list http://www.spout.com/ Viewing with a purpose recent group discussions Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/groups/Viewing_with_a_purpose/Latest_unknown_fave/288/7076/1/ShowPost.aspx Post Subject: Latest unknown fave
Group Name: Viewing with a purpose
Last Post By: seely
Post Date: 4/14/2007 5:19:25 PM
Body: What unkown films have you seen recently and thought were excellent? Obviously, they don't have to be completely unkown - just not one of the usual suspects.I'm always on the lookout for a great hidden little gem!Two recent ones that come to mind - I've already discussed it on the Noir board, but I really enjoyed The Chase - it had all the atmospere I love in a quality noir. Also, a really intense Sean Connery black & white anti-authority film, The Hill - acting is great all the way around and you can feel the claustraphobic intensity .
]]>Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:19:25 GMTLatest unknown faveViewing with a purposeWhat unkown films have you seen recently and thought were excellent? Obviously, they don't have to be completely unkown - just not one of the usual suspects.I'm always on the lookout for a great hidden little gem!Two recent ones that come to mind - I've already discussed it on the Noir board, but I really enjoyed The Chase - it had all the atmospere I love in a quality noir. Also, a really intense Sean Connery black & white anti-authority film, The Hill - acting is great all the way around and you can feel the claustraphobic intensity .4/14/2007 5:19:25 PMWhat unkown films have you seen recently and thought were excellent? Obviously, they don't have to be completely unkown - just not one of the usual suspects.I'm always on the lookout for a great hidden little gem!Two recent ones that come to mind - I've already discussed it on the Noir board, but I really enjoyed The Chase - it had all the atmospere I love in a quality noir. Also, a really intense Sean Connery black & white anti-authority film, The Hill - acting is great all the way around and you can feel the claustraphobic intensity . http://www.spout.com/groups/Viewing_with_a_purpose/Recommended_movies_that_you_hate_hate_hate/288/7075/1/ShowPost.aspx Post Subject: Recommended movies that you hate, hate, hate
Group Name: Viewing with a purpose
Last Post By: seely
Post Date: 4/14/2007 5:09:53 PM
Body: I'm not talking about straight-up bad movies or movies you consider overrated, but movies that come recommended from reputable experts that you really hate. The reason I bring this up is because I just sat down this afternoon to watch Montenegro by Dusan Makavejev and I absolutely hated it. I mean I hated it on a lot of different levels but I also thought it was just a bad film. This isn't a movie I just randomly picked out and had an aversion to, it is highly regarded in critical circles ( one example - Roger Ebert gave it his masterpiece rating, a four out of four - meaning it will appear in his book series, "The Great Movies"). I don't know if you've had this experience but I had to search high and low for a critic I agreed with regarding this film (I felt better when Vincent Canby went against the consensus and panned it).So besides warning any uninitiated against Montenegro, what are the "great ones" that you really hate?
]]>Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:09:53 GMTRecommended movies that you hate, hate, hateViewing with a purposeI'm not talking about straight-up bad movies or movies you consider overrated, but movies that come recommended from reputable experts that you really hate. The reason I bring this up is because I just sat down this afternoon to watch Montenegro by Dusan Makavejev and I absolutely hated it. I mean I hated it on a lot of different levels but I also thought it was just a bad film. This isn't a movie I just randomly picked out and had an aversion to, it is highly regarded in critical circles ( one example - Roger Ebert gave it his masterpiece rating, a four out of four - meaning it will appear in his book series, "The Great Movies"). I don't know if you've had this experience but I had to search high and low for a critic I agreed with regarding this film (I felt better when Vincent Canby went against the consensus and panned it).So besides warning any uninitiated against Montenegro, what are the "great ones" that you really hate? 4/14/2007 5:09:53 PMI'm not talking about straight-up bad movies or movies you consider overrated, but movies that come recommended from reputable experts that you really hate. The reason I bring this up is because I just sat down this afternoon to watch Montenegro by Dusan Makavejev and I absolutely hated it. I mean I hated it on a lot of different levels but I also thought it was just a bad film. This isn't a movie I just randomly picked out and had an aversion to, it is highly regarded in critical circles ( one example - Roger Ebert gave it his masterpiece rating, a four out of four - meaning it will appear in his book series, "The Great Movies"). I don't know if you've had this experience but I had to search high and low for a critic I agreed with regarding this film (I felt better when Vincent Canby went against the consensus and panned it).So besides warning any uninitiated against Montenegro, what are the "great ones" that you really hate? http://www.spout.com/groups/Viewing_with_a_purpose/Scriptless/288/30166/1/ShowPost.aspxPost Subject: Scriptless
Group Name: Viewing with a purpose
Last Post By: unclefestering
Post Date: 5/30/2008 7:04:37 AM
Body: Hi, I'm trying to find films specifically by directors who sometimes shoot without using conventional scripts like Hong Sang-soo, who I've read likes to shoot from a detailed treatment.Apichatpong Weerasethakul's films (I think) and some of Wong Kar-Wai's stuff are also examples of the types of films I'm looking for. Any suggestions would be extremely helpful. Thanks.
