epic@houem.UUCP (epic) (02/12/86)
>Well, two things have happened over the last couple of weeks. I >saw _The_Color_Purple_, which broke the long dry spell, and there >seems to be a flood of good-to-excellent films to fill the void >(_The_Trip_to_Bountiful_, _Down_&_Out_In_Beverly_Hills_, >_Hannah_and_Her_Sisters_, and _Murphy's_Romance_). I'll >concentrate on the former, and try to avoid the emotional diatribes >The film, The_Color_Purple, >reminds me of a cross between _To_Kill_A_Mockingbird_ and >_Gone_With_the_Wind_ without the Epic Movie touches. How dare you compare The_Color_Purple with such classics! The problem with this film was that it had too many epic touches. Especially, the up-in-the-air boom shots that you refer to in the next paragraph. >Spielburg is not afraid to do a up-in-the-air boom shot now and >then, something we've seen dozens of times in the fabulous space >operas; here, I was surprised to find that it works well also. Even >the interior shots have texture and light (although often smokey), >and you have the feeling that you're watching an adaptation of an >old family classics, except old family classics usually don't >discuss prejudice and lesbianism much. This movie didn't discuss lesbianism I'm not sure that it discussed prejudice either. I hold firmly to my original conviction that this film didn't say anything at all. >Very, >very few people can place physical force in a stare or a hand held > forward; but Ceilly, towards the end of the film gives the >impression that Christopher Reeve in his blue-n-red jammies >couldn't do better. Oh was she acting, I couldn't tell? >When looking at the script, though, the thing which made this film >work for me (besides Goldberg) was the way that the conflict and >drama and pain were balanced with comic character elements in >each actor. It gives the film a flavor of Twain or Dickens (the >latter in particular), in that the modern bleakness is not >permeating every frame of the movie. Comparing this film's effectiveness with that of Twain or Dickens. I think I am going to be sick!!!! I hated this film. I can't believe that it was nominated for an Academy Award. The one thing that I do agree with you about, is that The_Trip_To_Bountiful and Hannah_and_Her_Sisters are excellent movies. I did not see the other two films that you refer to. Both The_Trip_to_Bountiful and Hannah_and_Her_Sisters were wonderful movies because they were quietly evocative and provocative. These movies did not beat you over the head with trite imagery and canned emotional response. SS " AJT, please save a cookie for me."
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (02/13/86)
I did not like THE COLOR PURPLE as much as Moriarty, but I think he is closer to my feelings than you are. >>The film, The_Color_Purple, >>reminds me of a cross between _To_Kill_A_Mockingbird_ and >>_Gone_With_the_Wind_ without the Epic Movie touches. > >How dare you compare The_Color_Purple with such classics! And when GONE WITH THE WIND came out there was probably someone standing there saying "it's no BIRTH OF A NATION." Why do people think that nothing modern can be as good as something old? I have a lower opinion of GONE WITH THE WIND than most. None of COLOR PURPLE was as dull as the post-War parts of GWTW. >The problem with this film was that it had too many epic >touches. Especially, the up-in-the-air boom shots that you >refer to in the next paragraph. Frankly, I didn't notice. >>and you have the feeling that you're watching an adaptation of an >>old family classics, except old family classics usually don't >>discuss prejudice and lesbianism much. > >This movie didn't discuss lesbianism I'm not sure that it >discussed prejudice either. Not in words, but I think that the implication that there was a lesbian ralationship going on. And as for prejudice, I would say it is closer to straight out bigotry. Albert assumed that women were so inferior to him that he could turn his wife into a slave. In film you can discuss without specific words. You can have wordless sequences that say a lot. >I hold firmly to my original >conviction that this film didn't say anything at all. I have to disagree on this one. > >>Very, >>very few people can place physical force in a stare or a hand held >> forward; but Ceilly, towards the end of the film gives the >>impression that Christopher Reeve in his blue-n-red jammies >>couldn't do better. > >Oh was she acting, I couldn't tell? I think you are in the minority on this one if you think that she was not a good actress. There is one scene in which she had people in the audience