By rvy Go To Postit evens itself out with apocalypse now and the 1st two godfathersGood flicks... but he has been involved in some trash as a director and producer just sounding bitter tbh
By n8 dogg Go To PostDracula is great fun and it’s fucking gorgeous and better than any MCU film.Debatable... book was trash so I admit he made it better than the source material.
Those marvel crazies who have shaped their identity around being Disney fans don't understand the difference between High and Low art
It's that simple. They just don't understand the argument so they lash out the only way they can and that's by attacking the critic. If a marvel movie ever gets a rotten score on RT you're going to see the real way these people feel about critics.
It's that simple. They just don't understand the argument so they lash out the only way they can and that's by attacking the critic. If a marvel movie ever gets a rotten score on RT you're going to see the real way these people feel about critics.
By DY_nasty Go To Postcritics kinda suck anyways
Depends on who it is. Most modern critics are uneducated nerd bloggers that are barely able to write sentences
Certainly is wild how movie discussion in real life has been reduced to spit balling about Disney movies. Believe it's time to accept most people really don't care much about anything at all.
By Apollo Go To PostDepends on who it is. Most modern critics are uneducated nerd bloggers that are barely able to write sentencesWe need some of these old critics to tell new critics that they aren't critics then!
The fact that fewer people go to the local cinema to watch Scorcese films these days doesn't mean that everyone now thinks Scorcese is bad and Marvel is gud, it means that home theatre technology has fundamentally changed the reason why anyone even bothers to go to the cinema anymore. Popcorn movies etc.
By Apollo Go To PostThose marvel crazies who have shaped their identity around being Disney fans don't understand the difference between High and Low artThat's the funny thing about art is one man's Dogs Playing Poker is another man's Mona Lisa...
It's that simple. They just don't understand the argument so they lash out the only way they can and that's by attacking the critic. If a marvel movie ever gets a rotten score on RT you're going to see the real way these people feel about critics.
So it really boils down people thinking their art is somehow valid than other art
The only thing I'll say about "Art" is that the bar for what constitutes Art is extraordinarily low, and IP law backs me up on that.
"High" and "Low" descriptors just sound like classist sophisitication modifiers fam.
"High" and "Low" descriptors just sound like classist sophisitication modifiers fam.
By Laboured Go To PostAnyways the only true Art is the bit when those two guys get hit with paint cans in Home Alone 2.#facts
By Laboured Go To PostAnyways the only true Art is the bit when those two guys get hit with paint cans in Home Alone 2.
Lmfao
Strongest criminals ever.
By Laboured Go To PostThe only thing I'll say about "Art" is that the bar for what constitutes Art is extraordinarily low, and IP law backs me up on that.
"High" and "Low" descriptors just sound like classist sophisitication modifiers fam.
They're not. Anyone can make art.
High and Low is a way to describe art that is challenging on an intellectual level vs the art that is safe and made for mass consumption.
That's it. Disney makes low art that is aimed to make the most money they can
It's not that hard to understand
MoMA’s redesign is to show both can co-exist
It's built in an assembly line, out of a mandate to increase production in order to meet demand, whose design by default adheres to a template so that consumers don't mistake it for another company's product.
The fact that for the first time in history, the producer and not anyone else is deemed responsible for the magic behind the spectacle, is not lost on me.
Marvel movies are art in a similar way to how shows like CSI or NCIS are art. They are art nonetheless.
The fact that for the first time in history, the producer and not anyone else is deemed responsible for the magic behind the spectacle, is not lost on me.
Marvel movies are art in a similar way to how shows like CSI or NCIS are art. They are art nonetheless.
By Apollo Go To PostThey're not. Anyone can make art.
High and Low is a way to describe art that is challenging on an intellectual level vs the art that is safe and made for mass consumption.
That's it. Disney makes low art that is aimed to make the most money they can
It's not that hard to understand
MoMA’s redesign is to show both can co-exist
By Laboured Go To Post"High" and "Low" descriptors just sound like classist sophisitication modifiers fam.checks out m8
By RrusheR Go To PostIt's built in an assembly line, out of a mandate to increase production in order to meet demand, whose design by default adheres to a template so that consumers don't mistake it for another company's product.
