What it do?

Untouchable
Carrie
Blow Out
The Fury
Carlito's Way
shit, even Femme Fatale.

I remember now an article in the NY Times that came out with his Black Dahlia (lol) that said anytime Depalma's name is mentioned in a room full of critics there's gonna be a fight. I don't aim to fight though, I just think his stuff blows.

>


I guess I gotta watch Mission Impossible because his other movies are really good.

he left out the "art" which would have failed anyway, judging from his other movies, and just made an action film.

I love Mission Impossible, but I wanted to name some other great DePalma flicks to clarify that M:I wasn't his only good movie, by a longshot.

*******
The avatar: Windimoto Is Here...

Holla at dem WinMo t-shirts @:
www.myspace.com/windimotomusic
http://www.last.fm/user/scorpius7541

Falling Down was pretty decent. my mom said Veronica Guerin was good, I need to see that.

and of course The Lost Boys is the shit.

...at least one really big success.

Both De Palma and Schumacher have made really strong films before. Also, both aren't considered A-list anymore.

> Both De Palma and Schumacher have made really strong films before.

I disagree.

Decent, yes, but looking over both of their IMDB pages, I don't see a single film I would call strong.

Sorry to the world's Scarface & Carlito's Way fans .... no sympathy for Untouchables fans, come on that movie is a piece of SHIT.

Schumacher may have an edge of Depalma in the "worst" dept though.

In fact, I'd say the majority of DePalma's work between 1970 and 1990 is really strong.

I could hear an argument about Schumacher sucking before an argument about De Palma.

made-for-tv movie style cliches, kevin kosner, shit music, corny morality. What was he thinking with the stairway sequence? "Hmm, crime movie with Deniro, I think I'll put a shot-for-shot remake of Battleship Pomtomkin here." It could have been fun dumb entertainment, but he had to go for overblown dumbness.

Having learned to stay away from Depalma, I can't say I'm an expert on his movies. In what I've seen I notice a lot of references to classic films similar to Tarantino, who did them either with more flair, or with natural subtlety

I can't believe all the people that think The Untouchables is a good movie

the definition of mediocre

untouchables is non-stop unintentional comedy. here are my some of my favorite funny parts, and i've only seen it once:

(1)the stairway sequence with random men in navy uniform being shot
(2)sean connery taking way too long to die after being pieced up by a tommy-gun
(3)the long fight scene between kevin costner with the guy on the roof, where the bad guy climbs down the building then climbs back up only to be thrown off the building and then kevin costner utters a really corny line: "did he sound anything like THAT?". Seriously, this fight reminded me of Peter Griffin v.s. the chicken
(4) Near the end of the film Kevin Costner looks at the picture of all of his friends who are now dead and then sighs and says out loud with nobody in the room "So much violence"
(5) When Kevin Costner kills that one dude and then says "Didn't you hear what I said? What are you, deaf? What is this, a game?"
(6) And, of course, the random horseback riding scene in Canada. wtf?

and was still able to crawl down the hallway and stay alive until Costner got there - that shit was ridiculous

>(3)the long fight scene between kevin costner with the guy on
>the roof, where the bad guy climbs down the building then
>climbs back up only to be thrown off the building and then
>kevin costner utters a really corny line: "did he sound
>anything like THAT?". Seriously, this fight reminded me of
>Peter Griffin v.s. the chicken

LOL

...then you haven't seen his best work.

I'm not saying The Untouchables reinvented the wheel, people, lol. But it is definitely an above-average genre flick with some very good acting, a killer score, and some terrific set pieces.

>...then you haven't seen his best work.
>
>I'm not saying The Untouchables reinvented the wheel, people,
>lol. But it is definitely an above-average genre flick with
>some very good acting, a killer score, and some terrific set
>pieces.


LOL

how'd your review of the movie go from "really good" to "above-average"?


i havent seen this yet but from reading comments it sounds like this movie isnt all that great

But the reason why it's good isn't because it breaks new ground or anything, it's a genre flick, the mob-crime drama, but it's definitely above average. I like its style, the acting is terrific by everyone, and I think the storytelling is done in a very compelling manner.

Don't hate on it til you've seen it. I do know folks who don't dig it, but I know a lot of people who thinks it's quite good.

>shit music

what? you gotta be kidding me. this movie features one of the best morricone's themes.

>>shit music
>
>what? you gotta be kidding me. this movie features one of the
>best morricone's themes.


i'll back-pedal on just that one point. the music is not shit, but it gets really annoying - and morricone (i'm a huge fan) isn't flawless. not one of his best themes, but i concede it's the film that's shit, not the music.

most hysterical morricone moment: in "once upon a time in america" when deniro sees himself old in the mirror and that god-awful version of Yesterday starts BLASTING at us.