]]>Fri, 30 May 2008 11:04:37 GMTScriptlessViewing with a purposeHi, I'm trying to find films specifically by directors who sometimes shoot without using conventional scripts like Hong Sang-soo, who I've read likes to shoot from a detailed treatment.Apichatpong Weerasethakul's films (I think) and some of Wong Kar-Wai's stuff are also examples of the types of films I'm looking for. Any suggestions would be extremely helpful. Thanks.5/30/2008 7:04:37 AMHi, I'm trying to find films specifically by directors who sometimes shoot without using conventional scripts like Hong Sang-soo, who I've read likes to shoot from a detailed treatment.Apichatpong Weerasethakul's films (I think) and some of Wong Kar-Wai's stuff are also examples of the types of films I'm looking for. Any suggestions would be extremely helpful. Thanks. http://www.spout.com/groups/Viewing_with_a_purpose/Films_or_film_making/288/28282/1/ShowPost.aspxPost Subject: Films or film making??
Group Name: Viewing with a purpose
Last Post By: Risselada
Post Date: 5/7/2008 12:10:01 AM
Body: This is just something I've been pondering for a while. It seems to me that there are two distinct groups of people here. This distinction, I believe tends to dictate how we rate movies. The two groups I am speaking of are those of us which are fans of films and those of us which are fans of film making. The difference is this: Someone who is more a fan of films in general typically will give higher rating to a film primarily based on it's enjoyability (if that's even a word). The end product and how much fun or how interesting a film was to watch tends to play a larger roll in how we critic it. The other type tends to fall in love more with the process and art of making a film. When he sees a movie, he will likely be thinking in terms of screenwriting, camera work and other aspects that are tied more into the raw work of the product. I think that fan of films is generally more prone to give the old "thumbs up" to a movie that had a happy ending, whereas the fan of the process may actually be more critical of the same film for it's predictability. This is just one example but I believe that there are more that could be uncovered simply by studying how one person rates the same movies in contrast to the other. Having said all of this, I would clearly put myself in the catagory of the latter. These are not that easy to pin down because they are absolutely not mutually exclusive. That is to say, a fan of films is naturally going to be also a fan of the process and vice versa. But, I do think that if you look at it just right, there are two distinct catagories. Any thoughts???
