Discussion:
How to oppose terrorism -- Harry Browne
(too old to reply)
Jerry Story
2005-07-09 09:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Warning! The following article contains obscenities and may be
offensive to Objectivists.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28690

[quote]
How to oppose terrorism
Posted: August 22, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

I frequently get e-mails from people saying that I only complain -
and never offer solutions to the terrorism problem. That isn't true,
but here's a laundry list of "Do"s and "Don't"s regarding the war. (And
please note that it doesn't include being nice to the terrorists.)

What to do:

* Repeal the regulations that prohibit guns on planes - and that
mandate metal detectors and security searches at airports. Before those
measures were introduced in 1973, there were no reported cases of
passengers shooting each other by accident or in arguments. There were
a few hijackings using guns, but far fewer passengers actually died
than have been killed since introducing the security measures.

* Recognize that 9-11 was a trillion-to-one shot that couldn't be
duplicated in a million years. So don't turn America upside-down,
causing billions of dollars in losses to companies and business
travelers to prevent the repetition of something that most likely won't
happen again anyway.

* Find Osama bin Laden, capture him, and try him in America. He
must have a fair trial - consistent with the rules of evidence and
the Bill of Rights. If he's killed without a trial, he'll become a
martyr throughout the Muslim world - creating hundreds of millions
more anti-Americans who will support future acts of terrorism. If he
isn't really behind the 9-11 attacks, killing him without a fair trial
terminates the hunt for the real criminal - leaving us in danger. So
prosecute anyone who shoots him on sight.

* Declare an end to the so-called War on Terrorism. Call it a
victory, a defeat, or an armistice. But quit acting as though it's an
excuse to invade any country or take away our civil liberties.

For the future:

These long-term measures should be taken:

* Bring all American troops home. They're a principal cause of the
anti-American feeling that provides financial support, networking, and
manpower for thugs who wouldn't be much of a threat otherwise. How
would you feel if Chinese troops were stationed in your city?

* Stop telling other countries who their leaders should be or what
their foreign policy must be. President Bush can buy off foreign
leaders with your tax money, but he can't buy the friendship of the
people in those countries - people who suffer because of misguided
policies forced on them by arrogant American know-it-alls. How would
you feel if the Russians issued ultimatums regarding how our country
must be run?

* End all foreign aid - military and economic. It has ruined
countries, provided resources to our enemies, and turned hundreds of
millions of people against America.

* Stop choosing sides in foreign political battles. They're none of
our business, and our meddling usually comes back to haunt us.
(Remember, our government supported Iraq in its war against Iran.)

* Recognize that foreigners don't care whether or not you're
"free." They do care whether or not our government is interfering in
their country.

What not to do:

And here's a list of things we definitely should not do:

* Don't set up military tribunals that operate without the
Anglo-Saxon rules of evidence. That's a sure way to convict the wrong
people and allow the real criminals to continue hurting us.

* Don't imprison people without trial, without a lawyer to defend
them, and without access to their families and the press. What's the
point of "defending America" if we throw away American principles?

* Don't invade Iraq. That's probably the only way to motivate
Saddam Hussein to attack us with whatever dangerous weapons he might
have. So long as we leave him alone, he won't commit the suicidal act
of provoking the U.S. to drop nuclear bombs on him.

* Don't disrespect the sovereignty of foreign countries when
chasing Osama Bin Laden. How would you like foreign police or military
to run around your city chasing people they think are criminals?

* Don't assume that your government tells you the gospel truth -
or that it will succeed in anything it does. Don't forget that these
same politicians told you they were running budget surpluses while they
were hiding deficits by stealing from Social Security. And these are
the same Keystone Kops who have promised for decades to stamp out
drugs, poverty, crime and sin. How well have they succeeded?

* Don't let politicians use the so-called War on Terrorism as an
excuse to take away our remaining freedoms.

Apology

I'm sorry that I can't snap my fingers and undo 50 years of bad
American foreign policy. Unfortunately, by continuing to tell the rest
of the world what to do, President Bush is making a bad situation even
worse.

So here's a final don't:

Don't lose your self-respect. It isn't necessary for you to speak out
against the war, but don't embarrass yourself by joining in patriotic
displays that are nothing but sound and fury.

If you deceive others or deceive yourself, you too will be a casualty
of the so-called War on Terrorism.

[/quote]
Malrassic Park
2005-07-09 13:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Story
Warning! The following article contains obscenities and may be
offensive to Objectivists.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28690
Typical libertarian claptrap.


--

AR: Similarly, there is a way in which you can in fact
not consider man as an entity...

Prof. E: Not an entity!

(ITOE 271)
Atlas Bugged
2005-07-09 14:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Story
* Repeal the regulations that prohibit guns on planes - and that
mandate metal detectors and security searches at airports. Before those
measures were introduced in 1973, there were no reported cases of
passengers shooting each other by accident or in arguments. There were
a few hijackings using guns, but far fewer passengers actually died
than have been killed since introducing the security measures.
Check.
Post by Jerry Story
* Recognize that 9-11 was a trillion-to-one shot that couldn't be
duplicated in a million years. So don't turn America upside-down,
causing billions of dollars in losses to companies and business
travelers to prevent the repetition of something that most likely won't
happen again anyway.
Check.
Post by Jerry Story
* Find Osama bin Laden, capture him, and try him in America. He
must have a fair trial - consistent with the rules of evidence and
the Bill of Rights. If he's killed without a trial, he'll become a
martyr throughout the Muslim world - creating hundreds of millions
more anti-Americans who will support future acts of terrorism. If he
isn't really behind the 9-11 attacks, killing him without a fair trial
terminates the hunt for the real criminal - leaving us in danger. So
prosecute anyone who shoots him on sight.
Giggle. Nonsense.
Post by Jerry Story
* Declare an end to the so-called War on Terrorism. Call it a
victory, a defeat, or an armistice. But quit acting as though it's an
excuse to invade any country or take away our civil liberties.
Incoherent. It hasn't been used as an excuse to "invade any country."
Post by Jerry Story
* Bring all American troops home. They're a principal cause of the
anti-American feeling that provides financial support, networking, and
manpower for thugs who wouldn't be much of a threat otherwise. How
would you feel if Chinese troops were stationed in your city?
Incoherent. How I feel is not an argument.
Post by Jerry Story
* Stop telling other countries who their leaders should be or what
their foreign policy must be. President Bush can buy off foreign
leaders with your tax money, but he can't buy the friendship of the
people in those countries - people who suffer because of misguided
policies forced on them by arrogant American know-it-alls. How would
you feel if the Russians issued ultimatums regarding how our country
must be run?
Incoherent. Thug governments are both rights-violators and potential
threats to every person in every nation. Anyone may freely kick their ass,
see my prior posts on this well-established rule of morality.
Post by Jerry Story
* End all foreign aid - military and economic. It has ruined
countries, provided resources to our enemies, and turned hundreds of
millions of people against America.
All *government" foreign aid, check. A no-brainer, and a bit banal.
Post by Jerry Story
* Stop choosing sides in foreign political battles. They're none of
our business, and our meddling usually comes back to haunt us.
(Remember, our government supported Iraq in its war against Iran.)
Judge not, eh? Bulltwinkies.
Post by Jerry Story
* Recognize that foreigners don't care whether or not you're
"free." They do care whether or not our government is interfering in
their country.
They care that they're slaves. They don't like it.
Post by Jerry Story
* Don't set up military tribunals that operate without the
Anglo-Saxon rules of evidence. That's a sure way to convict the wrong
people and allow the real criminals to continue hurting us.
So you disagree with Geneva conventions? They allow shoot-on-sight of
people in war sans uniforms.
Post by Jerry Story
* Don't imprison people without trial, without a lawyer to defend
them, and without access to their families and the press. What's the
point of "defending America" if we throw away American principles?
This rule, applied to non-citizens, amounts to "You may not fight a
defensive war." That, of course, is stupid.
Post by Jerry Story
* Don't invade Iraq. That's probably the only way to motivate
Saddam Hussein to attack us with whatever dangerous weapons he might
have. So long as we leave him alone, he won't commit the suicidal act
of provoking the U.S. to drop nuclear bombs on him.
Incoherent. How old is this article?
Post by Jerry Story
* Don't disrespect the sovereignty of foreign countries when
chasing Osama Bin Laden. How would you like foreign police or military
to run around your city chasing people they think are criminals?
How I feel is irrelevant. This is a poor representation of Harry Browne, at
least insofar as this peice is evidently aimed at stimulating emotional
responses and not much more.
Post by Jerry Story
* Don't assume that your government tells you the gospel truth -
or that it will succeed in anything it does. Don't forget that these
same politicians told you they were running budget surpluses while they
were hiding deficits by stealing from Social Security. And these are
the same Keystone Kops who have promised for decades to stamp out
drugs, poverty, crime and sin. How well have they succeeded?
Check.
Post by Jerry Story
* Don't let politicians use the so-called War on Terrorism as an
excuse to take away our remaining freedoms.
Check.
Post by Jerry Story
Apology
I'm sorry that I can't snap my fingers and undo 50 years of bad
American foreign policy. Unfortunately, by continuing to tell the rest
of the world what to do, President Bush is making a bad situation even
worse.
Don't lose your self-respect. It isn't necessary for you to speak out
against the war, but don't embarrass yourself by joining in patriotic
displays that are nothing but sound and fury.
If you deceive others or deceive yourself, you too will be a casualty
of the so-called War on Terrorism.
Incoherent.

The above is a mish-mash of random statements from Browne. It certainly
doesn't help to post it here.

b
o
t
f
o
o
d
b
o
t
f
o
o
d
b
o
t
f
o
o
d
b
o
t
f
o
o
d
b
o
t
f
o
o
d
b
o
t
f
o
o
d
b
o
t
f
o
o
d
Chris Cathcart
2005-07-09 22:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlas Bugged
The above is a mish-mash of random statements from Browne. It certainly
doesn't help to post it here.
Ah, but it all reflects what's fundamentally wrong with the essence of
Libertarianism! To repudiate Browne, you've gotta repudiate
Libertarianism! (Or is it vice versa?)
f***@papertig.com
2005-07-10 00:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Cathcart
Post by Atlas Bugged
The above is a mish-mash of random statements from Browne. It certainly
doesn't help to post it here.
Ah, but it all reflects what's fundamentally wrong with the essence of
Libertarianism! To repudiate Browne, you've gotta repudiate
Libertarianism! (Or is it vice versa?)
Or both? :-)

Btw, I have another movie to recommend to you. In our neverending quest
to turn you into a scholar and a gentleman with elevated and refined
tastes - some hope for which has been accomplished by your discovery of
classical music - we need to get you to appreciate fine, old classic
movies as well. One of these is "Inherit the Wind", starring Spencer
Tracy and Frederic March.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/SCO_INHE.HTM

It is based on the famous "Scopes 'Monkey' Trial" of 1925 which pitted
the forces of fundamentalist religion against the teaching of evolution
in the schools.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

I hadn't seen it in many years and thoroughly enjoyed rewatching it the
other day. I was struck - and disturbed - by its timeliness still 45
years later. But that is the mark of great art, that its appeal is
universal and timeless.

Fred Weiss
Chris Cathcart
2005-07-10 00:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@papertig.com
Btw, I have another movie to recommend to you. In our neverending quest
to turn you into a scholar and a gentleman with elevated and refined
tastes - some hope for which has been accomplished by your discovery of
classical music - we need to get you to appreciate fine, old classic
movies as well. One of these is "Inherit the Wind", starring Spencer
Tracy and Frederic March.
Well, I have fucked-up enough movie tastes that, while I have seen
classic movies aplenty, the appreciation phase has not gone along with
the watching . . . unlike with classical music. Not to say that there
aren't classics that I *do* like, just not very many or intensely
enough to compete with the rest. My favorite pre-1960 movie currently
is Carl Dreyer's -Day of Wrath-, a foreign-language film:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036506/

It's actually amongst my top-20 favorite movies currently. My
not-really-recently-updated, but still pretty accurate, list of
favorite movies by decade:

http://geocities.com/cathcacr/top10bydecade.html

1940s

1. Day of Wrath (Dreyer, 1943)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. The Magnificient Ambersons (Welles, 1942)
4. Casablanca (Curtiz, 1942)
5. It's a Wonderful Life (Capra, 1946)


1950s

1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Touch of Evil (Welles, 1958)
3. Singin' in the Rain (Donen & Kelly, 1952)
4. Wild Strawberries (Bergman, 1957)
5. Mister Roberts (Ford, 1955)

Still, only a few of these are high up on my list of favorites. I'm
one of those who think that the art of film didn't start to really
flourish big-time until the '60s or so.

As far as your movie recommendation goes, I believe it's in my Netflix
queue and I'm certainly aware of its existence. It's probably a mere
coincidence that I haven't yet gotten around to seeing it. If I hadn't
already read the play back in junior high, I'd probably have seen it by
now.
f***@papertig.com
2005-07-10 15:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Cathcart
As far as your movie recommendation goes, I believe it's in my Netflix
queue and I'm certainly aware of its existence. It's probably a mere
coincidence that I haven't yet gotten around to seeing it. If I hadn't
already read the play back in junior high, I'd probably have seen it by
now.
Add three others, if you haven't seen them already.

High Noon (with Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly)

In the Heat of the Night (with Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger)

The Winslow Boy (preferably the original version with Robert Donat, but
the recent David Mamet remake isn't bad).

Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
2005-07-10 01:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@papertig.com
Btw, I have another movie to recommend to you. In our neverending quest
to turn you into a scholar and a gentleman with elevated and refined
tastes - some hope for which has been accomplished by your discovery of
classical music - we need to get you to appreciate fine, old classic
movies as well. One of these is "Inherit the Wind", starring Spencer
Tracy and Frederic March.
That's a great movie. Another excellent movie in the same vein is
Judgment at Nuremberg.

Ken
f***@papertig.com
2005-07-10 15:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Gardner
..."Inherit the Wind", starring Spencer
Tracy and Frederic March.
That's a great movie. Another excellent movie in the same vein is
Judgment at Nuremberg.
I'm fond of courtroom drama myself, e.g. My Cousin Vinny, although a
comedy. One of my other favorites is A Few Good Men.

Another great classic I'd recommend to Chris, though not technically a
*courtroom* drama, since all the action takes place in the jury room is
Twelve Angry Men. This also happens to be one of my favorites.

Btw, if you get a chance to see Inherit the Wind again, notice that it
is not just a send-up of religious fundamantalism but also, curiously
(and probably unintentionally) of philosophical scepticism as well. It
was a superb defense of *reason* as contrasted to irrationalism in
general. The irony is that it was apparently written with a hidden
*left wing* (anti-McCarthyism) agenda. But this of course was the *old*
left which still claimed some allegiance to reason.

Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
2005-07-10 16:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@papertig.com
Post by Ken Gardner
..."Inherit the Wind", starring Spencer
Tracy and Frederic March.
That's a great movie. Another excellent movie in the same vein is
Judgment at Nuremberg.
I'm fond of courtroom drama myself, e.g. My Cousin Vinny, although a
comedy. One of my other favorites is A Few Good Men.
I generally hate courtroom dramas. These three movies are the
exception.
Post by f***@papertig.com
Btw, if you get a chance to see Inherit the Wind again, notice that it
is not just a send-up of religious fundamantalism but also, curiously
(and probably unintentionally) of philosophical scepticism as well. It
was a superb defense of *reason* as contrasted to irrationalism in
general. The irony is that it was apparently written with a hidden
*left wing* (anti-McCarthyism) agenda. But this of course was the *old*
left which still claimed some allegiance to reason.
It has been so long since I've seen that movie that I have forgotten
most of it. But I do remember that I liked it.

Ken
Chris Cathcart
2005-07-10 19:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@papertig.com
Another great classic I'd recommend to Chris, though not technically a
*courtroom* drama, since all the action takes place in the jury room is
Twelve Angry Men. This also happens to be one of my favorites.
Too literary, by which I mean, lots of great films are based on books,
but the ones I like are those that take on a life of their own as
films. -12 Angry Men- is scripted, like, word for word off the story,
which I had already read. It could be done exactly the same as a stage
play (which is how it was written anyway, right?). What's the
movie-ness about it?

(That's also why any screen-adaptor of -Atlas Shrugged- had better damn
well know what they're doing. I'm afraid that something short of
Kubrick-caliber just isn't going to do it justice as a movie, and the
book would best remain in book form only. Some books seem to be best
left unadapted, and their movie versions are typically less-great or
redundant. I've not been a great fan of movies that are too obviously
literary in any case.)
f***@papertig.com
2005-07-11 05:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Cathcart
Post by f***@papertig.com
Another great classic I'd recommend to Chris, though not technically a
*courtroom* drama, since all the action takes place in the jury room is
Twelve Angry Men. This also happens to be one of my favorites.
Too literary, by which I mean, lots of great films are based on books,
but the ones I like are those that take on a life of their own as
films. -12 Angry Men- is scripted, like, word for word off the story,
which I had already read. It could be done exactly the same as a stage
play (which is how it was written anyway, right?). What's the
movie-ness about it?
But I don't see the problem. I've never seen it as a stage play, so I
can't compare it. Obviously it is ideal as a stage play, too. I'm sure
the outstanding acting made a huge difference in the movie.
Post by Chris Cathcart
(That's also why any screen-adaptor of -Atlas Shrugged- had better damn
well know what they're doing. I'm afraid that something short of
Kubrick-caliber just isn't going to do it justice as a movie, and the
book would best remain in book form only.
We're all concerned about that.
Post by Chris Cathcart
Some books seem to be best
left unadapted, and their movie versions are typically less-great or
redundant. I've not been a great fan of movies that are too obviously
literary in any case.)
There have certainly been some lousy books-to-movies. But there also
have been some very, very good ones, not to mention some cases where
the movie is better than the book. Arguably, We the Living the movie is
better than the book, not hurt at all by Alida Valli who portrays a
stunning Kira.

Fred Weiss
Reggie Perrin
2005-07-11 00:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@papertig.com
[...]
I'm fond of courtroom drama myself, e.g. My Cousin Vinny,
although a comedy. One of my other favorites is A Few Good
Men.
Anatomy of a Murder is the greatest courtroom drama of them all, IMHO.
f***@papertig.com
2005-07-11 05:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reggie Perrin
Post by f***@papertig.com
[...]
I'm fond of courtroom drama myself, e.g. My Cousin Vinny,
although a comedy. One of my other favorites is A Few Good
Men.
Anatomy of a Murder is the greatest courtroom drama of them all, IMHO.
Another good one is Witness for the Prosecution with Charles Laughton
and Marlene Dietrich.

I read the imdb on Anatomy and for the life of me I can't remember ever
seeing it, but I must have at some point. I'll have to keep my eye out
for it. I had the same experience with Inherit the Wind recently which
I know I saw many years ago, but I remembered almost none of it.

Fred Weiss
Chris Cathcart
2005-07-11 15:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@papertig.com
Post by Reggie Perrin
Post by f***@papertig.com
[...]
I'm fond of courtroom drama myself, e.g. My Cousin Vinny,
although a comedy. One of my other favorites is A Few Good
Men.
Anatomy of a Murder is the greatest courtroom drama of them all, IMHO.
Another good one is Witness for the Prosecution with Charles Laughton
and Marlene Dietrich.
I tend to associate these two films in my mind, because of similar time
frames I suppose. I do intend to see both again reasonably soon.
Post by f***@papertig.com
I read the imdb on Anatomy and for the life of me I can't remember ever
seeing it, but I must have at some point. I'll have to keep my eye out
for it. I had the same experience with Inherit the Wind recently which
I know I saw many years ago, but I remembered almost none of it.
You'd have remembered it for Lee Remick. One of her very few
great-movie appearances. The only other really notable appearance that
comes to mind is her playing opposite Jack Lemmon in -Days of Wine and
Roses-.

As courtroom "dramas" go, there is, well, more of a courtroom-farce
scene in Welles' -The Lady from Shanghai-. Hard to think of the phrase
"courtroom" drama now without that scene coming to mind. And then
there's another farce-scene in -Intolerable Cruelty-. :-)

Of course, there's Kubrick's military courtroom war-drama, -Paths of
Glory-.
f***@papertig.com
2005-07-11 16:28:01 UTC
Permalink
...Hard to think of the phrase
"courtroom" drama now without that scene coming to mind. And then
there's another farce-scene in -Intolerable Cruelty-. :-)
About the only thing that comes to mind when I think of Intolerable
Cruelty is...you guessed it...Catherine Zeta-Jones. And how she leads
George Clooney around by the nose. Poor fellow. I sympathize.

Fred Weiss
Matt Barrow
2005-07-10 03:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@papertig.com
Btw, I have another movie to recommend to you. In our neverending quest
to turn you into a scholar and a gentleman with elevated and refined
tastes - some hope for which has been accomplished by your discovery of
classical music - we need to get you to appreciate fine, old classic
movies as well. One of these is "Inherit the Wind", starring Spencer
Tracy and Frederic March.
As Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryant respectively, and Gene Kelly
as H.L. Mencken (though the names were obscured for unknown reasons since
all the participants were deceased by then).

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/

In truth, the movie is tame compared to the actual case according to the
transcripts of the trail I'd seen many years ago.
Chris Cathcart
2005-07-10 07:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Barrow
Post by f***@papertig.com
Btw, I have another movie to recommend to you. In our neverending quest
to turn you into a scholar and a gentleman with elevated and refined
tastes - some hope for which has been accomplished by your discovery of
classical music - we need to get you to appreciate fine, old classic
movies as well. One of these is "Inherit the Wind", starring Spencer
Tracy and Frederic March.
As Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryant respectively, and Gene Kelly
as H.L. Mencken (though the names were obscured for unknown reasons since
all the participants were deceased by then).
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/
In truth, the movie is tame compared to the actual case according to the
transcripts of the trail I'd seen many years ago.
With an 8.0 IMDb rating, I should have seen it long ago, but part of my
fucked-up movie tastes is that I have a bias against non-fiction
storytelling. It's sort of odd, considering that Rand novels aside,
all that I'll read is non-fiction, but I want my movies to be fiction.
And I want superb craftsmanship by the standards of the art-form, hence
the liking for pretty much anything Kubrick/Bergman/Tarkovsky/Welles.

I have seen -Judgment at Nuremberg-, and for the aforementioned reason,
don't need to see it again, really. And I'm just a little annoyed with
Burt Lancaster's mannerisms.

There are some exceptions to that fucked-up rule. Speilbergianism
aside, I can manage to tolerate sitting through -Schindler's List-.
Don't get me started on a Speilberg rant; had Kubrick pursued -Aryan
Papers- to fruition, it would have been vastly superior, just as an
alive-Kubrick-produced -A.I.- would have been. Fuck, I'd go so far as
to liken Speilberg to Salieri -- passable, competent, well-done,
meeting the standards, popular for its time. And Kubrick is the
genius, many many years ahead of his time.

I'd venture to say that perhaps the best non-fiction masterpiece of
cinema and of humanity is -The Elephant Man- directed by David Lynch.
Even Lynch-haters should like it; it has the endearing qualities of
Lynch's artistry so you can tell it's still there, and takes out all
those bizarre aspects of it that you find in many of his other films.
It's films like this one that show that Lynch is truly one of the most
important filmmakers of our time, right there behind Scorsese.

There are great war films that are rather more difficult to categorize;
I'd say that my favorite ones are war-dramas that have the historical
backdrop of actual wars. Films like -Full Metal Jacket-, -Apocalypse
Now-, the Russian film -Come and See-. If -Team America- qualifies as
a war film, it may well be the best all-time, also many years ahead of
its time.

There are "historical" films that are told in such a way that it
stretches the truth far enough that it really doesn't matter of they're
actual history or not. I have in mind something like Werner Herzog's
-Aguirre: The Wrath of God-:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0068182/
(That one's got an IMDb of 8.1, folks.)