The fact that for the first time in history, the producer and not anyone else is deemed responsible for the magic behind the spectacle, is not lost on me.
Marvel movies are art in a similar way to how shows like CSI or NCIS are art. They are art nonetheless.
This isn’t the first time producers had all the credit
By blackace Go To Postchecks out m8this lack of viewing things from an academic standpoint just sickens me
i bet you watch films that are in color and don't have subtitles, plebeian.
By RrusheR Go To PostThe fact that for the first time in history, the producer and not anyone else is deemed responsible for the magic behind the spectacle, is not lost on me.Not exactly.
It's how they used to make movies back in the day. It used to be mostly studio helmed until a shift of power happened with the rise of the New Hollywood directors. People like Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg, and Lucas. I think that's why they probably arent that ecstatic about it. They know how MCU films are made.
On the argument of low art vs high art, I'm gonna say while there's definitely some kinda of a line drawn, it's pretty much bullshit.
Like, Warhol's painting of a campbell soup can is sold for 11.7 million bullshit.
Like, Warhol's painting of a campbell soup can is sold for 11.7 million bullshit.
But really i think the whole art/film thing doesn't come down to "high" or "low" etc.. to me it's about someone vision. One you get a set in stone idea that gets nitpicked to death by a committee and ran through test audiences and adjusted to what gets the majority approval, IMO that is definitely less "legitimate" "art" than a filmmaker that can just make what he wants from start to finish (that is so rare now).
If someone wanted to use that reasoning as to why a Scorsese film is "high art" and and MCU film is "low art" ... id probably buy it. But then they would also have to admit that "Freddy Got Fingered" is art.
If someone wanted to use that reasoning as to why a Scorsese film is "high art" and and MCU film is "low art" ... id probably buy it. But then they would also have to admit that "Freddy Got Fingered" is art.
By Flutter Go To PostLike, Warhol's painting of a campbell soup can is sold for 11.7 million bullshit.that whole market is bullshit, high art is just determined by art collectors artificially driving up prices on the pieces they own.
High art isn’t fine art
And Warhol’s point was that people care more about pop art than fine art because it’s easy to understand.
Like a painting of a soup every American has had before
And Warhol’s point was that people care more about pop art than fine art because it’s easy to understand.
Like a painting of a soup every American has had before
By the metric that it's MORE difficult to produce fine art through the blockbuster studio system, how do you label a Thor: Ragnorok? "Incomparable art?"
Plus yeah "fine art" and "auteur movies films" and all that shit is bullshit, as it was initially established. It's the subjectivity of alluential white men treated as objectivity
everything has an optic it's viewed by...It's pretty well accepted now that Van Gogh created fine, high art or whatever... But his art was shat on in his lifetime.
Just was decided then that he was crap and then later that he was genius because art reasons
Just was decided then that he was crap and then later that he was genius because art reasons
By RrusheR Go To PostIt's built in an assembly line, out of a mandate to increase production in order to meet demand, whose design by default adheres to a template so that consumers don't mistake it for another company's product.Marvel movies being the CSI of cinema might be the best description I've heard in a while.
The fact that for the first time in history, the producer and not anyone else is deemed responsible for the magic behind the spectacle, is not lost on me.
Marvel movies are art in a similar way to how shows like CSI or NCIS are art. They are art nonetheless.
The funniest anyway.
By Daz Go To PostI thought art was subjective…Only low art
Art is also an experience in and of itself. Marvel movies set out for a specific one and usually hit the mark. It's also why people won't really appreciate a Rothko or a zipline until they're in front of one in a gallery. Looks dumb just in pictures.
