40$ mill.
Ang Lee isn’t a box office draw. Maybe for hardcore film lovers but not for the general public.
i love movies and i’m not marking the calendar for this one. it’ll be lucky to make 20 million.
Everyone knows thats what Ledger says he did. But maybe it was just from taking terrible roles. Not smart for his career. Much easier to get the work you want to do if you have some credibility. If you are still living off of a teen movie that did fairly well seven years ago, it might be time to get new agents.
If he really did turn down Spiderman like some people have suggested hes dumber than he looks. A movie like that can set you up in any project you want. Ask Tobey Maguire.
Yeah, cause Maguire just been churning them out hasn’t he…?
But as it has been mentioned Ledger, at the time of Spiderman casting, was probably not feeling that great about himself and he didn’t want a lot of public attention so doing Spiderman wouldn’t have been that good for him. But, whatever.
It’s definitely looking up for Ledger. Lords of Dogtown wasn’t a hit but it was fairly well-received if I remember, plus he’s got Brokeback (which he is getting quite excellent reviews for) as well as a great looking Aussie movie called Candy co-starring Goefrey Rush and Abbie Cornish (Somersault).
I still say Ledger’s best movie is the little seen (outside of Australia that is, here is was huge) Two Hands with Bryan Brown and a glorious Rose Byrne.
Heath would take Tobeys career right now. In a second. Ones doing Seabiscuit. Ones doing Brothers Grimm. One is doing The Good German and one does Lords of Dogtown. I know you’re partial to Heath but nothing in his film cannon says that he will be even in Tobeys league.
“Two Hands” was cute… it’s hard to not fall in love with Rose Byrne in that one. Kind of an Aussie Rachel McAdams.
Heath isn’t in any rush to be an A lister. Johnny Depp was the same way. That should be commended.
(Hey Poland, how about a new blog topic on the best and worst of the summer)
I saw “Two Hands” on IFC a few years back. It’s really hard to find in the states. Director Gregor Jordan did a short film called “Swinger” which was about as funny as short films get.
I have not seen Brokenback Mountain, so I can’t comment on which party is right. But, the film just won the top honors at the Venice festival, and everyone else seems to love it. Now, everyone will know how I felt back in June…
On June 15th, I saw Grizzly Man at a critic’s screening, gave it a brutally negative review, then watched nearly every critic, even ones I rather respect, call it a complete masterpiece, the best documentary in ages, the best movie of the year, etc.
I thought it was a 105 minute slog through the journeys of an obnoxious, dimbulb, rage-filled, self-loathing, and possibly murderous narcissist who’s words somehow contained more meaning because he failed in the one thing that he chose to make himself unique. And, filmmaking wise, I felt that the interviews felt shockingly staged and the questions were hilariously leading. But, the majority says otherwise.
I sympathize with Mr. Poland. Being the only one in dissent can be a very lonely place. I’m very very new to the critic game (I don’t even get paid at this point), but that is one of the amusing side effects. You get to see movies without any input from other critics and peers, but it can make you the minority when everyone else chimes in.
Scott Mendelson
Errrmmmmm. Heath Ledger can dream about being an A-lister like Johnny Depp, but he doesn’t have that X factor that would ever elevate him to that category; I will put him in the “Chris O’Donnell” category if that’s any consolation, Kamel.
And Kamel, if it’s true Ledger has actually said he deliberately took roles to “destroy” his career so that he could build it back up on his own terms, then it’s also true that Sylvester Stallone and Jean Claude Van Damme deliberately took roles to ‘destroy’ their careers too.
Just like when I hit the front rim on a 3point shot in basketball, I tell my friends I MEANT to do that.
Good analogy. O’Donell and Ledger.
“I thought it was a 105 minute slog through the journeys of an obnoxious, dimbulb, rage-filled, self-loathing, and possibly murderous narcissist who’s words somehow contained more meaning because he failed in the one thing that he chose to make himself unique.”
All of this is exactly why it’s such a good movie.
Jeff responded. Is Chester or Stella far behind???
Well, as somebody up there said (JckNapier?) Brokeback Mountain just won the Golden Lion at Venice.
And while Tobey Maguire is a huge star now, yes, I said up there that Ledger probably wouldn’t have wanted to deal with all that came along with making a movie like Spiderman. He still doesn’t so I don’t really get what your point is.