]]>Wed, 07 May 2008 04:10:01 GMTFilms or film making??Viewing with a purposeThis is just something I've been pondering for a while. It seems to me that there are two distinct groups of people here. This distinction, I believe tends to dictate how we rate movies. The two groups I am speaking of are those of us which are fans of films and those of us which are fans of film making. The difference is this: Someone who is more a fan of films in general typically will give higher rating to a film primarily based on it's enjoyability (if that's even a word). The end product and how much fun or how interesting a film was to watch tends to play a larger roll in how we critic it. The other type tends to fall in love more with the process and art of making a film. When he sees a movie, he will likely be thinking in terms of screenwriting, camera work and other aspects that are tied more into the raw work of the product. I think that fan of films is generally more prone to give the old "thumbs up" to a movie that had a happy ending, whereas the fan of the process may actually be more critical of the same film for it's predictability. This is just one example but I believe that there are more that could be uncovered simply by studying how one person rates the same movies in contrast to the other. Having said all of this, I would clearly put myself in the catagory of the latter. These are not that easy to pin down because they are absolutely not mutually exclusive. That is to say, a fan of films is naturally going to be also a fan of the process and vice versa. But, I do think that if you look at it just right, there are two distinct catagories. Any thoughts???5/7/2008 12:10:01 AMThis is just something I've been pondering for a while. It seems to me that there are two distinct groups of people here. This distinction, I believe tends to dictate how we rate movies. The two groups I am speaking of are those of us which are fans of films and those of us which are fans of film making. The difference is this: Someone who is more a fan of films in general typically will give higher rating to a film primarily based on it's enjoyability (if that's even a word). The end product and how much fun or how interesting a film was to watch tends to play a larger roll in how we critic it. The other type tends to fall in love more with the process and art of making a film. When he sees a movie, he will likely be thinking in terms of screenwriting, camera work and other aspects that are tied more into the raw work of the product. I think that fan of films is generally more prone to give the old "thumbs up" to a movie that had a happy ending, whereas the fan of the process may actually be more critical of the same film for it's predictability. This is just one example but I believe that there are more that could be uncovered simply by studying how one person rates the same movies in contrast to the other. Having said all of this, I would clearly put myself in the catagory of the latter. These are not that easy to pin down because they are absolutely not mutually exclusive. That is to say, a fan of films is naturally going to be also a fan of the process and vice versa. But, I do think that if you look at it just right, there are two distinct catagories. Any thoughts??? http://www.spout.com/groups/Viewing_with_a_purpose/The_Observer/288/28346/1/ShowPost.aspx Post Subject: The Observer
Group Name: Viewing with a purpose
Last Post By: leeroy711
Post Date: 5/8/2008 1:56:52 AM
Body: I was watching Donnie Darko a while ago and I noticed something unique with one of the characters. Her name was Cherida Chen (the heavy set high school girl that everyone made fun of). I realized that she is in quite a few of the more important scenes although she has no real relation to any part of the story. In fact, one scene actually just ends with a pan to reveal that she was watching the scene with the audience. I believe that this was the director's intention and that her character was actually more a part of the audience than part of the story. After theorizing this, I can't help but wonder if there are more characters in movies that are set up simply as observers. If I can find the time, I'll watch DD again with the commentary and see if Kelly says anything to this affect, in the mean time, has anyone else seen or thought of this before?
]]>Thu, 08 May 2008 05:56:52 GMTThe ObserverViewing with a purposeI was watching Donnie Darko a while ago and I noticed something unique with one of the characters. Her name was Cherida Chen (the heavy set high school girl that everyone made fun of). I realized that she is in quite a few of the more important scenes although she has no real relation to any part of the story. In fact, one scene actually just ends with a pan to reveal that she was watching the scene with the audience. I believe that this was the director's intention and that her character was actually more a part of the audience than part of the story. After theorizing this, I can't help but wonder if there are more characters in movies that are set up simply as observers. If I can find the time, I'll watch DD again with the commentary and see if Kelly says anything to this affect, in the mean time, has anyone else seen or thought of this before?5/8/2008 1:56:52 AMI was watching Donnie Darko a while ago and I noticed something unique with one of the characters. Her name was Cherida Chen (the heavy set high school girl that everyone made fun of). I realized that she is in quite a few of the more important scenes although she has no real relation to any part of the story. In fact, one scene actually just ends with a pan to reveal that she was watching the scene with the audience. I believe that this was the director's intention and that her character was actually more a part of the audience than part of the story. After theorizing this, I can't help but wonder if there are more characters in movies that are set up simply as observers. If I can find the time, I'll watch DD again with the commentary and see if Kelly says anything to this affect, in the mean time, has anyone else seen or thought of this before?