The Color of Money
Certainly a lesser Scorsese - you can feel him stretching every sinew of himself to imbue the film with an energy lacking in some of the film's plotting - but a good watch nevertheless, with outstanding technical proficiency from the director and his cohorts, editor Thelma Schoonmaker and cinematographer Michael Ballhaus. Whipping, whirling shots are the name of the game here, Scorsese's camera soaring through pool halls and over tables in an effort to capture the kineticism of the sport in a similar manner to 'Raging Bull'. He's ably assisted by the two aforementioned colleagues, who match him every step of the way. Schoonmaker in particular is an invaluable ally; there's no way this film is at all as interesting if the pool isn't cut and framed the way it is.
Similarly, the performances add a lot of colour to the film: Newman is stoic and reserved, his eyes and face telling a story the script (and whatever residual knowledge one has of 'The Hustler') only hints at; Cruise, who is always at his best when he submits to his ego, is brash, unlikeable and downright magnetic; and Mastrantonio is yet another example of Scorsese giving interesting roles to females. Her confident, controlling performance sets her up as an equal third wheel to the two billed stars, and it's only in fits and droves that she fails to truly be a catalyst for the events of the story as much as the other two.
Its plotting is where it falls; a slow and subdued first hour relies on the audience's fondness for Newman and Eddie to keep them engaged, while the ending is rather rushed and the climactic moments become somewhat of a damp squib considering what other sporting movies have done with their own ultimate showdowns ('Dodgeball' is of course the gold standard).
However, it's by design, and that doesn't necessarily make it a failing. Scorsese's focus on the egos and flaws of men is centre-stage here again; Vincent's inability to take short-term hits to his pride in favour of long-term gain rears its head often, while there's a palpable lack of glamour in the life Eddie chooses to submerge himself in once again, shunning his lover for most of the film. One can feel the director's subversive instincts butting heads against the star vehicle the film was intended to be, and it's only partially successful. But an entertaining watch, with the usual technical bravura that Scorsese and his collaborators are capable of.
Certainly a lesser Scorsese - you can feel him stretching every sinew of himself to imbue the film with an energy lacking in some of the film's plotting - but a good watch nevertheless, with outstanding technical proficiency from the director and his cohorts, editor Thelma Schoonmaker and cinematographer Michael Ballhaus. Whipping, whirling shots are the name of the game here, Scorsese's camera soaring through pool halls and over tables in an effort to capture the kineticism of the sport in a similar manner to 'Raging Bull'. He's ably assisted by the two aforementioned colleagues, who match him every step of the way. Schoonmaker in particular is an invaluable ally; there's no way this film is at all as interesting if the pool isn't cut and framed the way it is.
Similarly, the performances add a lot of colour to the film: Newman is stoic and reserved, his eyes and face telling a story the script (and whatever residual knowledge one has of 'The Hustler') only hints at; Cruise, who is always at his best when he submits to his ego, is brash, unlikeable and downright magnetic; and Mastrantonio is yet another example of Scorsese giving interesting roles to females. Her confident, controlling performance sets her up as an equal third wheel to the two billed stars, and it's only in fits and droves that she fails to truly be a catalyst for the events of the story as much as the other two.
Its plotting is where it falls; a slow and subdued first hour relies on the audience's fondness for Newman and Eddie to keep them engaged, while the ending is rather rushed and the climactic moments become somewhat of a damp squib considering what other sporting movies have done with their own ultimate showdowns ('Dodgeball' is of course the gold standard).
However, it's by design, and that doesn't necessarily make it a failing. Scorsese's focus on the egos and flaws of men is centre-stage here again; Vincent's inability to take short-term hits to his pride in favour of long-term gain rears its head often, while there's a palpable lack of glamour in the life Eddie chooses to submerge himself in once again, shunning his lover for most of the film. One can feel the director's subversive instincts butting heads against the star vehicle the film was intended to be, and it's only partially successful. But an entertaining watch, with the usual technical bravura that Scorsese and his collaborators are capable of.
I remember loving Color of Money when I watched it in my teens. This review got me fired up to watch it again.
Good looking out n8!
Good looking out n8!
By JesalR Go To PostThe Dead Don't Die was a fucking snoozeEasily the most boring movie I’ve seen this year
By Moris Go To PostFuck, I'm planning on seeing The Dead Don't Die this week.Bring a comfortable pillow