But I’m not going to debate Ledger anymore, just like J.Lo, some people just can’t be convinced that there’s more to certain actors that a bunch of bad movies. But I’ll finish on this. Any actor that has BlackRock, Two Hands, Monster’s Ball (he was the best part about it), Candy and Brokeback Mountain on their resume at the age he is shouldn’t be feeling too bad about himself. Plus, Casanova looks fun and 10 Things I Hate About You is definitely one of the best teen movies that came out around that time.
the best part about monsters ball was berry and her sex scenes. not ledger.
Whether you like or dislike the film is just about irrelevant. Your review this morning started out by stating your displeasure with viewing [1] romantic movies [2] and movies involving the expression of gay sexuality. Why on earth would you review this film?! Hello!?
Men now in 2005 have problems coming out why do you have problems with men coming out in 1980 11 years after Stonewall. You allegedly have no clue about what it means to be gay and to struggle with coming out.
Your review and the response to it this morning were absolutely adolescent and beneath the progressive attitude that Air America is supposed ot have. You don’t have to like the film but you need some maturity and an attitude adjustment.
IF YOU have issues about male sexuality then don;t review a film like Brokeback …
Get your stuff together, Bucko.
Do critics give films good reviews based on a films politics, ideology or subject matter?
Of course.
I attended film school a little over a decade ago, it was the turn over when the culture went into high gear ‘political correctness’ New Left mode. We were told by our professors to quit evaluating films based on traditional modus operandi such as acting, directing, cinematography etc.
Instead we were told to evaluate films through the paradigm of radical feminist gender identity theory and Marxist oppression theory. We were taught that certain groups had been denied the right to tell their stories through the medium of film and if these stories could be found we should base our judgements on how politically correct or ‘New Left’ a films ideology was.
Invariablly this meant we dumped on a lot of great films deemed ‘misogynist and homophobic’ (Scorsese, Stone and Ford were hated in particular) and we praised a lot of feminist and homosexual films that were technically junk but because they were gay/feminist we were required to see the genius of them (Maya Deren, John Greyson, Kenneth Anger and Susan Seidleman come to mind).
When Malcom X came out, if you weren’t seeing it opening night you were suspect of racism and if one didn’t treat Schindler’s List ( a film I love by the way) as a piece of inscrutable art you were anti-semitic.
Sadly, when I see the kind of reviews mediocre films get (ie The Hours, Kinsey, Thelma & Louise) because of their subject matter I cannot help but think that this type of thinking has permeated many (but not all) critics in our culture.
Do you really think The Passion got the reviews it got because it was poorly crafted?
Sadly, the politicization of film will not stop any time soon and it hurts the medium as an art form. I loath awards season now.
Even my most learned film friends will easily give passes to films with gay or feminist subject matter and if you debate them you are already suspect.
Craftsmanship is not on the table. I suspect Brokeback Mountian will get raves…barely earn 18 million…get awards (GLAAD is already booked sight unseen)…and the majority of critics will look down their noses as they see its failure as a result of homophobia.
Narnia will get bad reviews due to its obvious Christian content regardless of quality. I would be shocked if I am wrong. Critics will try to stop it from being the hit The Psssion was.
As a side-bar…the tragic case of Matthew Sheppard was mentioned. It has been well documented (including reports on 60 minutes and 20/20) that the Matthew Sheppard case was not a hate crime. His murderers did not know he was gay. They were drugged up and looking for money.
When it came out he was gay after his murder the media and gay communty ran with it and they became convicted of ‘hate’ in the public’s mind. Their lawyer told them to admit to it…better to be seen as cooperative than troublesome.
What they did was horrible, tragic and wrong…they should stay in jail for life for his murder, but how it was exploited by the media and gay community was also wrong.
It was a crime…a horrible crime…but not a hate crime.
I’ve read pretty much every article or piece Dave has written. Thru the whole archives on the Hot Button. Nowhere in any of his writings is anything saying he brings personal animosity or hate or anything like that to any review. Nowhere in the Brokeback review was anything resembling anything as you were saying. It is unfortunate you accuse him of something he didn’t do and doesn’t even come close to doing.
Angelus 21,
Are you refering to my post?
I actually was just using this subject as a springboard about film criticism in general.
I did not accuse Dave of anything.
I disagree with his assessment of The Passion, but I come here because he is one of the analysts I do respect. That is why I stressed that not all critics were subject to this interpretation.
If it is my post you are responding to of course.
Nicol,
Not to yours. The one right before yours. From Giano. I thought yours was a good response. I agree with your assessment. Nice and involved. A good discussion. I now may have to see this film to catch what everyone is saying about it.