>
>i'll back-pedal on just that one point. the music is not
>shit, but it gets really annoying - and morricone (i'm a huge
>fan) isn't flawless.

no..... stay strong, that music was shit. that should have been number seven on my list. again, i only saw the movie once, but i remember there was some ridiculous music playing when they showed capone walking around the hotel--it sounded like a circus or something--completely off for a gangster movie.

music should either sound noticeably awesome or subtly enhance what's going on without you knowing. the music in this movie was neither. it was distracting and, as you said, annoying. shit music. shit movie.

*******
The avatar: Windimoto Is Here...

Holla at dem WinMo t-shirts @:
www.myspace.com/windimotomusic
http://www.last.fm/user/scorpius7541

like you can't think of any other big name directors that are worse?

idk mang.

*******
The avatar: Windimoto Is Here...

Holla at dem WinMo t-shirts @:
www.myspace.com/windimotomusic
http://www.last.fm/user/scorpius7541

He always gets great performances out of his actors, and his eye for visuals is terrific.

If anything, it's his dialogue that tends to ramble that serves at times as a detriment to his filmmaking.

But I can see how someone would take issue with the writing, because his particular style is somewhat divisive, whereas his direction in all his films has been great, even if at times his writing or editing has let him down.

the opening chit chat scenes in reservoir dogs and pulp inspired a million copycats.

writing for his own pictures is generally solid - directing too. when his writing is directed by others (true romance, natural born killers, dusk til dawn) is when it appears weak. to me, this is evidence of his skill as director.

many people could find his films and HIMSELF as an actor/personality terribly annoying, but all and all he's a good storytelling and definitely doesnt belong on this list of worst directors.

.

>
>*******
>The avatar: Windimoto Is Here...
>
>Holla at dem WinMo t-shirts @:
>www.myspace.com/windimotomusic
>http://www.last.fm/user/scorpius7541


I hate people bring up Tarantino.


Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill 1


c'mon

he just makes a bunch of "cool" images strung together and calls them a movie.

I would have said DePalma but Redacted is supposed to be amazing (it's a doc but I still count it).

Schumacher is also up there but nobody considers him A-list anymore.

I think the only movie of his I sorta liked was "Varsity Blues."

EDIT: Honorable mention goes to McG and Brett Ratner.

-- Nate

i havent seen a single one of his films, but then again i'm not 7 or a mom.

>


But "Pear Harbor" saved him.

I forget the exact equation they used to prove it, but the paper was peer-reviewed and everything. It's indisputable.

um, that movie was edge-of-your-seat bird poop.

>um, that movie was edge-of-your-seat bird poop.


i saw it at home and liked it

i'm not saying its great or anything

i'm just saying i couldnt name him the worst A-list producer

And I'm not a big Michael Bay man.

Higher Learning

2Fast 2Furious

Baby Boy



dude is AWFUL.

but yeah... he is fairly terrible.

but when you watch it today, are you ever slightly bothered by the fact that it seems little more than an R-rated After School Special/rewrite of Cooley High?

De Palma has made many films MILES superior to Boyz N The Hood

>De Palma has made many films MILES superior to Boyz N The
>Hood

He didn't like The Untouchables because of the "Battleship Pomtomkin" reference and so he's in here whining like DePalma fucked his mom.

ive seen most-to-all of sisters, carrie, dressed to kill, blow out, scarface, body double, untouchables, bonfire, carlito, MI and only a little bit of black dahlia (before i walked out). there's a LOT more to clown untouchables for other than the stairway thing. sorry i dont know all the minor low budget indie flicks he did in 1965 though.

orfeo - i saw boyz a couple years back and it did seem dated. my point is also that it was low budget but a huge breakout hit which meant a lot to people and seems to define a particular moment in time. bay & schumacher are more just about the schlock.

but i think some of the 1970s work was pretty rad for its time... doesn't necessarily hold up for me today, but i can look at it an extrapolate how forward-looking it was when it was released.

Plus I'd argue that usually his directing is better than the scripts he tackles at times...

...I just have trouble saying the worst A-list director is a man who stylistically is extraordinary, has a great sense of mood, gets terrific performances out of actors (for the most part), and makes even his worst films beautiful to look at.

it makes me very uncomfortable. and not in a "good" way.

And I mean that more in a heartless way than "rad" or some shit.

The opening credits sequence of Carrie has also always made me uncomfortable.

