Originally posted by Kovacs86
I'm afraid I haven't seen Collateral, though I'm tempted to. Is it good?
It's on the okay-to-pretty-good scale. Starts off very powerfully as a tense examination of the heated relationship between Foxx's and Cruise's characters, but disappointingly turns into little more than a cheesy action film at some point. The acting, however (and the general characterizations) is brilliant.
Originally posted by Robtard
While that's the theme of the film/book (explained in the bathtub scene by Norton/Pitt), it really has nothing to do with a bunch teen angsty, mentally unstable and murderous fools who convinced themselves they were making a statement when they committed said acts.Shifting the blame (or part there of) of their actions to 'modern social themes', is just silly. Millions of people get picked on in highschool, millions of people don't 'fit' into the "in crowd" etc. etc. etc., yet they don't go on shooting rampages, they simply growup and deal with it.
Also, I'm pretty sure not ever fight cluber was "upper middle class".
I completely disagree. The theme of Fight Club has a direct relationship to juvenile violence (after all, can you not compare the actions of the members of Fight Club to the shooters?); of course not everybody turns into a murderous sociopath, but it is a plausible explanation for it.
Their motives were apparently similar- psychological emasculation, alienation with society and authority, physical repression, and the lack of what they view as a 'place' in modern society seem very closely related to the actions of the shooters.
Also, do you think societal factors were not an influence? Do you think they were just burn murderous? That's absurd. A personality isn't pre-generated at birth. There are some innate factors (like intelligence), but actual behavior is developed by education and external factors.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I completely disagree. The theme of Fight Club has a direct relationship to juvenile violence (after all, can you not compare the actions of the members of Fight Club to the shooters?); of course not everybody turns into a murderous sociopath, but it is a plausible explanation for it.Their motives were apparently similar- psychological emasculation, alienation with society and authority, physical repression, and the lack of what they view as a 'place' in modern society seem very closely related to the actions of the shooters.
Also, do you think societal factors were not an influence? Do you think they were just burn murderous? That's absurd. A personality isn't pre-generated at birth. There are some innate factors (like intelligence), but actual behavior is developed by education and external factors.
They were a bunch of idiots who convinced themselves they were making some profound statement; they just mudered people in the end, though.
What they went through, billions of others went through. Who hasn't felt they don't belong? Who hasn't rebelled, especially during the teen angst years? The answer is, 99.99999% of people, yet they don't go killing to make a supposed statement.
Blame shifting is nothing more than an excuse, like when parents refuse to admit they have a shit-rootten kid, "my Billy is an angel, it's the rock music and video games who made him bad." I say bullshit.
Fight Club is a damn decent movie, but let's not make it into some profound explanation for life.
Fight Club is good but stupidly overrated by some.
But Mann, I can't get on board with him, Miami Vice was genuinely bad, I thought, all style, no substance. The only movie of his that I really love is Collateral. Most of his others are quite good, just never been able to really get into them.
I think Danny Boyle is definitely up there. His ability to make solid films in different genres is something that shouldn't be overlooked.
Del Toro is a good choice.
But I'm going to go with Aronofsky. Pie is different and imaginative. Requiem is one of the most powerful films I've ever seen, the Fountain was a mess and definitely dampers his name, however he brought it back in The Wrestler.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
OMG WOLVES! That's so... deep...
Hahaha, good boy. Sit! Roll-over. Here have a cookie.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
The Departed's genuine purpose, like Fight Club's, is carefully hidden beneath an exterior that implies otherwise. You can take them at a superficial level (the Departed is a thriller about undercover cops, Fight Club is a social criticism of American capitalism) or you can analyze the deeper subtext.
Oh, come on! The Departed is a poor remake. The original film did explore some deeper themes involving identity and acceptance, but The Departed was a poor imitation that had been sanitized to make it easier for stupid people to understand . Fight Club is - here we go again - sensationalistic and gimmicky. It is exactly the kind of film people who think they are intelligent attach themselves to because it tricks them (stupid people) into thinking its deeper than it actually is. For these reasons, it is also precisely the kind of film that an emotionally and mentally immature person would like. It's that simple, kid.
Originally posted by BackFire
Fight Club is good but stupidly overrated by some.But Mann, I can't get on board with him, Miami Vice was genuinely bad, I thought, all style, no substance. The only movie of his that I really love is Collateral. Most of his others are quite good, just never been able to really get into them.
I agree with you 100%. Apart from not being able to 'get on board' with Mann. And thinking Miami Vice is genuinely bad. And with it being all style, no substance. And loving only Collateral. And thinking his other movies are 'quite good'. And never been able to really get into them.
So, just to recap: I agree with you 100%, apart from those points I just pointed out.
i don't understand the hate for michael mann. he's definitely one f my favorite filmmakers. I actually think he manages to maintain both style and substance fairly well especially in Heat and the Insider. and even in Collateral which was pretty light, there's a hell of a lot more going on in terms of character and drama than most other thrillers.
