Posted on 08/28/2007 9:21:59 AM PDT by Bender2
Variety is reporting that Keanu Reeves will star in 20th Century Fox's remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still."
(Excerpt) Read more at zap2it.com ...
Its interest for me was in the style, tone and sheer audacity of the thing...not really narrative logic. Movies like that usually don't get financed certainly not with that big of a budget. You can poke holes in stuff like that all day long. For instance, why didn’t they just nuke the planet with the bugs on it and be done with it.
Well, when necessary... go to the source!
Was it not Jonathan Swift who offered, "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own."
Me thinks, Borges... it would be better for you to look in a regular mirror before giving artsy-fartsy platitudes as cover for a very bad film.
Not to put too fine a point on it... it is your opinion and we must respect that...
But I do honestly believe you just have acute occulossis... that means your optic nerve has gotten crossed with your rectum and given you a crappy outlook. I think you might have caught it from Verhoeven.
But kick back... and have another beer. Kiss a babe. The cure for occulossis is free here at FR!
Then why... do you charge me $50 every time I come here?
Latex gloves, Frank... do not grow on trees.
Roy Lichtenstien? That no-talent hack? That one-joke wonder of pop art? At least the comic book artists he was ripping off did original work. Another over-rated "satirist".
Again, don't mistake technique for talent. Artistically framed crap is still crap.
A wise man once said that its fruitless to argue when your opponent has an arsenal of pictograms.
Thanks. I read the book when I was a kid.
Guilty... as charged, sir!
A bit of a ripoff/homage to Starship Troopers that I also really enjoyed was “Armor” by John Steakley. A line I will never forget from the book was when a proud father was having the off-world governor sign his daughters birth certificate so that legally she would be ‘a Texan’. The governors wife asked him “Where is Texas?” He said “It is a province of one of the nations on Earth.” Her response was “Oh. From the way he talked about it I thought it was it’s own planet.”
And every other film he has done. One trick pony, with one overblown worldview message. Oliver Stone writ small.
A film is judged by camera movement and framing, editing rhythm.
No it isn't. A film is judged by how it connects to the audience. The rest is just technique and tricks. Only jaded critics feel the need to dismiss the content and concentrate on the execution of details. It's what makes them able to praise a canvas painted red by emoting over the brush stroke technique. It's a hollow and empty method of judgment, because it has nothing to do with the essence of the film.
It's why Star Wars IV is great, and Starship Troopers is dreck. Lucas connected with his audience, Verhoeven talked down to them and insulted their intelligence. No amount of pretty framing or editing is going to make that fact lost to the SF fanbase.
Weren’t Heinlein’s politics pretty nebulous? ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’ was adopted by the hippies.
..but I sure remember Michael Rennie ...I sure do :))
Yup, I'm toooooo stoooooopid, duuuude!
"Words can also be decosntructed as Verhoeven did in ST."
"A film is judged by camera movement and framing, editing rhythm. Not fidelity to the source material."
"Verhoeven is a brilliant natural filmmaker."
Enough examples of your quotes, though I could mine many more gems from this thread alone....
You either sat in one too many film classes, and wrote copious notes but never challenged your professors or thought about what they meant ("Oh, wow, man, these films are, like, deconstructed, ya know, so they mean ezzackly what I say they mean, depending on what the definition of "mean" is, or "is" is, or sumthin'...but the one rule is that authorial intent and reality has no meaning, man"), or (shudder) you teach film theory to uncomprehending sophomores; such "thinking" does not pass muster here. I might ordinarily suspect, as you have used virtually every cliche of so-called modern film crit in your posts, that you might be having us on -- you know, being ironic and sarcastic, portraying a satiric view of those chowderheads...but I suspect, sadly, that that's not the case.
But we can stop this conversation here...you're obviously waaaay too smart, and so much more educated than I, so more of your wisdom would be wasted on poor lil ol me.
Oh chill out, nothing personal. I’m not joking but I do however watch a lot of movies and have liked Verhoven’s work going back to 1977’s ‘Soldier of Orange’.
No. He was libertarian, through and through. He was about as opinionated and non-nebulous as an author gets. Imagine Ayn Rand with talent at writing.
Which only makes the twisting of ST into a fascist state all the more appalling. The regimented, centrally controlled insects were the symbolic totalitarians that the individualists of Earth had to cooperate to defeat.
And popularity is not the gauge, either. It's the ability to connect with the intended audience. Whether it's the art house crowd watching Chocolat or Tolkein fans at LOTR, you cannot despise and talk down to the people you are making the film for. Verhoeven has contempt for his audience and his material, and so chooses to lecture his trite message to his "lessers". The audience can see that.
I assume Bruce Campbell is in the running for Patricia Neal’s role?
An interesting point of reference is that Verhoeven spent his childhood in Nazi occupied Holland watching propanda films. He’s clearly been obsssed with fascism ever since.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.