I don't know all that much about De Palma's upbringing, but I imagine there were some fucked-up happenings that he was able to exorcise when given the freedom and power of a director's chair, espececially during the 70's and 80's. At worst he's a degenerate, and at best he's simply jaded. (I would hate to get stuck on a plane between him and Paul Schrader.)

All that being said, he's made one or two movies that are watchable from end to end, and a couple others where I can at least appreciate some of the skill that went to make them. That's more than I credit someone like Marc Forster, for example.

i never forgave him that shit... that might be one of the few movies that terrified me because it revealed what an inhuman monster the director was.

that film is the product of an intelligence that CLEARLY hates humanity (especially the distaff side of it).

But I really think there was something about the directors that came to rise in the 70's, given God-like power in a time of so-called liberation and next excess, that found a number of them enacting their fetishes and hostilities on actresses and audiences alike (De Palma, Schrader, even Arthur Penn and Coppola). It might have made for good therapy at the time, but their films don't hold up all that well decades down the line.

such a reaction from you and AFKAP. It's not like it's sloppily made jaded cinema. His style has always been slick (and no less detached from humanity than other jaded filmmakers, like Schrader or much of Kubrick), and I think the performances he gets from his actors are mostly quite good.

he's one of the most skilled cats in the game...

but MAN. it's the substance that really bothers me.

also the fact that a lot of his films completely fall apart narratively towards the end, like he just doesn't give a fuck no more.

Menace II Society is 10x better

Boys hasn't aged well at all. And Cuba is, well...he's Cuba. But...

>Menace II Society is 10x better

Tyrin Turner's performance in that movie? Wow. What a train wreck. If not for Larenz Tate doesn't hit it out of the park, that movie is straight to video.

>Boys hasn't aged well at all. And Cuba is, well...he's Cuba.
>But...
>
>>Menace II Society is 10x better
>
>Tyrin Turner's performance in that movie? Wow. What a train
>wreck.

I thought I was the only one who felt this way. He gave a better performance wondering around aimlessly in the Rhythm Nation video

(besides the brief soft-core nudity of Jada, that is)

A-Wax was that nigga.

movie script killa

gimmie my motherfuckin joint

You know that shit dont chu?

Don't chu!?!?!

See you said they was both actin like some bitches right?

You done fucked up!

You know that shit dont chu?!?!?!

he didn't need to carry the whole film but had enough chops to get through the important parts.

but the Korean stop-shop intro? Harold getting killed? meeting with Pernell in prison? the ending?

all those scenes from 1993 are still just as powerful to me.

Schumacher is almost undoubtedly worse, but I don't consider him a box-office draw type director.



Alien was pretty damn good.

I was unimpressed with Blade Runner, but have only seen it once and would like to check it out again due to its cult status.

Other than that, I have not enjoyed any of his movies*. If I hear that something is directed by him, I will probably not see it. It is definitely a deciding factor.

Thus, worst A-list director (imo).


*I haven't seen Thelma and Louise.

Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, and Matchstick Men were all good, very good, or great movies.

You need to go hang out with the dude in the other post who tried to tell us that PSH and Brad Pitt couldn't act.

Like I said, I back Alien.

And would like to give Blade Runner a second chance (but that director's cut was less than impressive the first time).

But your using Gladiator as some sort of evidence in favor of Ridley Scott's directing skill is hilarious to me. An average film at best.

I can't speak on Blackhawk Down, as I've only seen the beginning. I have heard good things about it.

For a guy who gets his name mentioned as director in TV spots (which is what I consider a definite criteria for A-list), I am unimpressed by his work. To the point that I would prefer not to see movies that I know he has directed. I can't think of any other director who's work I would avoid in that way.

but maybe you don't like that. That's fine. I'm not saying it's brilliant or even the best "gladiator/Roman film of all time", but it's good.

That being said: Alien, Blade Runner, Black Hawk Down, and Matchstick Men = 4 very good to excellent films. You can't hate on the dude for that.

Regardless of people's opinions of his films, they are well made, even if he doesn't pick em very well at times in his career.

... know if you like two of his most acclaimed films, but you saw part of one and you thought it wasn't bad and you're willing to give the other another shot, and you don't like one of the movies he has won an Oscar for. But yet you avoid his movies like no other director? NO OTHER DIRECTOR?

yeah.

that sounds like hate, fam.






http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/DawgEatah
R.I.P. 3rd i

He can get legit budgets/actors for his movies. I don't think he belongs anywhere near this list. He has too many fun movies.

I wouldn't put him on this list either.

i know it seems ludicrous, but at least Tony entertains me on some moronic level while Ridley is just boring to me

I'd rather feel nothing than feel a sharp pain in my forehead.