Good point on the Shepard murder. Every murder is a hate crime in my book. Hate against people. Those two should never see the light of day for their cowardly actions. If Matthew was straight, bi, green, yellow, alien I would feel the same way.
Whoa, Nicol settle down.
Could it be that The Hours was professionally made and about an important issue, hence the good reviews. Same for Thelma & Louise and Kinsey (oddly enough, T&L is one of my top 10 of all time… Kinsey is definitely NOT). And same for Brokeback Mountain.
What’s so wrong for praising a film that deals with certain subject matters intelligently and openly. And yes, certain films may get brushed off because they are misogynist or homophobic or whatever, but that’s the times we live in. If Martin Scorcese decided to make a film that was homophobic (the message was, not the characters or whatever) then people are going to react negatively towards it because in this day a large number of people recognise homophobia as a bad thing. And same thing for movies that appear to be sexist (which a lot thought Irreversible was and a few others), people will react negatively towards them because that is what today’s society is like. We’re not in the 50s anymore! Movies where men humiliate and denegrate women for no reason aren’t popular! Does that surprise you? Does that make you lement film criticism?
And just so you know, a critic would NOT give 5/5 to a film with horrible performances, filmed on constantly overly-shaky cameras and with no good dialogue purely because it is about a certain issue.
75% of gay films are out-and-out awful, and trust me, they do NOT get a great critical reception.
And The Passion got quite a few high-profile positive reviews, but when watching a movie such as that you can only review by your own standards. If one critic decided to pan it because he thought it was offensive and overly violent (just like ME) and another praises it because it’s technically well made and is made with honesty then that’s all well and good. Why can’t they do that? Everybody has their own yard stick to measure films by.
Too bad that, despite the importance of the issues in The Hours and how well-crafted and acted it was, it still turned out to be a bad movie.
Kamikaze,
“We’re not in the 50s anymore!”
Spoken like someone who was raised in them. I wasn’t. I would just like to get out of the sixties.
“What’s so wrong for praising a film that deals with certain subject matters intelligently and openly.”
Nothing…in theory. What I argue is that most critics are no longer empirical and know very little about film history. They believe a film is intelligent because it deals with gay or feminist subject matter; not how it deals with it.
“And yes, certain films may get brushed off because they are misogynist or homophobic or whatever, but that’s the times we live in.”
I true lover of cinema or art would never make this statement in such a cavelier way. Again, you play your cards too openly. Who defines these terms…homophobia, misogyny, racism?
Usually it is the hysterical and censorious New Left (as opposed to classical liberals). When one cannot critique a piece of work without automatically being suspect of being a bigot or homowhatever if they do not like it…films and film criticism suffers.
“… a critic would NOT give 5/5 to a film with horrible performances, filmed on constantly overly-shaky cameras and with no good dialogue purely because it is about a certain issue.”
I am not talking about elevating crap to genius…I am talking about a gradual decrease in standards over a period of time that only after decades can one see the effects. Giving 4 stars to Thelma and Louise when it is really a 3. 3 stars to The Hours when it is really a 2.
Sadly, the New Left have so politicized our times and people, nay critics always want to appear intelligent. That sometimes means going with the pack on films that you are supposed to like for ideological reasons.
Another example…Michale Moore is a very talented filmaker. I say this irrespective of his politics. On that level F911 did not stand up. It showed none of the creativity of his previous work with regards to editing, music selection and animation. It was slapdash and it showed. And yet it is his most revered…politics and ideology did not come into play here…at Cannes?
“And The Passion got quite a few high-profile positive reviews…”
Some… but no where near what it should have. I completmented Michael Moore… I will also complement Mel Gibson. The Passion is empirically a well-made film. Period.
Yet it got excorciated by critics. It was called inept, the acting poor, etc. Most major critics in major markets reviled it. They were also inconsistant.
I live in Toronto. Pevere and Howell gleefully gave it 1 star reviews and it was trashed on the front page of the Toronto Star as violent pornography. Readers than wrote in calling them to task because weeks earlier they gave Kill Bill four stars and/or raves and praised the violence. They then had to write another ‘review’ to backtrack. Their politics showed and the readers smelt it.
The Passion is also curious as I meet so many who justify a negative reaction by saying that it is a film that cannot be judged objectivley…beliefs come into play. I say be consistant.
If that is how a critic feels than don’t tell me your beleifs aren’t also coming into play with gay/feminist or other ‘correct’ subject matter. If a straight critic can objectively review a gay film why can’t a non-Christian critic review the Passion objectively. Trust me…this film was a bigger turning point in film culture than many care to admit.