Looking at my own list of faves, I do also note Mel Gibson's
-Braveheart-, also bending the truth enough to make it as good as
fictional drama. However, I saw it not too long ago for the first time
since becoming a movie buff, and there's enough in there to annoy me,
too. Too Hollywoodized, I think. Still, if I go back to it again
without a movie-snob stick up my ass, I could probably quite enjoy it
on the whole again.
Atlas Bugged
2005-07-10 13:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Cathcart
Don't get me started on a Speilberg rant; had Kubrick pursued -Aryan
Papers- to fruition, it would have been vastly superior, just as an
alive-Kubrick-produced -A.I.- would have been. Fuck, I'd go so far as
to liken Speilberg to Salieri -- passable, competent, well-done,
meeting the standards, popular for its time. And Kubrick is the
genius, many many years ahead of his time.
Don't get ME started on Speilberg. Last night, "popular demand" compelled
me to join my tribe and see WAR OF THE WORLDS. This film was poor even for
him. I'd agree with your evaluation except I'd leave out "passable." And
the comparison to Salieri is ludicrous. If you have the misfortune to see
WOTW, you will see that Speilberg is the anti-Kubrick - he's many years
*behind* his time.
Post by Chris Cathcart
I'd venture to say that perhaps the best non-fiction masterpiece of
cinema and of humanity is -The Elephant Man- directed by David Lynch.
Even Lynch-haters should like it; it has the endearing qualities of
Lynch's artistry so you can tell it's still there, and takes out all
those bizarre aspects of it that you find in many of his other films.
Correct; I love it. He is evidently a good filmmaker when he is not
hallucinating his fucking brains out.
Post by Chris Cathcart
It's films like this one that show that Lynch is truly one of the most
important filmmakers of our time, right there behind Scorsese.
I dunno about that. What other Lynch films are coherent?
Post by Chris Cathcart
There are great war films that are rather more difficult to categorize;
I'd say that my favorite ones are war-dramas that have the historical
backdrop of actual wars. Films like -Full Metal Jacket-, -Apocalypse
Now-, the Russian film -Come and See-. If -Team America- qualifies as
a war film, it may well be the best all-time, also many years ahead of
its time.
FMJ is wildly underappreciated.
Ken Gardner
2005-07-10 17:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlas Bugged
Don't get ME started on Speilberg. Last night, "popular demand" compelled
me to join my tribe and see WAR OF THE WORLDS. This film was poor even for
him.
I agree, and I said so here about a week or so ago.
Post by Atlas Bugged
I'd agree with your evaluation except I'd leave out "passable." And
the comparison to Salieri is ludicrous. If you have the misfortune to see
WOTW, you will see that Speilberg is the anti-Kubrick - he's many years
*behind* his time.
I liked Close Encounters, the first and third Indiana Jones movies,
and Minority Report. I can pretty much forget the rest, unless Saving
Private Ryan was also his.

[...]

Ken
Malrassic Park
2005-07-10 17:43:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:10:50 +0000 (UTC), Ken Gardner
.
Post by Ken Gardner
Post by Atlas Bugged
Don't get ME started on Speilberg. Last night, "popular demand" compelled
me to join my tribe and see WAR OF THE WORLDS. This film was poor even for
him.
.
Post by Ken Gardner
I agree, and I said so here about a week or so ago.
.
Post by Ken Gardner
Post by Atlas Bugged
I'd agree with your evaluation except I'd leave out "passable." And
the comparison to Salieri is ludicrous. If you have the misfortune to see
WOTW, you will see that Speilberg is the anti-Kubrick - he's many years
*behind* his time.
I liked Close Encounters, the first and third Indiana Jones movies,
and Minority Report. I can pretty much forget the rest, unless Saving
Private Ryan was also his.
It was.


--

AR: Similarly, there is a way in which you can in fact
not consider man as an entity...

Prof. E: Not an entity!

(ITOE 271)
Ken Gardner
2005-07-10 18:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malrassic Park
Post by Ken Gardner
I liked Close Encounters, the first and third Indiana Jones movies,
and Minority Report. I can pretty much forget the rest, unless Saving
Private Ryan was also his.
It was.
Thanks. I wasn't sure if it was or not.

Ken
f***@papertig.com
2005-07-10 19:36:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Gardner
Post by Malrassic Park
Post by Ken Gardner
I liked Close Encounters, the first and third Indiana Jones movies,
and Minority Report. I can pretty much forget the rest, unless Saving
Private Ryan was also his.
It was.
Thanks. I wasn't sure if it was or not.
Don't forget Schindler's List. Or, Jaws or Back to the Future or Who
Framed Roger Rabbit.

I also recently saw The Terminal (with Tom Hanks and - "oh stop my
beating heart" - Catherine Zeta-Jones) which was a bit silly and
overly sentimental, but I enjoyed it. Oh, did I mention Catherine
Zeta-Jones? Did I mention Catherine Zeta-Jones in a stewardess outfit?

Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
2005-07-10 20:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@papertig.com
I also recently saw The Terminal (with Tom Hanks and - "oh stop my
beating heart" - Catherine Zeta-Jones) which was a bit silly and
overly sentimental, but I enjoyed it. Oh, did I mention Catherine
Zeta-Jones? Did I mention Catherine Zeta-Jones in a stewardess outfit?
Hmm...

http://tinyurl.com/audda

http://tinyurl.com/d65pr

As for the rest, maybe Bugged can help out some.

Ken
Atlas Bugged
2005-07-11 02:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Gardner
Hmm...
http://tinyurl.com/audda
http://tinyurl.com/d65pr
As for the rest, maybe Bugged can help out some.
Always be careful what you wish for:

http://tinylink.com/?M0R3sY8kaj
f***@papertig.com
2005-07-11 05:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Ken Gardner
Hmm...
http://tinyurl.com/audda
http://tinyurl.com/d65pr
As for the rest, maybe Bugged can help out some.
http://tinylink.com/?M0R3sY8kaj
I appreciate the effort, but don't actually find these particularly
flattering. The one on the lower left doesn't even look like her. In
general I find that to be the case with "paparazzi" nudes.

Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
2005-07-12 04:41:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@papertig.com
Post by Atlas Bugged
http://tinylink.com/?M0R3sY8kaj
I appreciate the effort, but don't actually find these particularly
flattering. The one on the lower left doesn't even look like her. In
general I find that to be the case with "paparazzi" nudes.
Me neither. I was hoping for something a bit more hi-res.

Ken
f***@papertig.com
2005-07-11 04:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Gardner
Post by f***@papertig.com
I also recently saw The Terminal (with Tom Hanks and - "oh stop my
beating heart" - Catherine Zeta-Jones) which was a bit silly and
overly sentimental, but I enjoyed it. Oh, did I mention Catherine
Zeta-Jones? Did I mention Catherine Zeta-Jones in a stewardess outfit?
Hmm...
http://tinyurl.com/audda
http://tinyurl.com/d65pr
Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Oh, yes, you da King.

I here bow in due recognition of your Kingliness.

Fred Weiss
Chris Cathcart
2005-07-11 17:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@papertig.com
Post by Ken Gardner
Post by Malrassic Park
Post by Ken Gardner
I liked Close Encounters, the first and third Indiana Jones movies,
and Minority Report. I can pretty much forget the rest, unless Saving
Private Ryan was also his.
It was.
Thanks. I wasn't sure if it was or not.
Don't forget Schindler's List. Or, Jaws or Back to the Future or Who
Framed Roger Rabbit.
As shocking as it may be to you, the last two are not Spielberg but
Robert Zemeckis. And easy mistake to make, though, considering how
similar their styles are. Indeed, without knowing who directed what,
you'd have quite a hard time telling the styles apart to make a great
guess. Sorted by IMDb rating, one director:

(8.20) - Forrest Gump (1994)
(8.10) - Back to the Future (1985)
(7.40) - Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)
(7.30) - Cast Away (2000)
(7.30) - Contact (1997)
(7.00) - Back to the Future Part II (1989)
(6.90) - The Polar Express (2004)
(6.80) - Romancing the Stone (1984)
(6.71) - I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978)
(6.70) - Back to the Future Part III (1990)
(6.60) - What Lies Beneath (2000)
(6.51) - Used Cars (1980)
(6.20) - Two-Fisted Tales (1991) (TV)
(5.61) - Death Becomes Her (1992)


Now, the other director:

(8.80) - Schindler's List (1993)
(8.70) - Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
(8.30) - Saving Private Ryan (1998)
(8.20) - Jaws (1975)
(8.10) - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
(7.80) - Minority Report (2002)
(7.80) - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
(7.70) - Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
(7.70) - Duel (1971/I) (TV)
(7.60) - The Color Purple (1985)
(7.60) - Catch Me If You Can (2002)
(7.50) - Empire of the Sun (1987)
(7.40) - Jurassic Park (1993)
(7.20) - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
(7.19) - Amblin' (1968)
(7.10) - The Terminal (2004)
(7.02) - Night Gallery (1969) (TV)
(7.02) - Columbo: Murder by the Book (1971) (TV)
(7.00) - Amistad (1997)
(6.90) - War of the Worlds (2005)
(6.88) - The Unfinished Journey (1999)
(6.80) - Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001)
(6.71) - The Sugarland Express (1974)
(6.32) - Amazing Stories: Book One (1992) (V)
(6.31) - Always (1989)
(6.17) - Something Evil (1972) (TV)
(6.11) - Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983)
(5.80) - Hook (1991)
(5.61) - 1941 (1979)
(5.50) - The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)