>i know it seems ludicrous, but at least Tony entertains me on
>some moronic level while Ridley is just boring to me

more like SEIZURES!

but i can tolerate it in small doses, like when Domino or Man On Fire are on cable.

i would never dream of watching them in the theater, of course... that's just too risky.

It's a strong example of how style can totally overshadow the substance, in a really bad way.

Hasn't directed a good movie since American Grafitti.

My bad. But still, that's 30 years since his last good movie.

but he's pretty much an exception in that he's an industry unto himself.

but yeah he's a pretty terrible director now.

.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15649_9-awesome-directors-who-temporarily-lost-their-mind.html

Only I think he lost it during Unbreakable & hasn't found it since

and as a result gets to make crap becuase he has "potential"...

there's a difference.

without the plot twists he's as flavourless as Chris Columbus.

*******
The avatar: Windimoto Is Here...

Holla at dem WinMo t-shirts @:
www.myspace.com/windimotomusic
http://www.last.fm/user/scorpius7541

he only bad movie he's made was the fuckin vilage, and that shit was pretty bad

i can't stand or like any of his movies. they are god awful meticulous romanticiszed rants of white bread Americana and state repression

E.T. ... puck
A.I. ... please stop this nonsense; should of left it in Kubricks cutting room
War of the World ... laughable; plus Cruz is prahlee the worst A-list actors out there
Minority Report ... just negligent of anything coherently intelligent
Catch Me if you can ... maybe
Saving Private Ryan ... ?
Amistad ... Christ will white people leave the slave narratives alone
Jurassic Park ... more funny times
Color Purple ... boring as all holy hell

his only redeeming value is in the Indiana Jones flicks and Empire of the Sun

>his only redeeming value is in the Indiana Jones flicks and
>Empire of the Sun

There's a difference between hate and actual bad film-making.

no hate, just how i have and would review his films. they're drawn out, over-wraught and full of romantized notions of Americana and State repression, which makes them bad films. i have my IDEAS, you have yours, be easy

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc173/FrankLongo/4qqa69i.gif

smh

>i can't stand or like any of his movies. they are god awful
>meticulous romanticiszed rants of white bread Americana and
>state repression
>
>E.T. ... puck
>A.I. ... please stop this nonsense; should of left it in
>Kubricks cutting room
>War of the World ... laughable; plus Cruz is prahlee the worst
>A-list actors out there
>Minority Report ... just negligent of anything coherently
>intelligent
>Catch Me if you can ... maybe
>Saving Private Ryan ... ?
>Amistad ... Christ will white people leave the slave
>narratives alone
>Jurassic Park ... more funny times
>Color Purple ... boring as all holy hell
>
>his only redeeming value is in the Indiana Jones flicks and
>Empire of the Sun


He made such a limited setting seem so vast. Very creative movie.

http://imdb.com/gallery/ss/0362227/Ss/0362227/TT024.jpg


Of course, it goes without saying, his other movies can easily prove you wrong as well.

i'll def. rent it, but didn't it bomb in the theatres?; which has nothing to do with if its a quality film or not

>i'll def. rent it, but didn't it bomb in the theatres?; which
>has nothing to do with if its a quality film or not


But definite rent it.

I enjoyed it!

forgot he did jaws, that was a good film that scared me as a kid. and i also forgot he did Forest gump, which was good when i watched when it came out, but probabley juss aight now. my eye has changed a lot since liking that movie

robert zemeckis did.


i'm just gon start slappin motherfuckers on sight.

>i can't stand or like any of his movies. they are god awful
>meticulous romanticiszed rants of white bread Americana and
>state repression
>

I been sayin this for years...his shit since he's become a "serious" director is just 50's teen morality flicks,set in modern times.

He need to go back to doin goonies ass shit

thank you for viewing with a critical eye

He made that movie his bitch. Just straight gorilla-pimp mollywhopped every minute of that film into becoming the family fun that it is!!


>He need to go back to doin goonies ass shit

Goonies ass shits is hims bestest works! Him makey movies fun time!

Or as the other wordsmith above would so adroitly put it...between his outlandishly whitebread stylized state ampishmerially devoid volumnous solipsistic tomes on reflecting psychotropic porleanomous values of homogenous poopey pies, his best work ranks as:

Goonies
Gremlins
Gump
*batteries not included
Cocoon
Home Alone
Sid & Nancy
Michael Jordan: Come Fly With Me
the "What's Goin' Down?" episode of That's My Momma!
Fritz Lang's Metropolis
All Quiet On The Western Front
Burn Hollywood Burn: An Alan Smithee Film
Yellow Rivers by I.P. Freeley
To Wong Foo, Thanks for the Fried Green Magnolias, Miss Daisy!


You people either like to use big words incorrectly or you're all fucked up on the movies you attribute to him. Don't you ever dare to talk negatively about the master again.



CryptoQuote Sig!!

H BRHQ ZSXG SK YSQR H ZSWNUKWUTR BOSWO ZHIXSDSRK FNSDYSXI FOSXIK VPF WHXXUF NRWRSCR INRHF UXRK. - YUNG WORKFRNDSRYG

i'll do as i please. most of the movies you listed are ones he financed, ala he gets producer credit. im talking about films he actually directed. gump is not one of them, i thought it was, but i was incorrect.

it was cute how you tried to parodize what i said about Spielberg's white bread ass films with your trivial verbiage. please stop, you aint ever read, understand, or tried to engage anything worth shit, so take that silly attempt to infantilize my simplified statement/analysis of what his films actually represent to the fools who are impressed by someone who uses dead ideas/words like solipsism; next you gun try to incorporate mimickry and simulacrum into your phony ponitications on ass directors like Spielberg.

Goonies was tight and i could care less if white folks and the white academy awards commity loves tooting his horn or if even one of my true masters Kubrick felt Speilberg was his peer. i dont dig his films. but as some1 stated earlier, I overstated the question. he clearly is not the worst A-list director, i just like shacking shit up. Rattner, Kevin Smith and the bunch are just easy targets

ohh yeah fuck off

>i'll do as i please.
neat

most of the movies you listed are ones
>he financed, ala he gets producer credit.

Dude, most of the movies I listed have about as much to do with Steven Spielberg as Amy Irving, ala none. Ala u akbar, you have firsthand knowledge of him financing the coming of age melodrama "Yellow Rivers". Was that before or after he financed "Under the Bleachers" dir. by Seymour Tookus? ala abdelnaaby, you still don't know what you're talking about.

im talking about
>films he actually directed. gump is not one of them, i thought
>it was, but i was incorrect.

You don't KNOW what you're talking about! I just told you!


>
>it was cute how you tried to parodize what i said about

It was cuter how you made up the word "parodize". RERRID!!

>Spielberg's white bread ass films

like The Color Purple? Schindler's List? Munich? Above The Law? Out for Justice?

with your trivial verbiage.
>please stop, you aint ever read, understand, or tried to
>engage anything worth shit, so take that silly attempt to
>infantilize my simplified statement/analysis of what his films
>actually represent to the fools who are impressed by someone
>who uses dead ideas/words like solipsism; next you gun try to
>incorporate mimickry and simulacrum into your phony
>ponitications on ass directors like Spielberg.

Point taken, but if your malcrumdental saperstree ever lept up to anything but sacrifical hegemony for the bougeorsie, I'd consider all snozzwanglers/vermicious kinnits to level/level at point forty megaframs of supermentrual spyrochetes expeealledocious. RERRID!!

Seriously though, its obvious you're trying to sound smarter than you are and you do that tell-tale thing that all pseudo-intellectuals/psychopaths do when they try/attempt to sound/appear smarter/less stupid than they/them are/is when they/them write/type respond/react.

oh...and one more thing, ala lalalalong, just because I apparently missed it, was your "...simplified statement/analysis of what his films actually represent..."?

>
>Goonies was tight

It was wasn't it? And yet he directed all of his other films with such a banal whitebreadosity.

Films like: Canonball Run II, Mami Culo Grande 4, Catholic High School Girls In Trouble, etc.

...he clearly is not the worst A-list director, i
>just like shacking shit up...

Dude...shack that shit the fuck up!! Boom shak a tak!!

...Rattner, Kevin Smith and the bunch
>are just easy targets

MAN!! That is what is so admirable about your nonsensical posts. You just shack all the shit up like the non-conformist gibberish talker you are! You're such a risk taker, such a rule breaker. You're a heart breaker. A love taker. Don't you mess around with me.

>
>ohh yeah fuck off

so does that mean because goonies was good, i have to like all his other films?

and yes i am as smart as i sound fam, the process of attaining a ph.d as the first person in my family to go to college from a Black and Mexican working class family is evidence of that at the age of 26. check yourself. i mearly pointed out the obvious that Spielberg is the most over-hyped, over-appreciated, A-list director in hollywood. and like i admitted i just chose him cause the other directors are no shit answers. and obviously it worked, being that you couldn't take some1 criticizing him.

and parodize is a word dumbass, the process of trying to parody a parody. even if it wasn't, one could make the arguement from a post-colonial stand point that the process of creating terms to explain modern phenomenon requires that new terms be made, which actually appens constantly in non-white supremacist fields of studies.

"DUDE", the one thing i cant stand is when crakcers can't take a cracker being called a cracker, fuckin cracker, yes im racist. Colour Purple if you read shit ever that had to do with anything Post-Colonial or in line with radical Black Studies, along with Amistad (Spielberg films) are the pontifications of white bread ass interpretations of Black life and struggle. do the math dipshit, jesus/christian morals explored, abusive black male figures, nuturing or sympathetic white protagonist, "happy" endings... open your fuckin eyes. those films are not only ideologically bad, but as works of art they needed editing, plot development and lacked any creative angles on the subject. Why not do a maroon community slavery/post-slavery film; why not show black on white violence, rahter than the numbing white on black violence, why not avoid the typical enlightning or revelations of the Black protagonist and create a strong Black female or male figure who organizes and resist white supremacist violence form the begining to the end of the film and yes their are many in history

are you really serious about defending this mans filmography. Minority Report, E.T., War of the Worlds and many many many other can be broke down into their simplisitic ass work on the viewers simpleton emotions, white Americana, State Survalience/Repression themes and narratives.

LOG OFF

>so does that mean because goonies was good, i have to like
>all his other films?

Yes. That is EXACTLY what I was getting at.

>
>and yes i am as smart as i sound fam, the process of attaining
>a ph.d as the first person in my family to go to college from
>a Black and Mexican working class family is evidence of that
>at the age of 26.

congrats to you and your black and mexican non degree holding family members.

>check yourself.

done

>i mearly pointed out the
>obvious that Spielberg is the most over-hyped,
>over-appreciated, A-list director in hollywood. and like i
>admitted i just chose him cause the other directors are no
>shit answers. and obviously it worked, being that you couldn't
>take some1 criticizing him.

wait...what "worked"?



>and parodize is a word dumbass,

no. its not.

>the process of trying to
>parody a parody.

...is called parody


This is off topic (whatever that may be at this point), but when you look at it, "parody" is a really weird looking word huh?
PARODY
parody
pa ro dy
Kinda like month. Or radar. Or ala. That's another word/phrase you use/employ wrong/non-right-like.

>even if it wasn't,

which it isn't

>one could make the
>arguement from a post-colonial stand point that the process of
>creating terms to explain modern phenomenon requires that new
>terms be made, which actually appens constantly in non-white
>supremacist fields of studies.

If ONE did make that argument they'd be a fool. If YOU made that argument it probably wouldn't make much sense. But, back to the aforementioned "ONE" trying to make this inane argument...if ONE made the argument, from a Post-cereal stand point, as you say, "...that the process of creating terms to explain modern phenomenon requires that new terms be made..." they'd be calling parody a strictly modern phenomena, right? And not only that, but they would also then be allowing that there are no existing words in the King's English to describe such a revolutionary modern phenomena. Right? And you, being the first 26 year old Black Bean pee eightch dee in tu familia, would most certainly have the cognizant capacity to understand that such a word does, in fact, exist, right??!! Of course you would!!

And what's the word?? Johannesburgh!!

No, actually the word is PARODY.

You know, this is getting quite interesting to me. At first I just thought you didn't quite grasp the concept of words actually having specific meanings, your 26 year old ph.d. notwithstanding. But now I'm thinking I might be wrong. Indulge me if you will...I'm being dead ass serious:
When you say "...which actually appens constantly in non-white supremacist fields of studies." <--- what are some examples?
When you say "non-white" do you mean "anti" or "other than" white?
What's a "post-colonial stand point"? How do you argue from it? Against it?


>
>"DUDE", the one thing i cant stand is when crakcers can't take
>a cracker being called a cracker, fuckin cracker, yes im
>racist.

Whoa, dude. Dude...slow down. It's okay, dude. What crackers are you mad at specifically dude? Dude, which cracker took umbrage to you calling a certain cracker cracker? We'll get em astralblak, we'll make that cracker dude pay.

Colour Purple if you read shit ever that had to do
>with anything Post-Colonial or in line with radical Black
>Studies,

That "post-colonial" thing I can't speak on, I really don't know what you're talking about, but all that radical black shit is fucking boring dude. It holds no interest for me. Except I think Marcus Garvey is vastly interesting and I liked The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

along with Amistad (Spielberg films) are the
>pontifications of white bread ass interpretations of Black
>life and struggle.

They should blacked that shit up huh? Or like how you like to shack that shit up?

>do the math dipshit,

okay

>jesus/christian morals
>explored

uh-huh

>abusive black male figures

say word

>nuturing or sympathetic
>white protagonist

talk about it

>"happy" endings...

hate em

>open your fuckin eyes

ya dig!!!

>those films are not only ideologically bad,

"ideologically bad"...man when you turn a phrase you turn a fucking phrase! But as "ideologically bad" (© astralblak the racist) as "they" are, lets focus on one...lets talk AMISTAD...

>but as works of
>art they needed editing

I'm pretty sure there were edits in Amistad.

>plot development

That happened too.

>and lacked any
>creative angles on the subject.

But they already got white bread assed!! What more do you want from them?

>Why not do a maroon community
>slavery/post-slavery film;

Yeah, why not? And why not have it set at a slavery/post slavery summer camp? Then the good slavery/post slavery maroons have to go up against the snobby, rich-kid slavery/post slavery maroons from the other slavery/post slavery summer camp because they find out the bad guys have bought out the good guys' summer camp and plan on closing it. Then there's a big slavery/post slavery dance-competition where they raise enough money to save the camp!!! Just think about it, astralblak...we could have all the good shit like edits, developments in the plot, and TONS of creative angles!! Man, this baby writes itself!!

>why not show black on white
>violence, rahter than the numbing white on black violence,

Uhhhhhh...the whole beginning...of Amistad...the slaves...kinda....nevermind.


>why
>not avoid the typical enlightning or revelations of the Black
>protagonist and create a strong Black female or male figure
>who organizes and resist white supremacist violence form the
>begining to the end of the film and yes their are many in
>history

Because it was about what actually happened on La Amistad. But we could totally take your idea, marry it to my slavery/post slavery summer camp idea, and see what kind of baby it makes.


>
>are you really serious about defending this mans filmography.

Seriously? Seriously, Steven Spielberg is one of the best directors ever.

>Minority Report, E.T., War of the Worlds and many many many
>other can be broke down into their simplisitic ass work on the
>viewers simpleton emotions, white Americana, State
>Survalience/Repression themes and narratives.

Okay, do so. And you can't just say they're "idealogically bad" because you already dropped that bomb on 'em.


>
>LOG OFF

If that's your way of saying "Seacrest Out!" then "Seacrest Out!" to you too.

Or is that supposed to be some sort of insult?

"white americana" spielberg's shit is.

its like he deifies the suburban nuclear white family and its (lack of) values.

Shit's problematic as hell, on a lot of different levels

He's my least favorite. His movies are always about his direct manipulation of an audience's emotions to come to the same conclusion as him. I love the Indiana Jones movies and Jaws is great for what it is - but other than that I've never liked any of his other movies and hated more than one. Forrest Gump and ET among those...

basically

.

provide insight or ideas. more okay online chic buillshit

I think calling him the worst A-list director ever is just plain dumb. He's made some of the biggest moments in cinematic history. And amongst the the films I've disliked or thought were shit, have been some real gems. Hell even Saving Private Ryan (which I thought was absolute turd) had that incredible first 20 minutes which still make it an unmissable film.

The fact is Michael Bay wins this post by a landslide.

He lets his style take over every film now. I was cool with it in Spy Game but now it's way too much.

Great writer. Most boring director on the planet. If you ever need proof watch the last 20 minutes of Dogma. Dammit that movie could of been one of the all-time greats if it had a director with the even a slightly creative eye.

I go back and forth on Ridley Scott. And lets just clear this up right now...GLADIATOR IS THE WORST FILM TO EVER WIN BEST PICTURE EVER. Its just technically awful. there are battle scenes cut together so that they are impossible. this is not an example of a "good ridley scott film".
But then he goes and makes Kingdom of Heaven and I'm forced to reevaluate.


I also hate the comedy A-Listers: Tom Shadyac, Steve Odekirk, Tom Holland...you know those guys who get credited as "the director of Austin Powers 2!!" or "the director of Liar, Liar"...as if they did anything aside from pointing the camera and turning it on. They get 5 takes of Mike Meyers, Jim Carrey, Eddie Murphy, etc. improvising and then the comedian sits in the editing booth and tells them which takes to use.

And I agree and disagree with you. Because (minus DOGMA) the cat is good at directing his actors. So, even if he were an A lister, I wouldn't go as far as to say he's the worst.

And TITANIC was the worst movie to win a Best Picture Oscar.

-- Nate

I called K. Smith "A-List" because I figured he could walk into any studio with a script, get the budget he wanted, and there would be plenty mega-star actors wanting to say the lines. If that's incorrect or incredibly naive, please excuse it. But that was my criteria for "A-List".

