Yeah, but anybody can make a movie like that. All you need is some random footage and music. My point is that Kubrick made no effort to actually write his film, he made a film that the people who watch it write it for him, and that's about as much as you need to make "one of the most thought provoking films of all time".Rockchimp69 said:
Great masterpieces... that suck!
- Thread starter RatRace123
- Start date
I remember having to read The Canterburry Tales in high school. I hated it...I don't remember why I hated it then, but I imagine I would hate it upon rereading because of the lack of engaging detail.
Romeo and Juliet... don't care if I spelled that wrong.
It's just the whole concept of falling in love at first site, it's bullshit, and I find it really offensive.
It's just incredibly shallow and one-dimensional for such a well loved play, mabye when it was written it held some originality and value, but now, it just sucks.
I don't like "let the right one in" Ethier, and I've seen so many lists that put it on their top ten of the decade, I just don't understand why, it's... theres just so many things wrong with the movie.
It's just the whole concept of falling in love at first site, it's bullshit, and I find it really offensive.
It's just incredibly shallow and one-dimensional for such a well loved play, mabye when it was written it held some originality and value, but now, it just sucks.
I don't like "let the right one in" Ethier, and I've seen so many lists that put it on their top ten of the decade, I just don't understand why, it's... theres just so many things wrong with the movie.
The Mona Lisa.
I never got why people think it's so special.
It's so... bland and unentertaining.
It doesn't even provoke any real thought or wonder.
Yet, people seem to think it's the greatest painting EVAR.
I never got why people think it's so special.
It's so... bland and unentertaining.
It doesn't even provoke any real thought or wonder.
Yet, people seem to think it's the greatest painting EVAR.
I'm going to get massacred for this, but I've already established that I'm a philistine, so I'll just say it.
I despise the Mona Lisa.
It's just a lady smiling. Maybe it's quite well done, but it's not the second coming of Jesus' cool older brother. It's tiny as well, I saw it in the Louvre, and I actually exclaimed "I know they say it's quite small, but it's fucking tiny! This is not what I expected, I've seen a dozen pieces today when we were walking down the road that deserve to be respected more than this."
Also, I'm going to add another couple of things:
The classics.
I loathe "The classics". Who cares about the writings of a bunch of Victorian old men?
I loathe The Woman in White, I despise Great Expectations (And all Dickens for that matter), I would rather claw my own eyes out than read Northanger Abbey again.
I also hate any written Shakespeare. I love the plays when performed, but reading Shakespeare is the worst thing you can do to it. Give me a performance, reimagining, retelling or otherwise of nearly any Shakespeare play, and I will likely enjoy it if done well. Tell me to sit down and read that same play, and I will get a lighter.
OH! And I'm sorry for those of you who love his work, but I cannot stand Kurt Vonnegut. I once read Slaughterhouse Five, and I hated every moment of it, and -while for totally different reasons- I'll admit that I hated reading it more than I hated Twilight.
I despise the Mona Lisa.
It's just a lady smiling. Maybe it's quite well done, but it's not the second coming of Jesus' cool older brother. It's tiny as well, I saw it in the Louvre, and I actually exclaimed "I know they say it's quite small, but it's fucking tiny! This is not what I expected, I've seen a dozen pieces today when we were walking down the road that deserve to be respected more than this."
Also, I'm going to add another couple of things:
The classics.
I loathe "The classics". Who cares about the writings of a bunch of Victorian old men?
I loathe The Woman in White, I despise Great Expectations (And all Dickens for that matter), I would rather claw my own eyes out than read Northanger Abbey again.
I also hate any written Shakespeare. I love the plays when performed, but reading Shakespeare is the worst thing you can do to it. Give me a performance, reimagining, retelling or otherwise of nearly any Shakespeare play, and I will likely enjoy it if done well. Tell me to sit down and read that same play, and I will get a lighter.
OH! And I'm sorry for those of you who love his work, but I cannot stand Kurt Vonnegut. I once read Slaughterhouse Five, and I hated every moment of it, and -while for totally different reasons- I'll admit that I hated reading it more than I hated Twilight.
I've never been a fan of Star Wars. I've seen the original trilogy but they just don't do it for me.
And I can't understand the music of Frank Zappa. I saw "Zappa plays Zappa" with Dweezil, Steve Vai and a ton of talented musicians but I was bored out of my skull. Sure, Zappa was (probably) a great musician but to me it just sounds like a fuckload of different noises played randomly.
And I can't understand the music of Frank Zappa. I saw "Zappa plays Zappa" with Dweezil, Steve Vai and a ton of talented musicians but I was bored out of my skull. Sure, Zappa was (probably) a great musician but to me it just sounds like a fuckload of different noises played randomly.