The most underrated of the bunch, and virtually by osmosis from its
being a Kubrick-conceived project, is -AI-. I'd put it right up there
amongst Spielberg's best other works. It might be his most thoughtful
sci-fi work of the whole bunch, and indeed, it's unusually thoughtful
sci-fi, period. Had Kubrick lived, it would have been one of THE
greatest sci-fi pics ever, though given the amount of time he spent on
his projects in his later years, it probably wouldn't even be made by
now. Of couse, some things are best left unmade if they can't be
totally made right. I'm not sure right now if the Spielberg-directed
-AI- qualifies as better-left-unmade. Still, why is it so low-rated
relative to -Blade Runner-? Maybe -Blade Runner- was that low-rated
for its first several years, too. (At the same time, I don't rank
-Blade Runner- up there with -2001- or Tarkovsky's -Solaris-. I'm
having a tough time with Roeg's -The Man Who Fell to Earth-.)
Atlas Bugged
2005-07-12 03:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Cathcart
The most underrated of the bunch, and virtually by osmosis from its
being a Kubrick-conceived project, is -AI-.
Just see the new War of the Worlds. Note how it rates around the middle of
Speilberg's catalog? Well it's amazingly bad. It's placement
is...accurate. If Speilberg makes a good film here and there, it's a
fortuity. He's the worst thing to happen to movies in a long time because
he swallows resources far better spent
elsewhere.
Ken Gardner
2005-07-12 04:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Enlighten me. What is "IMDb rating?" Where can I find them? TIA.

Ken
Reggie Perrin
2005-07-12 09:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Gardner
Enlighten me. What is "IMDb rating?" Where can I find them?
TIA.
The Internet Movie Database at http://www.imdb.com

I prefer http://www.allmovie.com
Chris Cathcart
2005-07-12 23:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reggie Perrin
I prefer http://www.allmovie.com
Thanks much for posting this. I've just done a little browsing, mainly
in the "Major Films by genre" sections sorted by number of stars and
it's not bad at all despite some disagreements about star-ratings on
certain films. (Lebowski and Eyes Wide Shut only 4/5 stars?
Tarkovsky's Nostalghia only 3???) At least it does give Barry Lyndon,
perhaps the one perfect film that I know of, 5 stars.

BTW, my thinking on Barry Lyndon as a film I could recommend to anyone
whatever their movie tastes got me to making a list of such films.
None of them are "weird," none of them difficult to follow, none of
them especially violent (save one obvious but still indispensibly great
title), none of them catering to an esoteric sense of humor, none
strongly genre-driven. Not all of them are happy in theme, but they're
all nonetheless enjoyable, engaing, and entertaining viewing to any
sane mainstream viewer, older and younger alike. Naturally, nearly all
are on the IMDb top 250. It's all of about 15 titles long:

Barry Lyndon
Vertigo
The Godfather

(Those 3 top the list, and stay on the list for sure. The rest a few
people might not care for, for some dumb reason or other, but I've
found hardly anything to actively dislike about them.)

The Princess Bride
The Shawshank Redemption
The Graduate
Little Big Man
Dr. Strangelove
Once Upon a Time in America
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Sting
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Forrest Gump
Paper Moon
Double Indemnity

A few more I picked out, looking over the IMDb 250:

A Christmas Story
Charade
Groundhog Day

I don't quite know for sure if The Elephant Man is best suited for just
anyone; I've immediate family members who found it, or would find it,
too dark and depressing.

I have to add that Barry Lyndon simply must be viewed on the
digitally-restored DVD version if one is to really partake in its
splendor.
Reggie Perrin
2005-07-13 00:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Cathcart
Post by Reggie Perrin
I prefer http://www.allmovie.com
Thanks much for posting this. I've just done a little browsing,
mainly in the "Major Films by genre" sections sorted by number
of stars and it's not bad at all despite some disagreements about
star-ratings on certain films. (Lebowski and Eyes Wide Shut only
4/5 stars? Tarkovsky's Nostalghia only 3???)
Yeah, I have quibbles too (though not about those particular judgments
;-)), but I prefer it to IMDb because I can jump straight to a concise,
reasonably well-written review.
Post by Chris Cathcart
At least it does give Barry Lyndon,
perhaps the one perfect film that I know of, 5 stars.
My all-time fave, Hannah and Her Sisters, also gets a maximum. Thanks
for the Barry Lyndon recommendation BTW - that one had slipped beneath
my radar.
Atlas Bugged
2005-07-13 06:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Cathcart
Post by Reggie Perrin
I prefer http://www.allmovie.com
It is a useful resource, but the question I get most often is where is a
*music* site similar to what IMDB does? And the answer is allmovie's sister
site at www.allmusic.com.

If you're crazy enough to read mine and Chris's rantings to begin with,
there is a movie review search engine here:
http://www.mrqe.com/lookup

There is also an internet movie nudity database, just FTR, here:
http://www.cndb.com/index.html
Post by Chris Cathcart
Thanks much for posting this. I've just done a little browsing, mainly
in the "Major Films by genre" sections sorted by number of stars and
it's not bad at all despite some disagreements about star-ratings on
certain films. (Lebowski and Eyes Wide Shut only 4/5 stars?
Tarkovsky's Nostalghia only 3???) At least it does give Barry Lyndon,
perhaps the one perfect film that I know of, 5 stars.
BTW, my thinking on Barry Lyndon as a film I could recommend to anyone
whatever their movie tastes got me to making a list of such films.
As I've mentioned in the past, CC has the inestimable skill of being right
about movies a full 50% of the time. Of course, I am dumbfounded as to
which half is which. BARRY LYNDON, a film for all? Get the fuck out!
Post by Chris Cathcart
None of them are "weird," none of them difficult to follow, none of
them especially violent (save one obvious but still indispensibly great
title), none of them catering to an esoteric sense of humor, none
strongly genre-driven. Not all of them are happy in theme, but they're
all nonetheless enjoyable, engaing, and entertaining viewing to any
sane mainstream viewer, older and younger alike. Naturally, nearly all
Barry Lyndon
Vertigo
The Godfather
Lyndon is a no-holds-barred period piece which will annoy most viewers.
Vertigo is Hitchcock at his pretty good. And Godfather, while truly
magnificent, has become a bit cliche and has been superseded a bit by the
Sopranos and a hundred other mob films left in its wake. And it is indeed a
film featuring bloody degenerates.
Post by Chris Cathcart
(Those 3 top the list, and stay on the list for sure. The rest a few
people might not care for, for some dumb reason or other, but I've
found hardly anything to actively dislike about them.)
A far better starter film for introducing Kubrick would be...most of his
other films. I like FULL METAL JACKET because I think even easily-offended
types are taken in by its over-the-top, brilliant portrayal of army grunts
in the first half.

If I had to recommend a Hitchcock film, and I'm glad I don't, there are
several better, such as STRANGERS ON A TRAIN and REAR WINDOW. Instead of
Hitchcock, I'd urge viewers of modern sensibility toward Mamet, either HOUSE
OF GAMES or THE SPANISH PRISONER, either of which is cooler than anything
ever imagined by Hitchcock. Even SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is better
killer-thriller than any or all Hitchcock. I appreciate Hitch, but he's
anachronistic. If you want something nearly-new and great in this genre,
try MATCHSTICK MEN.

Finally, if I haven't made it clear by now, there's at least four or five
Woody Allen films, all blending serious themes with light comedy, that are
among the greatest films ever shot. There is no way anyone's going to
dislike HANNAH AND HER SISTERS and CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. If you haven't
seen these yet, there is simply no reason not to see them *next.*

If you want to go much more light, I thought EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU was
brilliant, possibly more fun than SINGING IN THE RAIN, which is also
conspicuously absent from CC's list.

As to the rest of Cathcart's list, neighborhood Bugged is here to give you
the 411 and get you out of your coin-flip dilemma. Some I won't comment on
because it has been too long since I've seen the film, and two I haven't
Post by Chris Cathcart
The Princess Bride
The Shawshank Redemption
Finally, a good Stephen King film. A fine story, but barely worth a second
viewing.
Post by Chris Cathcart
The Graduate
Chris hits the target. If you already saw it, try the companion piece,
GOODBYE COLUMBUS.
Post by Chris Cathcart
Little Big Man
Dr. Strangelove
Once again, Chris dips into the lower rung of Kubrick. PATHS OF GLORY is
better if you want to go this far back, but EYES WIDE SHUT is recent,
sophisticated adult fare.
Post by Chris Cathcart
Once Upon a Time in America
Forget it, just do GODFATHER if you want this sort of thing.
Post by Chris Cathcart
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Definitely dated and over-sentimental.
Post by Chris Cathcart
The Sting
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Forrest Gump
Cathcart clearly has his over-sentimental side. He should stop
second-guessing his own taste and just cite ELEPHANT MAN. And there are all
manner of better Tom Hanks films out there. Try CASTAWAY, which concretizes
the frequent "desert island" scenarios we debate here.
Post by Chris Cathcart
Paper Moon
Double Indemnity
Better Hitch. But still, it's Hitch.

Arguably the best movie in many years was AMERICAN BEAUTY, but I concede it
will likely offend many.

Boy, talk about thread-drift, eh? Wow!
Reggie Perrin
2005-07-13 09:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Reggie Perrin
I prefer http://www.allmovie.com
It is a useful resource, but the question I get most often is where
is a *music* site similar to what IMDB does? And the answer is
allmovie's sister site at www.allmusic.com.
Yep. It's via allmusic.com that I first came across allmovie.com. The
former has been a great site for me, like a surrogate older and cooler
brother to guide my musical tastes. It's "similar artists" and
"influenced by" features have turned me on to many of my now favourite
artists. Sadly, I have to do my best to avoid it at the moment because
I need to rein in my CD buying.
Post by Atlas Bugged
[...]
If I had to recommend a Hitchcock film, and I'm glad I don't, there
are several better, such as STRANGERS ON A TRAIN and REAR WINDOW.
North By Northwest would be my preference here.
Post by Atlas Bugged
[...]
Finally, if I haven't made it clear by now, there's at least four
or five Woody Allen films, all blending serious themes with light
comedy, that are among the greatest films ever shot. There is no
way anyone's going to dislike HANNAH AND HER SISTERS and CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS. If you haven't seen these yet, there is simply no
reason not to see them *next.*
I commend this report to the House. Hannah and Her Sisters would be a
good choice for all you weird Allen-phobes out there, because his own
part in that movie is small in comparison to most of his other
classics. You gotta love his writing and direction, even if you don't
like the man himself.
Chris Cathcart
2005-07-13 21:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Chris Cathcart
BTW, my thinking on Barry Lyndon as a film I could recommend to anyone
whatever their movie tastes got me to making a list of such films.
As I've mentioned in the past, CC has the inestimable skill of being right
about movies a full 50% of the time. Of course, I am dumbfounded as to
which half is which. BARRY LYNDON, a film for all? Get the fuck out!
Yep, a film for all. It's got everything you could ask for in a film
-- drama, action, adventure, war, humor, crime, love, hate, jealousy,
revenge, friendship, bad and good fortune, wealth, poverty, moral
teachings, the most gorgeous damn cinematography you've ever seen,
perfect production values. It is incomparable, even amongst period
films. (-The Duellists- may come closest.)

That's one reason that -The Princess Bride- is a good for-anyone film
as well. It's got everything.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Chris Cathcart
None of them are "weird," none of them difficult to follow, none of
them especially violent (save one obvious but still indispensibly great
title), none of them catering to an esoteric sense of humor, none
strongly genre-driven. Not all of them are happy in theme, but they're
all nonetheless enjoyable, engaing, and entertaining viewing to any
sane mainstream viewer, older and younger alike. Naturally, nearly all
Barry Lyndon
Vertigo
The Godfather
Lyndon is a no-holds-barred period piece which will annoy most viewers.
That would be an unbelievably lame reason to be annoyed by a film.
It's being a period piece is somewhat incidental, anyway. The themes
are universal, and the visual splendor is so overwhelming as to be
alluring rather than annoying.

There is no fucking reason why being a genre-piece per se should put
off or annoy any reasonable movie-watcher. Now, it does so happen that
a dominant tendency of most sci-fi or horror movies is that they're
pretty shitty and disappointing, but that doesn't count against those
genres per se, enough to disqualify any movie of that genre. Besides,
"period piece" has wildly benign connotations in contrast to "sci-fi"
or "horror." It's about as general as "drama."

Lots of period pieces can indeed be put off as boring or
limited-interest esoterica. A bunch of Merchant Ivory pieces make me
bored. Barry Lyndon, OTOH, is just simply too good, too entertaining,
too universal in appeal to be off-putting.

About the only criticisms I've usually seen of Barry Lyndon is that
it's too slow-paced and the characters not emotional, neither of which
are valid criticisms. (1) The pacing is perfect, particularly when you
need deliberate pacing for the viewer to take in the visual grandeur.
Simply can't be done with rapid cuts. (2) The emotion is there for any
viewer to connect to; the genius of Barry Lyndon is that it leaves it
subtle and subdued, leaving it to the viewer to make the connection.
One thing is that Barry is *not* is non-realistically over-dramatized
with an aim of emotional manipulation. That's precisely what makes
Kubrick a grandmaster and Spielberg not.

And with the advent of DVD, Barry is slowly, gradually, surely making
its way to the status of a classic. Faded, grainy VHS prints never did
this film justice. Like any Kubrick, the film requires more than one
viewing (or three) in any case, but the visual aspect is a huge hook.
I first watched it on a VHS, wasn't all that taken in, and didn't find
what was so extraordinary about it. Of course, I knew that, its being
a Kubrick film, I'd want to watch it again eventually, but I know
exactly how most one-viewing VHS movie-watchers responded: it was a
decent, meandering, slow film, but not on the level of Kubrick's
greatest works. Of course, people have been responding the same way
about -Eyes Wide Shut- as well, but all it needs is some time, and
it'll be a classic.

In terms of artistic importance, these two works along with -2001- and
-Full Metal Jacket- and -Dr. Strangelove- are Kubrick's finest works,
which more or less makes them the amongst the finest works created by
any American director, a level that Hitchcock, Ford, Wilder, Coppola or
Scorsese reached perhaps once or twice each. I've already said before:
amongst American directors, only Orson Welles is around Kubrick's level
of genius.
Post by Atlas Bugged
A far better starter film for introducing Kubrick would be...most of his
other films. I like FULL METAL JACKET because I think even easily-offended
types are taken in by its over-the-top, brilliant portrayal of army grunts
in the first half.
I wouldn't say that any one particular film is best for introducing
Kubrick; they're all great. My starter films were Eyes Wide Shut and
The Shining. The best "introduction" to Kubrick? See all eleven of
his major feature films, on the restored DVDs, more than once. Then,
you'll have been introduced.
Post by Atlas Bugged
If I had to recommend a Hitchcock film, and I'm glad I don't, there are
several better, such as STRANGERS ON A TRAIN and REAR WINDOW.
Hitch varied between slightly thrilling to pretty thrilling. Take the
8 or so films of his on the IMDb 250, and amongst those, there is a
consistently good level of suspense, the exception being Vertigo.
Vertigo is well beyond his other works, because it transcends his own
Hitchock-thriller genre to be great on other levels. And that's
probably why I'm big on it -- because it's not a standard Hitch film,
and I'm not all that big on mainstream Hitch films. I'm not alone.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Instead of
Hitchcock, I'd urge viewers of modern sensibility toward Mamet, either HOUSE
OF GAMES or THE SPANISH PRISONER, either of which is cooler than anything
ever imagined by Hitchcock.
I was thinking of adding -Glengarry Glen Ross-, the only downside being
that the wonderfully high levels of profanity spewed therein may put
off a sizable number of viewers. Maybe I'm wrong about that. There's
got to be *some* Al Pacino flick for everyone, right?
Post by Atlas Bugged
Even SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is better
killer-thriller than any or all Hitchcock.
Another great candidate; some viewers may be pushed away by the levels
of violence/gore.
Post by Atlas Bugged
I appreciate Hitch, but he's
anachronistic. If you want something nearly-new and great in this genre,
try MATCHSTICK MEN.
Meh.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Finally, if I haven't made it clear by now, there's at least four or five
Woody Allen films, all blending serious themes with light comedy, that are
among the greatest films ever shot. There is no way anyone's going to
dislike HANNAH AND HER SISTERS and CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. If you haven't
seen these yet, there is simply no reason not to see them *next.*
Some viewers aren't really into Woody's brand of comedy. Annie Hall
would be the introduction point anyway.
Post by Atlas Bugged
If you want to go much more light, I thought EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU was
brilliant, possibly more fun than SINGING IN THE RAIN, which is also
conspicuously absent from CC's list.
It was considered, but enough viewers really dislike musicals, even
including something as delightful as SITR.
Post by Atlas Bugged
As to the rest of Cathcart's list, neighborhood Bugged is here to give you
the 411 and get you out of your coin-flip dilemma. Some I won't comment on
because it has been too long since I've seen the film, and two I haven't
Post by Chris Cathcart
The Princess Bride
The Shawshank Redemption
Finally, a good Stephen King film. A fine story, but barely worth a second
viewing.
Ya shittin' me? Not that it's a view-it-lots kind of film, but it
would be worth repeated viewings over time.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Chris Cathcart
The Graduate
Chris hits the target. If you already saw it, try the companion piece,
GOODBYE COLUMBUS.
You've found a weak spot in my viewing repertoire. The Graduate
reminded me, on the other hand, of director Mike Nichols' other work,
namely Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? That would be an excellent pic,
but you guessed it -- too talky for many.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Chris Cathcart
Little Big Man
Dr. Strangelove
Once again, Chris dips into the lower rung of Kubrick. PATHS OF GLORY is
better if you want to go this far back, but EYES WIDE SHUT is recent,
sophisticated adult fare.
EWS is too "weird" for some viewers; I'd say that it's obligatory
viewing otherwise for anyone who wants great, even if not quite
universally-accessible, cinema. EWS is arguably one of those
filmic-poetry masterpieces; it's a psychological journey and rather
cryptic as to such. What's "real" and what's an expression of longing
or fantasy? EWS is truly ambiguous as to that, and in a really good
way. It *could* be almost completely read literally and still have it
make sense, but that does take some of the fun out of it.

EWS is, along with Barry Lyndon, Kubrick's best work visually speaking,
just above the level of 2001. Kubrick is truly a painter with light.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Chris Cathcart
Once Upon a Time in America
Forget it, just do GODFATHER if you want this sort of thing.
Yabut it's also a genre-transcender. Okay, maybe it's not
indispensible to the list, but unless being a 3.5-hour movie
disqualifies it, there's really nothing to dislike about it. Plus,
there needs to be DeNiro work in here too, right?
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Chris Cathcart
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Definitely dated and over-sentimental.
Nuh-uh.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Chris Cathcart
The Sting
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Forrest Gump
Cathcart clearly has his over-sentimental side. He should stop
second-guessing his own taste and just cite ELEPHANT MAN. And there are all
manner of better Tom Hanks films out there. Try CASTAWAY, which concretizes
the frequent "desert island" scenarios we debate here.
Meh. *grunt* This is wearing me down. Forrest Gump is just damn
fine.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Chris Cathcart
Paper Moon
Double Indemnity
Better Hitch. But still, it's Hitch.
Uh, I gotcha there. It's not Hitch. It's Billy Wilder.

What's more appalling is that 2 films starring Ryan O'Neal made it onto
my list. You'd think he was Jack Nicholson or something.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Arguably the best movie in many years was AMERICAN BEAUTY, but I concede it
will likely offend many.
American Beauty is just damn fine, but like you say . . .
Ken Gardner
2005-07-14 04:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Gardner
Enlighten me. What is "IMDb rating?" Where can I find them?
TIA.
The Internet Movie Database at http://wfww.imdb.com
I prefer http://www.allmovie.com
Thanks. I was mainly curious about the ratings, and who does them.
Interesting...

Ken
Chris Cathcart
2005-07-14 17:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Gardner
Post by Ken Gardner
Enlighten me. What is "IMDb rating?" Where can I find them? TIA.
The Internet Movie Database at http://wfww.imdb.com
I prefer http://www.allmovie.com
Thanks. I was mainly curious about the ratings, and who does them.
Interesting...
The IMDb ratings are determined by the average 1-10 scale votes by the
registered users, so basically by the public, and filtered by some
weighting criteria. As bad as public-voting may sound in rating a
movie, the IMDb may actually be the least-worst third-party guide
available for finding good films. In large part, you want to downplay
the ratings for movies younger than about 10 years old, as so many of
those recently made are really badly fucking overrated (or underrated).
There are plenty of others either over- or underrated, but few of them
egregiously so.

The best guide, of course, is your own taste or priorities.
f***@papertig.com
2005-07-12 18:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Cathcart
Post by f***@papertig.com
Don't forget Schindler's List. Or, Jaws or Back to the Future or Who
Framed Roger Rabbit.
As shocking as it may be to you, the last two are not Spielberg but
Robert Zemeckis.
I wasn't sure what to regard as "Spielberg". He's listed as the
"executive producer" of those movies. But, yes, you're right not as
"director".

Fred Weiss
Chris Cathcart
2005-07-12 22:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Chris Cathcart
It's films like this one that show that Lynch is truly one of the most
important filmmakers of our time, right there behind Scorsese.
I dunno about that. What other Lynch films are coherent?
The rather aptly-titled -The Straight Story-.

-Blue Velvet- and -Wild at Heart- are more or less straightforward, and
inasmuch as it wasn't tinkered with by the studios, -Dune- ('84) is a
Lynch film. The other four (-Eraserhead-, -Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With
Me-, -Lost Highway-, -Mulholland Dr-) are "trademark" Lynch
narrative-chopping.

Speaking of fucked-up narrative-chopping sci-fi, I just ("re-")watched
-Zardoz- with Sean Connery and Charlotte Rampling. I think it would be
correct to say that it's more far-out than the four far-out Lynch
films. Really unique, actually, among the wacked-out movies I've seen
as of yet. It quite deliberately flouts logic and indulges in
high-camp weirdness, enough so that I don't know whether to admire it
for the extent of its weirdness-ingenuity, or hate it. Parts of it had
my jaw ajar, nearly drooling in disbelief and/or bafflement. A better
viewing experience, though, than other John Boorman-directed '70s-era
"landmarks" like -Deliverance-. The less homo anal-rape in a movie,
the better, I say. Looking over his IMDb profile, there's also
-Excalibur-. *pokes index finger in throat*
Ken Gardner
2005-07-14 05:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Cathcart
Speaking of fucked-up narrative-chopping sci-fi, I just ("re-")watched
-Zardoz- with Sean Connery and Charlotte Rampling.
But it had great music at the end. And lots of good looking babes, if
I remember correctly. It wasn't all bad. Just very nearly all bad.

Ken
Chris Cathcart
2005-07-14 17:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Gardner
Post by Chris Cathcart
Speaking of fucked-up narrative-chopping sci-fi, I just ("re-")watched
-Zardoz- with Sean Connery and Charlotte Rampling.
But it had great music at the end.
No shit, Ludwig Vanboy. Your geeky obsession is almost as scary as
Malsturbator's re: Kant.

I recognize the piece of music that plays, but I can't quite yet tie it
to a particular composition name or number.
Post by Ken Gardner
And lots of good looking babes, if
I remember correctly.
Not especially.
Post by Ken Gardner
It wasn't all bad. Just very nearly all bad.
I'm split on it; I'm reviled and yet impressed at the same time, in
some cases by the same things.

I was interested in Bugged's reaction about the movie. I'm sure he's
seen it, he being a Sci-Fi geek and all.
atlasbugged
2005-07-14 22:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Cathcart
I was interested in Bugged's reaction about the movie. I'm sure he's
seen it, he being a Sci-Fi geek and all.
In its day, when I viewed it, I considered it a new low for sci-fi
generally. Of course, I've not endeavored to see it again, since I was
firmly convinced it was junk at the time. My best recollection is that it
was laughable.
Ken Gardner
2005-07-15 05:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Cathcart
No shit, Ludwig Vanboy. Your geeky obsession is almost as scary as
Malsturbator's re: Kant.
I recognize the piece of music that plays, but I can't quite yet tie it
to a particular composition name or number.
Beethoven's Seventh Symphony, Second Movement. Opus No. 92 if you
need to know. :)

[...]

Ludwig Vanboy

Ken Gardner
2005-07-10 17:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Cathcart
With an 8.0 IMDb rating, I should have seen it long ago, but part of my
fucked-up movie tastes is that I have a bias against non-fiction
storytelling. It's sort of odd, considering that Rand novels aside,
all that I'll read is non-fiction, but I want my movies to be fiction.
And I want superb craftsmanship by the standards of the art-form, hence
the liking for pretty much anything Kubrick/Bergman/Tarkovsky/Welles.
I generally prefer fiction to non-fiction movies as well, although I
do make certain exceptions for war and historical movies. In
virtually all cases, the movies I like are realistic, but romanticized
(as Rand uses that term) rather than naturalistic. It must portray
people confronted with and making choices that have consequences. I
don't care for fantasy in any form, and while I do like some science
fiction, it must be at least partially realistic, but never
naturalistic.
Post by Chris Cathcart
I have seen -Judgment at Nuremberg-, and for the aforementioned reason,
don't need to see it again, really. And I'm just a little annoyed with
Burt Lancaster's mannerisms.
I think I like that movie more than you do. Tracy's character may
also be where Rand got the inspiration for Judge Narragansett. :)
Post by Chris Cathcart
There are some exceptions to that fucked-up rule. Speilbergianism
aside, I can manage to tolerate sitting through -Schindler's List-.
Did he do Saving Private Ryan, or was that Tom Hanks? That's one of
my favorite war movies. I know that the two did Band of Brothers,
which is one of my favorite TV mini-series. These are perfect
examples of what I was talking about above: mostly non-fiction and
realistic (especially Band of Brothers), but romanticized rather than
naturalistic.

[...]
Post by Chris Cathcart
Looking at my own list of faves, I do also note Mel Gibson's
-Braveheart-, also bending the truth enough to make it as good as
fictional drama. However, I saw it not too long ago for the first time
since becoming a movie buff, and there's enough in there to annoy me,
too. Too Hollywoodized, I think. Still, if I go back to it again
without a movie-snob stick up my ass, I could probably quite enjoy it
on the whole again.
I liked that movie the most the first time I saw it. Each time I saw
it again, I liked it less. I don't plan to watch it again.

Ken
Kathryn P. O'Mara
2005-07-10 22:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Jerry Story
* Recognize that 9-11 was a trillion-to-one shot that couldn't be
duplicated in a million years. So don't turn America upside-down,
causing billions of dollars in losses to companies and business
travelers to prevent the repetition of something that most likely won't
happen again anyway.
Check.
Seem's a bit Pollyanna-ish (I think that 9/11 could be duplicated, or
at least some variation). Nevertheless, the TSA is just a waste of
taxpayer money and I was against it from the start. While more law
enforcement was needed at airports, creating a leviathan federal
monopoly in passenger screening wasn't. It isn't even done in
Britain, which generally has tighter anti-terrorism measure than the
US.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Jerry Story
* Declare an end to the so-called War on Terrorism. Call it a
victory, a defeat, or an armistice. But quit acting as though it's an
excuse to invade any country or take away our civil liberties.
Incoherent. It hasn't been used as an excuse to "invade any country."
Incoherent, yes, but there are some valid points. There should be no
"war on terror." How do we ever declare victory? We will never
eliminate all the terrorists, just as we can't eliminate all crime.
Human nature is what it is. The fight against terrorism just has to
become ingrained in us.

Having said that, we need to be more selective with our limited
resources. I.e. bang for the buck is clearly needed. Money pits
aren't.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Jerry Story
* Stop telling other countries who their leaders should be or what
their foreign policy must be.
Incoherent.
Again, incoherent, but with a valid point. We can't and shouldn't try
to make everyone like us, but we can tolerate people as long as they
don't try to harm us. Hugo Chavez is a nasty SOB, but AFAIK he isn't
funding terrorists so we can and should tolerate him and not interfere
in Venezuela's government (interference would just strengthen his
position, anyway).

Also, while we have a right to invade a country whose government denies
basic human rights to its citizens, we don't have a responsibility to
do so. The US government's primary responsibility is to protect our
own rights, not the rights of others. If we can make a difference,
great, but we aren't obligated to do so.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Jerry Story
* End all foreign aid - military and economic. It has ruined
countries, provided resources to our enemies, and turned hundreds of
millions of people against America.
All *government" foreign aid, check. A no-brainer, and a bit banal.
Ironically, the Eurocrats criticize us for not giving enough foreign
aid. The big focus of the G8 was "debt relief" for Africa. It's a
catch 22.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Jerry Story
* Don't invade Iraq. That's probably the only way to motivate
Saddam Hussein to attack us with whatever dangerous weapons he might
have. So long as we leave him alone, he won't commit the suicidal act
of provoking the U.S. to drop nuclear bombs on him.
Incoherent. How old is this article?
Must be 2003 or earlier. In hindsight, Iraq has been a disaster. Not
necessarily taking down Saddam, but certainly in how we've handled it
since and gotten ourselves into a quagmire.

I don't make too much of world criticism of Bush, though. It's become
clear that Europeans don't like Bush's personality, and they use
anything he does as an excuse to criticize him, even if it's the same
thing that their hero Bill Clinton would have done. At the end of the
day, we need to realize that the British and European public think
Michael "OJ is innocent" Moore is sensible.
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Jerry Story
I'm sorry that I can't snap my fingers and undo 50 years of bad
American foreign policy. Unfortunately, by continuing to tell the rest
of the world what to do, President Bush is making a bad situation even
worse.
The Bush II Administration is the first to at least rhetorically
renounce the realpolitik strategy since the 1940s of "allying" with
thugs and bastards because "they are our bastards." Hopefully this
renunciation will become more than rhetorical over the remainder of
this adminstration and into the next. Saudi Arabia (home of the 9/11
hijackers), Sudan, and Uzbekistan ("allies" in the war on terror) come
to mind here.

--
Kathryn P. O'Mara
Malrassic Park
2005-07-11 00:12:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:41:19 +0000 (UTC), "Kathryn P. O'Mara"
Post by Kathryn P. O'Mara
Seem's a bit Pollyanna-ish (I think that 9/11 could be duplicated, or
at least some variation). Nevertheless, the TSA is just a waste of
taxpayer money
What do you care about taxpayer money? If one dime of that came from
your purse, then perhaps you should care, being a selfish
individualist and all. Apart from that, you should have no concern for
a bunch of whiny taxpayers and how much of their money went into the
system.


--

AR: Similarly, there is a way in which you can in fact
not consider man as an entity...

Prof. E: Not an entity!

(ITOE 271)
Hugo S. Cunningham
2005-07-11 22:07:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:41:19 +0000 (UTC), "Kathryn P. O'Mara"
[...]
Post by Kathryn P. O'Mara
Post by Atlas Bugged
Post by Jerry Story
* Stop telling other countries who their leaders should be or what
their foreign policy must be.
Incoherent.
Again, incoherent, but with a valid point. We can't and shouldn't try
to make everyone like us, but we can tolerate people as long as they
don't try to harm us. Hugo Chavez is a nasty SOB, but AFAIK he isn't
funding terrorists
Since Chavez consolidated power after the fraudulent referendum of
15 Aug 2004, there has been a sharp increase in FARC terrorist
operations against neighboring Colombia.
When covert Colombian agents snatched FARC terrorist leader Rodrigo
Granda Escobar from Caracas on 13 Dec 2004, Chavez furiously denounced
the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty, but his complaints did not
get much traction outside the usual Castroite claque -- after all,
sponsoring FARC was a prior violation of Colombia's sovereignty.

There is also serious question where the money has come to sponsor the
blockade campaign that has destroyed Bolivia's economy. Some of it
might be from drug wholesalers (though U.S. Drug Prohibition itself is
far more culpable in this regard), but Chavez is flush with cash
(thanks to Bush the Younger's promotion of gas-guzzling) and ready to
use it.

It may be possible to live with Chavez (indeed, that has been Bush
policy on at least two key occasions -- the 2002 oil strike and the
Aug 2004 referendum), but we should keep an eye on him.

--Hugo S. Cunningham
Post by Kathryn P. O'Mara
so we can and should tolerate him and not interfere
in Venezuela's government (interference would just strengthen his
position, anyway).
[...]
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...