I think he's shit as a director because his movies play like a M-F Garfield strip. There's 2 heads facing each other on either side of the frame and we go: set up, set up, punch line! Set up, set up, punch line! If there's any camera movement at all its a swaying motion from one head to the other. This isn't a criticism of some of the less-than-stellar acting of his usual gang of idiots either, I appreciate him using his boys even when they don't got the chops. But Kevin Smith, and this is my BIGGEST (note how I used all caps) complaint, hasn't progress one iota in the 15 years or so since Clerks. He's the anti-Wes Anderson, there's far too little going on the screen.

The genius set up of Clerks masked his ineptitude as a director. He skated on not having a creative eye because of the inherent, and demanded, limitations on creation. What people took as an intelligent choice turned out to be all he had to offer.

Mallrats exposed this. Even though I love this film, I acknowledge I love it in spite of itself. I mean can you believe we never even got a shot of the entire mall? The scene with Bodie explaining the mall layout to TS was BEGGING for some kind of slick animation or hyper fly-through of the different levels. Mallrats was technically atrocious but unabashedly stupid and fun (which I felt suited the comic book theme perfectly)
.
Chasing Amy was pork fried garbation. I've seen it once. I can't really discuss it any more than that because I'm tied up in a class-action law suit with several thousand others, all suing Kevin Smith for Theater or rental fees.
Dogma was a revelation on par with Clerks. He stepped up his game immensely and delivered a script that was intelligent and funny on a level that I thought heralded the arrival 21st Century Woody Allen. Strictly on the writing side, of course. I mentioned above the final twenty minutes which are so vital and clever and wrap the movie up perfectly but are fucking painful to watch. That entire ending was begging for something large and grandiose and all we got were courthouse steps. Why don't we see any of the mayhaw the TV reporters are describing? Why are we only given one shot of a horribly rendered CGI angel and Ben Affleck lowered on a crane like they did in Superman...George Reeves' Superman? Why does the door shut on Bartleby and Loki's bloodbath? Why are we given a slapstick reaction to the strip club blood bath? Why didn't we get a shit demon? You know why? I'll tell ya why!! Because Kevin Smith has no idea on how to do those shots! I doubt he even recognizes the potential in those shots.

J&SB Strike Back...I saw once about 10 years ago. I'm going to have plead the 8th on this. An 8th of Northern Califunction Home Growns. I was high enough to eat a star ©Apple Eagle Weasel, and I don't remember much more beyond thinking "Be careful what you wish for, this was too much of a good thing" because I had always wanted a J&SB movie but I wasn't really impressed with what I got.

I haven't seen Jersey Girl, Clerks 2, or...has he made anything else?


CryptoQuote Sig!!

H BRHQ ZSXG SK YSQR H ZSWNUKWUTR BOSWO ZHIXSDSRK FNSDYSXI FOSXIK VPF WHXXUF NRWRSCR INRHF UXRK. - YUNG WORKFRNDSRYG

>Chasing Amy was pork fried garbation. I've seen it once. I
>can't really discuss it any more than that because I'm tied up
>in a class-action law suit with several thousand others, all
>suing Kevin Smith for Theater or rental fees.

We get it. You're white and very, very liberal. If a democratic president is elected will you stop making movies if she gives you the medal of freedom?

And does Baz Luhrman count?

Can't quite maintain after the death of the appeal of his hokey, half-baked 80's coke-goth music video aesthetic.

I think Julie Taymore is basically foolishly following in his dragging footsteps.

And fuck Baz Luhrman.

and Tim Burton's overall track record is pretty good.

in fact the ONLY Tim Burton movie that flat-out sucked was "The Planet of The Apes"...

seems like he's being groomed (this hack gets Wolverine?). He's got an Oscar and execs probably mistake his accent, broad liberalism and turtle neck sweaters for sophisticated charm.
Tsotsi was garbage.

<--- "When times get hard I just pull out my card WITH THE SMILEY FACE! Invite him over to my place!"

http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://www.myspace.com/shinobishaw
http://www.myspace.com/djshinobishaw
http://www.last.fm/user/ShinoShaw/

you know I just be saying that to get you mad@Mase.

like blockbusters can at least be fun and entertaining. say what you want about Bay, but if Armageddon is on USA at 1:30 on Saturday afternoon I sit there with my hands down my hands on the couch and watch it. And I will for Transformers too. But X-Men 3? Rush Hour 2? I'd rather mow the lawn.

he need to give jackie chan and chris tucker 1/3 of ever hollywood check he cashes, cuz they made that fools career