As for Fight Club, it's cute little movie but there really isn't anything to it. (forgive me while i try to be as patronizing as i possibly can towards this movie) it's just a well mounted bit of pop art targeting the pretentious angsty teen crowd. the script reads like some college freshman just had his first class in philosophy 101 and wrote everything he learned in those 55 min. It isn't deep or offer anything that you couldn't learn by reading the wikipedia page on existentialism.
and finally to answer the original question, i think Clint Eastwood is by far the best director currently working. From 2003 to 2006, while he was in his late seventies, he made four movies, three of which were nominated for best picture, two of witch were massive war movies and one of which (million dollar baby) I at least feel is one of the best films of the decade. now at age 78 he's made two very solid films, and gave a near-oscar worthy performance (a hell of a lot better than brad pitt or frank langella anyways)
Originally posted by Rapscallion
As for Fight Club, it's cute little movie but there really isn't anything to it. (forgive me while i try to be as patronizing as i possibly can towards this movie) it's just a well mounted bit of pop art targeting the pretentious angsty teen crowd. the script reads like some college freshman just had his first class in philosophy 101 and wrote everything he learned in those 55 min. It isn't deep or offer anything that you couldn't learn by reading the wikipedia page on existentialism.
Most people take the film as a call against capitalism and the emphasis or personal ownership...It's not.
Originally posted by Robtard
They were a bunch of idiots who convinced themselves they were making some profound statement; they just mudered people in the end, though.
With the exception of Tyler Durden, all members of Fight Club were relatively unintelligent, Nazi-like beings who though they were 'making a statement' by leading to economic anarchy. See the similarities?
Originally posted by Robtard
What they went through, billions of others went through. Who hasn't felt they don't belong? Who hasn't rebelled, especially during the teen angst years? The answer is, 99.99999% of people, yet they don't go killing to make a supposed statement.
Not all sociopaths are serial killers, either. Fight Club is a potential explanation for rises in white collar violence since the beginning of the modern age; it's not the only explanation and it doesn't apply to anyone, but it's still solid and applies to a certain group of individuals.
Originally posted by Robtard
Blame shifting is nothing more than an excuse, like when parents refuse to admit they have a shit-rootten kid, "my Billy is an angel, it's the rock music and video games who made him bad." I say bullshit.
I agree that blaming pop culture is one of the biggest absurdities people could come up with.
See Japan, for example. The violence and pornography in pop culture is one of the most extreme in the modern world, but it's also a very peaceful place with a lot crime rate. Pop culture is a method of escapism, not education.
Fight Club depicts a very negative response to modern society, but that does not mean the individuals involved are not to blame. See what I mean?
The people who committed the shootings weren't born murderers. To the best of my knowledge, they didn't suffer from any genetic mental disorders. Again, I believe a personality is built, not pre-made; it's built by societal factors. Therefore, the only logical explanation is that some sort of external factor led the teenagers to commit the shootings. This does not mean that they are not responsible for their choices, merely that something spurred them to these choices.
Without any relation to the above, another interesting theme of Fight Club is the way they tear apart the hypocrisy in certain subcultures of "anti-conformity", like the punk culture. Anarchism is the opposite of fascism; but the members of Fight Club operated on a fascist regime. They were completely obedient to the whims of essential dictators, lacked any ability to process free thought of question their ideals, and acted in a way that resembled mob psychology- all similarities with totalitarian regimes, like Nazism or fascism.
How does this relate to the real world? How many times have you seen a punk who dresses up the way he is told to by his culture, operates according to their norms without question, and blindly follows ideals of "Anarchy ROCKS! Cops SUCK!" and the like, without question the logic within it.
Originally posted by YKD
Oh, come on! The Departed is a poor remake. The original film did explore some deeper themes involving identity and acceptance, but The Departed was a poor imitation that had been sanitized to make it easier for stupid people to understand . Fight Club is - here we go again - sensationalistic and gimmicky. It is exactly the kind of film people who think they are intelligent attach themselves to because it tricks them (stupid people) into thinking its deeper than it actually is. For these reasons, it is also precisely the kind of film that an emotionally and mentally immature person would like. It's that simple, kid.
For someone with such an extensive social life and maturity, not to mention obvious intelligence and a degree of superiority over kids like myself, you sure seem hell-bent on continuing this debate. It's a funny world.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
For someone with such an extensive social life and maturity, not to mention obvious intelligence and a degree of superiority over kids like myself, you sure seem hell-bent on continuing this debate. It's a funny world.
I'm only continuing it for humanitarian reasons. I want to help people less fortunate than myself. Luckily, I can put it down as 'charity work', so it gives me some tax breaks. Double-win!
Originally posted by BackFire
Except Miami Vice.
No BJ then.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Fight Club is - here we go again - sensationalistic and gimmicky. It is exactly the kind of film people who think they are intelligent attach themselves to because it tricks them (stupid people) into thinking its deeper than it actually is. For these reasons, it is also precisely the kind of film that an emotionally and mentally immature person would like. It's that simple, kid.
couldn't have said it better. (although i tried in an above post)