Then you had a good teacher. The point in having students read all these books in high school shouldn't be to make everyone love them. It's to expose the next generation to books/ideas/concepts that they might not read on their own and letting them form their own opinion. And if that opinion is well reasoned, cites relevant examples and shows an understanding of the source material, it deserves a 95, regardless of what that opinion is.Jovip said:To kill a mocking bird.
supposdly a timeless classic to me?
a big pile of suck and boring irrelevant things.
i write a paper in school about how pointless and socially irrelevant it is to our generation.
got a 95
Citizen Kane put me to sleep.
The Mona Lisa I fail to see why it's good. I'm no art person. I hate how one thing is though of as art and another nothing just because it was painted by a "somebody" doesn't make it more arty then something from "nobody"
James Cameron's Avatar, boring it's just a simple love story about people on different sides, then they drag it out for 3 hours. The 3D is so what it's 3D it doesn't change the story.
To kill a mocking bird, the pacing put me off it. The whole side Radley Place story made it to slow. I know it adds to the ending but it drags on to long.
I could do this all day so I'm going to stop.
The Mona Lisa I fail to see why it's good. I'm no art person. I hate how one thing is though of as art and another nothing just because it was painted by a "somebody" doesn't make it more arty then something from "nobody"
James Cameron's Avatar, boring it's just a simple love story about people on different sides, then they drag it out for 3 hours. The 3D is so what it's 3D it doesn't change the story.
To kill a mocking bird, the pacing put me off it. The whole side Radley Place story made it to slow. I know it adds to the ending but it drags on to long.
I could do this all day so I'm going to stop.
Archangel357 said:
I assume you are in your "smart camp"? So far, you have done nothing, and I mean nothing to indicate any actual intelligence. All you've done is regurgitate information others have taught you, or rattle off quotes you've read. A slightly above average ten year old could do that.
I'm not saying you aren't smart, far from it. You've just presented yourself as so incredibly superior, without any demonstration at all. Yes, you've taken a college course not many of us have. Congratulations. On the other hand, I'm taking a reasonable guess that your knowledge base doesn't extend very far beyond literature and a few related subjects. Drama, psychology, a little history.
Intelligence is taking your knowledge, experience, and abilities, and applying them in some way to make something of your own. Reading a good book doesn't make you intelligent, although it can help you become intelligent. Writing a good book means you are intelligent.
Not being able to write a book doesn't mean you aren't intelligent, however. You just have to be able to (you don't have to, you have to be able to) apply your knowledge and etc, and using it to come up with your own thoughts, instead of regurgitating those of another. The measures of it are different for different fields.
My point being: for acting so superior, you have not demonstrated any kind of superiority. Only a tired, irritatingly smug attitude, and general rudeness. Again, I could get a ten year old to do that, and not even a smart one.
I just watched the movie Harvey, and I hated it.
James Stewart was great of course, he always is, portraying a likable and funny character (trying to hand out his business card to everyone he met cracked me up)... but every other character was annoying as all hell. See, no one ever talks in this movie, they all scream, every goddamn line of dialogue, and they all scream at the same time and it gives me a headache. Stewart's sister was especially grating, saying all her lines in this whiney cry. Besides that, although the concept is brilliant, I found the story to be suprisingly dull and predictable, the romantic subplots weak and uninvolving and the ending thoroughly unsatisying.
Disappointment, thy name is Harvey. If I want giant invisible rabbits, I'll stick with Donnie Darko, thank you very much.
James Stewart was great of course, he always is, portraying a likable and funny character (trying to hand out his business card to everyone he met cracked me up)... but every other character was annoying as all hell. See, no one ever talks in this movie, they all scream, every goddamn line of dialogue, and they all scream at the same time and it gives me a headache. Stewart's sister was especially grating, saying all her lines in this whiney cry. Besides that, although the concept is brilliant, I found the story to be suprisingly dull and predictable, the romantic subplots weak and uninvolving and the ending thoroughly unsatisying.
Disappointment, thy name is Harvey. If I want giant invisible rabbits, I'll stick with Donnie Darko, thank you very much.
I heartily agree. Middle Earth is genuinely deep (it would need to be given the amount of time Tolkien dedicated to it) however his stories (in particular The Lord Of The Rings) may be inventive but they are also incredibly drawn out and in many places he's prone to rambling. (And to think Rings was actually supposed to be two chapters longer to finish Sam's tale).tellmeimaninja said:
I expect disagreements, but that's just my opinion.