It showed the public at large that most (not all ) major critics are not objective and care less about the art of cinema than they do about the poltical message it delivers.
Brokeback Mountain will get raves because of what it says…not how it says it.
“Everybody has their own yard stick to measure films by.”
Sure but don’t play the smug neutrality game. Tell your reader what you are prone to like and where your biases are. Ebert has biases but his knowledge of film history is unsurpassed and he most often than not stands by his motto “films are good not because of what they are about but how they are about it”. Dave P also (while I disagree on many films) has demostrated an objectivity. That’s why I come here.
Most critics say the believe this but don’t and trust me…it shows. It shows in thier lack of knowledge of both the industry and cinema history. When politicts and ideology overwhelm the craft film ceases to be a universal art form. When this happens, it becomes elitist and irrelevant to the masses. If it is irrelevant to the masses…it ceases to affect human kind.
Sadly…we seem to be marching down this road.
the hours. not good.
I do not think that Dave Poland had a grudge against this film because he hates gays or something. That is a ludicrous statement. Maybe the movie just wasn’t good? Anyone think of that?
But, Niccol what if somebody just really likes a certain movie? I REALLY like “Thelma & Louise” (it’s in my top 15 of all time) but when I watch it I don’t sit and think “Hmm, the reason I’m really liking this movie is because it states a firm stand on feminist issues. These women kick ass!” Actually, I do think “these women kick ass” but I like it because it has great performances, wonderful writing and directing, set pieces that are to die for and an ending that is unsurparsed in emotion.
And to discuss Passion again, which I don’t really like doing because i HATE it, but I will for the sake of argument. I am not a Christian (I am an athiest) so when I was watching this movie I was actually hoping that, despite my personal beliefs, there would be something that felt spiritual. But when I was watching it I was actually offended. It wanted me to feel pain. I don’t WANT to feel pain when I go to the movies. Kill Bill, while being extremely violent, didn’t make me nauseus (sp?), this did. It’s a movie about a man who gave himself for the good of mankind (apparently) but the movie didn’t actually tell me anything about HIM. Instead it just had 15 minute torture sequences that revelled in blood and gore for sake of making ME feel pain. As an athiest I reacted extremely negatively towards it (as did my Church going Christian friends who I saw it with).
I didn’t not like it because I’m an athiest. That played a part in the reasons why I thought it was badly made, but it wasn’t the sole reason. I thought it was awfully directed (I’m sorry but stupid things are TEARS FROM HEAVEN made me wanna yell at the screen), had a really bad screenplay (Thanks for telling us who everyone is Mr Gibson!) and was ugly to watch. Not because it was a Christian film that a Christian made for Christians. It’s a film, everyone should be able to watch it (which it seems where Brokeback Mountain succeeds – it’s a “gay film” but it seems that it’s not just for gay people). It’s how I viewed the film and that’s all that matters. I also had problems with Fahrenheit 9/11 if you must know.
Man, that was long.
And, yes, I am a lefty so can you please give it up with the lefty conspiracy theories please.
I like reading the loony conspiracy theories. Makes me realize that people are utterly insane.
KamikazeCamel,
I won’t belabour this conversation but just a few brief thoughts to your last comments,
You say you don’t want to feel ‘pain’ when you watch a film and that is why you hated the Passion…
If that’s your response…fine. But, if you only go into movies looking for a good time I suspect you will miss a great deal many good films. I do not know how many films Kubrick made that would give you a good time or not feel pain.
Similarly Passion succeeds because it DOES make you feel this. How many films do you see that make you feel anything? Like Kubrick, Scorsese and Spielberg, Gibson is a master at shooting realistic violence that exists in the real world. Tarantino is not because his violence is merely the set up for a joke. All style, no substance.
I also find it interesting that The Passion is one of the most widley successful films ever made and you feel comfortable treating it as ‘niche’ yet you refer to Brokeback Mountain as being more mainstream than this and I will be very surprised if it breaks 20mil.
As for the ‘lefty conspiracy theories’. I made no allusion whatsoever to any conspiracy theory at all…just culture. Nevertheless, you say you are a ‘lefty’ and I find it very interesting when ‘lefty’s’ (as opposed to classical liberals) accuse someone of trafficking in conspiracy theories when conspiracy theories are the very life blood of the ‘lefty’ movement.
why wouldn’t u go to the movies for a good time? why else go? no one wants to be lectured or bored. if thats ur thing then go for it. but not everyone is like u.