openly weeping. > >>It gives the film a flavor of Twain or Dickens (the >>latter in particular), in that the modern bleakness is not >>permeating every frame of the movie. > >Comparing this film's effectiveness with that of Twain or >Dickens. I think I am going to be sick!!!! See my comment on GONE WITH THE WIND. I frankly find Goldberg's sincerity more convincing than your compliants here. > >I hated this film. I can't believe that it was nominated >for an Academy Award. WITNESS seems a favorite of some. COLOR PURPLE is much better than WITNESS. I know you didn't like TCP, but I think you go a little overboard in flaming Moriarty. Just about any film will have a divergence of reactions, but from my experience you are way off to one end of the spectrum of opinion I have seen (not that that implies you are wrong, just alone). Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
pauls@tekecs.UUCP (Paul Sweazey) (02/17/86)
> > Comparing this film's effectiveness with that of Twain or Dickens. > I think I am going to be sick!!!! > > I hated this film. I can't believe that it was nominated for an > Academy Award. > SS > > " AJT, please save a cookie for me." I am so sad to hear that my tears of sadness and of joy were wasted on such a poor film. They really fooled me this time. Paul Sweazey {decvax,ucbvax,...}!tektronix!tekecs!pauls UUCP Tektronix, Inc. tekecs!pauls@tektronix CSNET P.O. Box 1000, M/S 61-215 tekecs!pauls.tektronix@Udel-Relay ARPANET Wilsonville, OR 97070 -- Paul Sweazey {decvax,ucbvax}!tektronix!tekecs!pauls Tektronix, Inc Work: 503-685-2563 P.O. Box 1000 Home: 503-692-5016 Wilsonville, OR 97070
dave@heurikon.UUCP (Dave Scidmore) (02/18/86)
> > > > >I hated this film. I can't believe that it was nominated > >for an Academy Award. > > WITNESS seems a favorite of some. COLOR PURPLE is much better than > WITNESS. I know you didn't like TCP, but I think you go a little > overboard in flaming Moriarty. Just about any film will have a > divergence of reactions, but from my experience you are way off to one > end of the spectrum of opinion I have seen (not that that implies you > are wrong, just alone). > This brings up an interesting subject. From my experience in talking with other people who have seen this movie, watching movie polls, and listening to the critics TCP is largely considered a great (not just good) movie. This implies that any person who "hated" the film is not only in disagreement with the majority of the public but, in general, with the average movie critic as well. My opinion is that in order for any review of any type to be useful to the readers of that review it must help to inform them of whether they would like the movie or not. If a reviewers opinions consistently disagree with the average movie viewers is that reviewer really providing a service by reviewing movies? This has often been my quarrel with reviewers of other media who frequently dislike what almost everyone else likes. I am not trying to imply that the above review is a case of this. I am only trying to spark some conversation on the subject of reviews and reviewers. Dave Scidmore
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (02/20/86)
>My opinion >is that in order for any review of any type to be useful to >the readers of that review it must help to inform them of >whether they would like the movie or not. If a reviewers >opinions consistently disagree with the average movie >viewers is that reviewer really providing a service by >reviewing movies? Speaking as someone who agreed with most of the general public on TPC but who is often in stark disagreement with most people. (I really liked LIFEFORCE, for example, and I know of about half a dozen people at most who could stomach the film.) I would say (and have several times on the net) that a reviewer has two responsibilities only. They are to give his/her true opinion of the film, and if the reviewer knows of some reason that he/she would be prejudiced for or against the film, to say so up front. I think a critic has more of a responsibility to be objective, but few really are. A critic really evaluatates the film based on the critic's broad base of knowlege. A reviewer simply gives the general public one more data-point to judge a film on. Besides, before I see a film I don't want to know very much about it. That is why I rarely want to read reviews before seeing a film or I just want a capsule review. After I have seen it, I want to read why a reviewer disagreed with me about a film as much or more as why one agreed with me. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper