If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Ten most pretentious films of all time. Notice I didn't say "movies"; movies are for mouth-breathers who watch mindless action crap on their TVs, whereas I watch films in the cinema   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 145
    More: Obvious, random events, tracking shot, narrative structure, Shane Carruth, Terrence Malick  
•       •       •

8288 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 06 Sep 2013 at 10:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



145 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-06 02:07:19 PM  

Gunny Highway: It is time for the word "pretentious" to join "epic" in the Cupboard of Words We Need to Stop Using for Awhile.


YES!! YES!! A thousand time YES!!
 
2013-09-06 02:16:22 PM  

Crewmannumber6: museamused: Wes Anderson could definitely come off as pretentious until you actually watch one of his films and see how goofy the actual subject matter and characters are.  I feel like he's often trying to evoke a 60s or 70s childhood as an adult and I think he's very successful at it.

Wes Anderson is 1 for whatever with me. I loved Rushmore, but Life Aquatic, The Darjeeling Limited and Moonrise Kingdom are unwatchable for me.


Don't take this personally, but if you don't like Moonrise Kingdom you are a horrible person.

/And why do you keep watching his movies if you don't like them?
 
2013-09-06 02:17:27 PM  

DonkeyDixon: Yelnik: Waking Life.  The list is not complete without Waking Life.

It's not even a film, it's a series of disconnected monologues.  Calling it "a snooze" is an insult to the fine institution of sleep.

So much this. A friend told me that it was the most amazing mind blowing movie he'd ever seen. I bought the dvd for $30 since indies were crazy expensive and it wasn't available for rent anywhere. I started watching it, got about 1/3rd through, said "what the fark is this shiat???" and shut it off. I was so angered by it that in order to get my money back, I keyed the bottom of the dvd, exchanged it at Media Play for an unopened copy as damaged, and then returned the unopened copy to another Media Play for store credit which I used to buy books. I didn't have a car at the time so this involved about two hours worth of city bus rides.

Fark that movie in the ear


Buy the soundtrack, if you like tango.
 
2013-09-06 02:21:52 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Don't take this personally, but if you don't like Moonrise Kingdom you are a horrible person.


I really like Wes Anderson but I had a lot of trouble getting into that movie.  The kid actors were painful.  It was still fun but it is my least favorite movie of his.
 
2013-09-06 02:24:41 PM  

Hebalo: T.rex: This, or pretty much anything else directed by Cameron Crowe.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 215x319]

So we've moved from discussing pretentious films to just films people don't like? Because I'm not sure how things "Say Anything" or "Jerry McGuire" are pretentious in any way.


Maybe not Jerry McGuire (never saw it) but definitely that other one with Tom Cruise where he wore a mask, and wasn't aware he did Say Anything, which i believe furthers my case.....   John Cusack holding up that stereo is supposed to be some God-send moment or something... I hated that my friends fell for it.
 
2013-09-06 02:26:13 PM  

T.rex: John Cusack holding up that stereo is supposed to be some God-send moment or something... I hated that my friends fell for it.


The 80's were chock full of movies about white people problems
 
2013-09-06 02:47:46 PM  

Hebalo: You can write Forrest Gump off for many reasons, but it does what it sets out to do: It tells a story. You can call it cliche, or grating, or hate that story, but saying it has no substance is dumb. Shawshank is less problematic, and a good film. I suspect you're just trolling, or that you might not understand what the fark you're talking about.


Forrest Gump and Shawshank Redemption are the cinematic equivalent of Newt Gingrich:  they're both a dumb person's approximation of what they thinks a smart movie should be like.
 
2013-09-06 02:49:51 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Crewmannumber6: museamused: Wes Anderson could definitely come off as pretentious until you actually watch one of his films and see how goofy the actual subject matter and characters are.  I feel like he's often trying to evoke a 60s or 70s childhood as an adult and I think he's very successful at it.

Wes Anderson is 1 for whatever with me. I loved Rushmore, but Life Aquatic, The Darjeeling Limited and Moonrise Kingdom are unwatchable for me.

Don't take this personally, but if you don't like Moonrise Kingdom you are a horrible person.

/And why do you keep watching his movies if you don't like them?


I liked Rushmore so much I keep wanting to give him a chance.
 
2013-09-06 02:53:48 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: udhq: the entire filmography of Ron Howard that I can't stand.

What you got against Apollo 13?


I just don't think there were any questions the first twelve didn't answer.
 
2013-09-06 02:54:23 PM  
I'd like to nominate "Paris, Texas".
 
2013-09-06 02:54:47 PM  

udhq: Hebalo: You can write Forrest Gump off for many reasons, but it does what it sets out to do: It tells a story. You can call it cliche, or grating, or hate that story, but saying it has no substance is dumb. Shawshank is less problematic, and a good film. I suspect you're just trolling, or that you might not understand what the fark you're talking about.

Forrest Gump and Shawshank Redemption are the cinematic equivalent of Newt Gingrich:  they're both a dumb person's approximation of what they thinks a smart movie should be like.


What should a smart movie be?
 
2013-09-06 03:05:55 PM  

T.rex: Hebalo: T.rex: This, or pretty much anything else directed by Cameron Crowe.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 215x319]

So we've moved from discussing pretentious films to just films people don't like? Because I'm not sure how things "Say Anything" or "Jerry McGuire" are pretentious in any way.

Maybe not Jerry McGuire (never saw it) but definitely that other one with Tom Cruise where he wore a mask, and wasn't aware he did Say Anything, which i believe furthers my case.....   John Cusack holding up that stereo is supposed to be some God-send moment or something... I hated that my friends fell for it.


The article (and discussion) is about pretentious films. Say Anything isn't even in the neighborhood of pretentious, so I'm not sure what case you're trying to further, unless it's "I don't like Cameron Crowe films", in which case, I don't really give a crap.
 
2013-09-06 03:07:54 PM  

Crewmannumber6: Tyrone Slothrop: Crewmannumber6: museamused: Wes Anderson could definitely come off as pretentious until you actually watch one of his films and see how goofy the actual subject matter and characters are.  I feel like he's often trying to evoke a 60s or 70s childhood as an adult and I think he's very successful at it.

Wes Anderson is 1 for whatever with me. I loved Rushmore, but Life Aquatic, The Darjeeling Limited and Moonrise Kingdom are unwatchable for me.

Don't take this personally, but if you don't like Moonrise Kingdom you are a horrible person.

/And why do you keep watching his movies if you don't like them?

I liked Rushmore so much I keep wanting to give him a chance.



I can't think of another film maker whose work I'm so divided on. I absolutely adored The Life Aquatic, I can watch it over and over. I also really enjoyed the Darjeeling Limited. But I can barely make it through the Royal Tenenbaums, Moonrise Kingdom, or Bottle Rocket. They put me to sleep.

The most pretentious mainstream movie I think I've ever seen is The American, with George Clooney. If I wanted to watch someone look haunted and stare out a coffee shop window for 5 straight goddamn minutes, I'd go to a Starbucks near an abortion clinic. I do want to mention Crash though. Not because I think it was pretentious, but it was the most overrated piece of shiat I've ever sat through and I wanted to take the time to let everyone know that.
 
2013-09-06 03:08:20 PM  

udhq: Hebalo: You can write Forrest Gump off for many reasons, but it does what it sets out to do: It tells a story. You can call it cliche, or grating, or hate that story, but saying it has no substance is dumb. Shawshank is less problematic, and a good film. I suspect you're just trolling, or that you might not understand what the fark you're talking about.

Forrest Gump and Shawshank Redemption are the cinematic equivalent of Newt Gingrich:  they're both a dumb person's approximation of what they thinks a smart movie should be like.


Okay. Look, I get that you don't like those movies, but I'm unsure exactly what the fark your point is, as you keep changing it.First it's that they don't have substance, now it's that they are (in your opinion) dumb. You get a B in "Having an opinion" and an F in "Having a point".
 
2013-09-06 03:12:59 PM  
I stand buy the fact that we need to stop using the word pretentious.  I cite this thread as an example.  People either dont know what it means exactly or use it for the wrong reasons.
 
2013-09-06 03:17:44 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Oh I get it.  So pretentious also means "confusing to me" now.


Primer was a great movie, but what I've seen of Upstream Color sets off my incomprehensible mindfark warning bells. It's beautiful, but I'm curious if there is going to be a good payoff. I need to find some time to watch it on my own because my wife was all "WTF is the shiat?" after the 20 minutes and didn't want to continue.
 
2013-09-06 03:23:40 PM  

GungFu: The All-Powerful Atheismo: GungFu: [www.cinecultist.com image 495x440]

 Total and utter shiat. But ask anyone who thinks it is some sort of masterpiece what it is actually about, they will give you the most pretentious of reasonings.

Fark Film Pretend Hipsters to reply with justification for wasting an hour and a half of their lives watching a nonsense film below:

Oh I get it.  So pretentious also means "confusing to me" now.

Not only that, it's trying to be a film with a limited script, acting, etc etc. If someone told me it was a student film that ran out of budget after a day's filming and decided to leave it after a lunch break, I would believe them.


Primer is a farking challenge to watch, considering there are nine timelines going on. One viewing will barely touch
the surface of what is going on with this film.

Primer WILL make you think. I think that's why I like it.
 
2013-09-06 03:34:46 PM  

kanesays: Primer WILL make you think. I think that's why I like it.


In my mind, that's what makes good art. You have a reaction to it, it provokes a response of some kind from you. There's movies that win awards, and are well acted, but if they don't uplift you, or make you think, or resonate with you on some level, who gives a crap? The King's Speech was a well acted, well scripted movie that was acclaimed worldwide. It didn't really say anything to me, didn't change me, or make think about it after I watched it. So for me, it's relegated to "A movie I saw once". I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Primer, I would recommend to people, as it's provocative, and tends to have a reaction on people.
 
2013-09-06 03:55:53 PM  

Hebalo: kanesays: Primer WILL make you think. I think that's why I like it.

In my mind, that's what makes good art. You have a reaction to it, it provokes a response of some kind from you. There's movies that win awards, and are well acted, but if they don't uplift you, or make you think, or resonate with you on some level, who gives a crap? The King's Speech was a well acted, well scripted movie that was acclaimed worldwide. It didn't really say anything to me, didn't change me, or make think about it after I watched it. So for me, it's relegated to "A movie I saw once". I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Primer, I would recommend to people, as it's provocative, and tends to have a reaction on people.


I came in here specifically to namecheck The King's Speech. Oh, the whole nation's on the verge of hideous war? Countless tens of thousands are about to die horribly, with countless more about to live for years in fear and deprivation? Well, buck up, little campers! The self-obsessed regent is getting a handle on his speech impediment! Huzzah!

*vomits*

That right there is completely pretentious bullshiat.

Also: District 9 was horribly pretentious as well. See folks, racial segregation is bad. In case you were unsure on this matter. District 9 told me so in thuddingly bludgeoningly obvious terms. Not to mention that that ship, were it to remain hanging there in the middle of the sky above a poor country, the most technologically advanced piece of hardware on Earth, would be extremely well guarded. Wars would have been fought for its secrets, and quite possibly would still be raging after the several years since its arrival. I mean, we fark up countries routinely over a little bit of oil in the ground. What atrocities might we be willing to inflict to obtain interstellar travel capabilities? And yet, the converted white rice hero of all the subjugated alien minorities is just able to stroll right up to the thing with his crab claw and take off, like stealing a bicycle in Central Park. What an absolute piece of shiat film that was...

/rant
//Primer IS brilliant, though...
 
2013-09-06 03:56:31 PM  
"Notice I didn't say TV. TV is a nickname, and nicknames are for friends -- and television is no friend of mine."
 
2013-09-06 04:02:45 PM  

MrEricSir: "Notice I didn't say TV. TV is a nickname, and nicknames are for friends -- and television is no friend of mine."


Keep the CHAnge.

/seeing them next Friday
 
2013-09-06 05:53:23 PM  
Empire consists of a single stationary shot of the Empire State Building filmed from 8:06 p.m. to 2:42 a.m., July 25-26, 1964. The eight-hour, five-minute film, which is typically shown in a theater, lacks a traditional narrative or characters. The passage from daylight to darkness becomes the film's narrative, while the protagonist is the iconic building that was (and is again) the tallest in New York City. Warhol lengthenedEmpire'srunning time by projecting the film at a speed of sixteen frames per second, slower than its shooting speed of twenty-four frames per second, thus making the progression to darkness almost imperceptible. Non-events such as a blinking light at the top of a neighboring building mark the passage of time. According to Warhol, the point of this film-perhaps his most famous and influential cinematic work-is to "see time go by."

The work on view is a two hour, twenty-four minute excerpt. The film will be screened in its entirety in the Museum theaters during the run of this exhibition.
 
2013-09-06 06:01:45 PM  
Favorite movies:

Dead Man
Paris, Texas
Thin Red Line
Amateur/Simple Men/Henry Fool

/pretentious
 
2013-09-06 06:05:35 PM  
Oh and Two-Lane Blacktop.
 
2013-09-06 06:08:12 PM  
No Castle Keep?
 
2013-09-06 06:16:26 PM  

Hebalo: T.rex: Hebalo: T.rex: This, or pretty much anything else directed by Cameron Crowe.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 215x319]

So we've moved from discussing pretentious films to just films people don't like? Because I'm not sure how things "Say Anything" or "Jerry McGuire" are pretentious in any way.

Maybe not Jerry McGuire (never saw it) but definitely that other one with Tom Cruise where he wore a mask, and wasn't aware he did Say Anything, which i believe furthers my case.....   John Cusack holding up that stereo is supposed to be some God-send moment or something... I hated that my friends fell for it.

The article (and discussion) is about pretentious films. Say Anything isn't even in the neighborhood of pretentious, so I'm not sure what case you're trying to further, unless it's "I don't like Cameron Crowe films", in which case, I don't really give a crap.


Pretentious:  attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

That, to me, is the epimtome of John Cusack holding up the stereo with Peter Gabriel song playing, acting like its some type of deep movement, a calling card of a generation..... When, in truth, its manipulative and ultimately vapid.
 
2013-09-06 06:21:57 PM  

museamused: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: I haven't seen Tree of Life, but Days of Heaven and The New World do reward a watcher willing to meet them at the gates.  I'm less enamored of Badlands, simply because I don't like valorization of serial killers, but it's stuck with me.  I've struggled with The Thin Red Line.

Used to be Last Year at Marienbad was the poster for art house pretention, with L'Avventura as a lieutenant, but those aren't watched much anymore.

I suffered through Werchmeister Harmonies and Tree of Life but did not finish either of them.  I found Badlands interesting (in its time) and I also struggled with The Thin Red Line.  I guess I should subscribe to your newsletter.

I also don't know if pretentious is the right word for David Lynch or Wes Anderson.  I think David Lynch tries to seem deep but I suspect he's a creepy fark with multiple psychoses.  Wes Anderson could definitely come off as pretentious until you actually watch one of his films and see how goofy the actual subject matter and characters are.  I feel like he's often trying to evoke a 60s or 70s childhood as an adult and I think he's very successful at it.


I always picture Lynch more as a painter than a filmmaker.

As far as Wes, I love Moonrise Kingdom and Darjeeling Express definitely has some moments.
 
2013-09-06 06:23:26 PM  

udhq: Hebalo: You can write Forrest Gump off for many reasons, but it does what it sets out to do: It tells a story. You can call it cliche, or grating, or hate that story, but saying it has no substance is dumb. Shawshank is less problematic, and a good film. I suspect you're just trolling, or that you might not understand what the fark you're talking about.

Forrest Gump and Shawshank Redemption are the cinematic equivalent of Newt Gingrich:  they're both a dumb person's approximation of what they thinks a smart movie should be like.


udhq: For me to write off a movie, out has to hint at some payoff that never comes.

Tree of life is slow and challenging, but there is substance there, even if you can't find it. It's movies like Forrest Gump and Shawshank Redemption and the entire filmography of Ron Howard that I can't stand. They pretend to be artsy, and there's just nothing there.


I saw Shawshank in the theater because i had read the Stephen King story as a teen, so i was thrilled that someone finally got a King story right... I'll admit, i turned a bit snobbish when people started discovering the film on home video, but its still a pretty great movie.... I watched it again recently, and Morgan Freeman gives a subtle but stellar performance.   The music score lifts it.. It was made the right way.... Sure, its not 'deep' per se, but everything about it was well done.

Gump... loved it in the theater, but then turned on it, and never watched it ever again, feeling that it was too sentimentally sacrine and manipulative for my taste.
 
2013-09-06 06:53:22 PM  

T.rex: Pretentious: attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

That, to me, is the epimtome of John Cusack holding up the stereo with Peter Gabriel song playing, acting like its some type of deep movement, a calling card of a generation..... When, in truth, its manipulative and ultimately vapid.


But that's simply you adding context. The song in question was important in the film to the character, as was making a grand gesture. It completely fits with the character, and the storyline. He wasn't doing to be deep, or to make a stand for his generation. He was trying to tell a girl that he still loved her.

Your deciding that choice didn't work for you doesn't, by definition, make it pretentious.

And Cameron Crowe has always been about music. It's his thing.
 
2013-09-06 08:33:24 PM  

Hebalo: T.rex: Pretentious: attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

That, to me, is the epimtome of John Cusack holding up the stereo with Peter Gabriel song playing, acting like its some type of deep movement, a calling card of a generation..... When, in truth, its manipulative and ultimately vapid.

But that's simply you adding context. The song in question was important in the film to the character, as was making a grand gesture. It completely fits with the character, and the storyline. He wasn't doing to be deep, or to make a stand for his generation. He was trying to tell a girl that he still loved her.

Your deciding that choice didn't work for you doesn't, by definition, make it pretentious.

And Cameron Crowe has always been about music. It's his thing.


well, if you are so permissable, then every other film mentioned on the list isn't pretentious either... I'm sure all those director's had reasons for doing everything they did.  They'd be able to explain it...   Yes, by my very nature of not agreeing with his choice, i deduce it to be pretentious.    Pretension is subjective.
 
2013-09-06 08:51:33 PM  

peachpicker: I came in here specifically to namecheck The King's Speech. Oh, the whole nation's on the verge of hideous war? Countless tens of thousands are about to die horribly, with countless more about to live for years in fear and deprivation? Well, buck up, little campers! The self-obsessed regent is getting a handle on his speech impediment! Huzzah!

*vomits*

That right there is completely pretentious bullshiat.


Have you not seen the film?  He was trying to learn to speak strongly and eloquently like a leader because, well, he was the leader of his country in a time when it needed a strong leader.  A king can't stammer at his subjects and be taken seriously, let alone inspire them to fight.
 
2013-09-06 10:03:09 PM  

Jocundry: peachpicker: I came in here specifically to namecheck The King's Speech. Oh, the whole nation's on the verge of hideous war? Countless tens of thousands are about to die horribly, with countless more about to live for years in fear and deprivation? Well, buck up, little campers! The self-obsessed regent is getting a handle on his speech impediment! Huzzah!

*vomits*

That right there is completely pretentious bullshiat.

Have you not seen the film?  He was trying to learn to speak strongly and eloquently like a leader because, well, he was the leader of his country in a time when it needed a strong leader.  A king can't stammer at his subjects and be taken seriously, let alone inspire them to fight.


Just let him be ignorant of history and the incredibly deep link between George VI and the Queen Mother with their subjects during and after WW2.  It's probably better that way.
 
2013-09-06 10:31:46 PM  

Mad_Radhu: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Oh I get it.  So pretentious also means "confusing to me" now.

Primer was a great movie, but what I've seen of Upstream Color sets off my incomprehensible mindfark warning bells. It's beautiful, but I'm curious if there is going to be a good payoff. I need to find some time to watch it on my own because my wife was all "WTF is the shiat?" after the 20 minutes and didn't want to continue.


Oddly enough, that was about when I cut it off when I was watching it with my wife, for several reasons:

1. The movie was unsettling.  I didn't know I was going to be watching some horror flick about parasites.
2. The chick's reaction was unrealistic.  Not call the cops over that sort of shiat?!  Of course it would have been a shorter movie then.
3. Just the direction of the movie seemed to remove any sort of deposition.  Sure, I like a mindfrak type movie, but the lack of conversation seemed like how the whole movie was going to end up.

Neither of us were interested in continuing, so I stopped.
 
2013-09-06 11:18:44 PM  

Jocundry: peachpicker: I came in here specifically to namecheck The King's Speech. Oh, the whole nation's on the verge of hideous war? Countless tens of thousands are about to die horribly, with countless more about to live for years in fear and deprivation? Well, buck up, little campers! The self-obsessed regent is getting a handle on his speech impediment! Huzzah!

*vomits*

That right there is completely pretentious bullshiat.

Have you not seen the film?  He was trying to learn to speak strongly and eloquently like a leader because, well, he was the leader of his country in a time when it needed a strong leader.  A king can't stammer at his subjects and be taken seriously, let alone inspire them to fight.


I understand his personal struggle in that context and what he was trying to achieve. I also know that treating his small personal achievement as a triumphant climax right at the eve of so much prolonged and widespread suffering is clangingly dissonant and insensitive.
 
2013-09-06 11:48:43 PM  

peachpicker: I understand his personal struggle in that context and what he was trying to achieve. I also know that treating his small personal achievement as a triumphant climax right at the eve of so much prolonged and widespread suffering is clangingly dissonant and insensitive.


But it wasn't a small personal achievement.  It was a vital part of him turning into a 'real' king at a time when his country most needed a strong leader.    He had a huge influence on his subjects during WWII.  He helped make up the backbone of his country at a time of terror.  He could never have done that if he hadn't conquered his stutter.  Like I said before, you can't inspire your subjects if you stutter.  If he hadn't learned to speak confidently, his role in WWII would have been very different, and therefore, history would be different.

I'm not saying the war would have gone a different way, but a few paragraphs in the history books would have to be changed.  It was very important to his kingship and his country that he learned to talk without a stutter
 
2013-09-06 11:50:54 PM  
List fails without "Only God Forgives."

Steaming pile of pretentious crap.
 
2013-09-07 12:28:20 AM  

Jocundry: peachpicker: I understand his personal struggle in that context and what he was trying to achieve. I also know that treating his small personal achievement as a triumphant climax right at the eve of so much prolonged and widespread suffering is clangingly dissonant and insensitive.

But it wasn't a small personal achievement.  It was a vital part of him turning into a 'real' king at a time when his country most needed a strong leader.    He had a huge influence on his subjects during WWII.  He helped make up the backbone of his country at a time of terror.  He could never have done that if he hadn't conquered his stutter.  Like I said before, you can't inspire your subjects if you stutter.  If he hadn't learned to speak confidently, his role in WWII would have been very different, and therefore, history would be different.

I'm not saying the war would have gone a different way, but a few paragraphs in the history books would have to be changed.  It was very important to his kingship and his country that he learned to talk without a stutter


I suppose where you and I differ is in the belief of the necessity--or lack thereof--of a king, an anachronistic figurehead, at the dawn of the atomic age. I don't know your nationality, but speaking as an American, when we think of the British during WWII we believe that they actually did have a strong leader, named Churchill. Not sure why it would be so bloody important to have a second more ineffectual one. At the same time, I don't know of any American who, when thinking of Roosevelt and Truman and all the American generals who are the central American figures of that conflict, wishes that we'd also had a piss-pants inbred aristocrat making nervous speeches to boost the collective national morale.
 
2013-09-07 12:41:15 AM  

Flappyhead: Jocundry: peachpicker: I came in here specifically to namecheck The King's Speech. Oh, the whole nation's on the verge of hideous war? Countless tens of thousands are about to die horribly, with countless more about to live for years in fear and deprivation? Well, buck up, little campers! The self-obsessed regent is getting a handle on his speech impediment! Huzzah!

*vomits*

That right there is completely pretentious bullshiat.

Have you not seen the film?  He was trying to learn to speak strongly and eloquently like a leader because, well, he was the leader of his country in a time when it needed a strong leader.  A king can't stammer at his subjects and be taken seriously, let alone inspire them to fight.

Just let him be ignorant of history and the incredibly deep link between George VI and the Queen Mother with their subjects during and after WW2.  It's probably better that way.


It's all fine and good that it's reflecting a moment that was important to those people. My issue (small as it is) is that the film didn't speak to me, or move me, or inspire me in any way.
 
2013-09-07 12:59:00 AM  

peachpicker: I suppose where you and I differ is in the belief of the necessity--or lack thereof--of a king, an anachronistic figurehead, at the dawn of the atomic age. I don't know your nationality, but speaking as an American, when we think of the British during WWII we believe that they actually did have a strong leader, named Churchill. Not sure why it would be so bloody important to have a second more ineffectual one. At the same time, I don't know of any American who, when thinking of Roosevelt and Truman and all the American generals who are the central American figures of that conflict, wishes that we'd also had a piss-pants inbred aristocrat making nervous speeches to boost the collective national morale.


I'm an American too.  From what I understand of WWII history, King George VI was very important to the psyche of the british people.  He and the Queen Mum stayed in London during the Blitz.  I'm sure they lived a bit more comfortable of a life than the normal citizen but  the perception was that they suffered right along with their subjects during the bombings.  They helped boost morale throughout the country.  They helped the UK get through the war. The fact is the king could not have done this if he hadn't conquered his stuttering.

Your home has been bombed, you don't have enough food, 90% of the young men in your country (your neighbors, sons, boyfriends, husbands, uncles) are in battle.  And the bombs keep coming.  You're desperate.  Which is better - a king who stutters at you or one who speaks confidently about British strength?

I don't get the whole monarchy thing either.  It's like spotted dick - why would you do that?  But it was (is?) important to the British and particularly important during the war.

So at the end of the movie, when he finally is able to give a speech to his subjects over radio without stumbling, it foreshadows his role to come in the war.  He had reached a crucial point where he could be  figurehead to his people.

It's a British film so I guess they didn't really think about putting it in context for a foreign audience.
 
kab
2013-09-07 02:12:53 AM  

T.rex: Pretentious: attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

That, to me, is the epimtome of John Cusack holding up the stereo with Peter Gabriel song playing, acting like its some type of deep movement, a calling card of a generation..... When, in truth, its manipulative and ultimately vapid.


The only thing pretentious about that particular scene is this overblown interpretation of it.
 
2013-09-07 02:54:27 AM  

redmid17: Not only have I not seen any of these movies, I haven't even heard of any of them.

I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing or neither.


I assure you, I'm in the same boat with you and it's a good thing.
 
2013-09-07 04:43:13 AM  

caddisfly: Empire consists of a single stationary shot of the Empire State Building filmed from 8:06 p.m. to 2:42 a.m., July 25-26, 1964. The eight-hour, five-minute film, which is typically shown in a theater, lacks a traditional narrative or characters. The passage from daylight to darkness becomes the film's narrative, while the protagonist is the iconic building that was (and is again) the tallest in New York City. Warhol lengthenedEmpire'srunning time by projecting the film at a speed of sixteen frames per second, slower than its shooting speed of twenty-four frames per second, thus making the progression to darkness almost imperceptible. Non-events such as a blinking light at the top of a neighboring building mark the passage of time. According to Warhol, the point of this film-perhaps his most famous and influential cinematic work-is to "see time go by."

The work on view is a two hour, twenty-four minute excerpt. The film will be screened in its entirety in the Museum theaters during the run of this exhibition.


So what you're saying is I have between 2.5 and 8 hours of personal time to do with whatever I want? Do you know if the museum theaters in question screen for things like, say outside food, cameras, or lube?
 
2013-09-07 04:49:14 AM  
No Country For Old Men.
Pretentious pile of shiat if there ever was.
 
2013-09-07 05:10:56 AM  

kab: T.rex: Pretentious: attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

That, to me, is the epimtome of John Cusack holding up the stereo with Peter Gabriel song playing, acting like its some type of deep movement, a calling card of a generation..... When, in truth, its manipulative and ultimately vapid.

The only thing pretentious about that particular scene is this overblown interpretation of it.


No shiat.  Even in the 80's we realized it wasn't something that would play out in real life.  Still, it was a pretty good movie.

That scene may have been pretentious, or become pretentious over time, but the movie was not.
 
2013-09-07 05:17:29 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: The article, by the way, gets into one sense of 'pretention' - long, dolorous.  But someone like Wes Anderson is also highly pretentious.  You may like his movies - and I like a few - but The Royal Tennenbaums and The Life Aquatic are the definition of the word.


I'm not sure I would call Wes Anderson movies pretentious, but they definitely are prissy. I can't watch one without getting kind of annoyed at it.
 
Displayed 45 of 145 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report