DEATH OF A PRESIDENT is f***ing awful!

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:41am

I have not been this pissed off at a movie since THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.

Here is a film that uses a very real and plausible scenario as a GIMMICK. It is completely and utterly without merit. It does not educate. It does not inform. It is utterly pointless.

Perhaps I should mention that I subscribe to the Roger Ebert school of film critique: "A film is not about what it is about but how it is about it." I could fathom a film that uses the fictional death of a sitting real-life president to perhaps examine the legacy (or, in this case, the ramifications) of the administration. But here none of that is done. We hear whisperings of a "Patriot Act III" but nothing is said as to what it entails. Here, the assasination is used as a shock-movie gimmick and the resulting "aftermath" is standard police procedural stuff that we've seen time and time again. Tedious, tedious, tedious.

In the end, all the film has really done is just stirred up attention. Interest will be gleaned from the controversial aspects of it and a profit will be turned. But has it really done anything worthwhile? Not in the least. Call it "Emo Cinema".

You know those people who stand up in the middle of a movie theatre and yell "FIRE"? Here is a film that does that for them.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:51am

But has it really done anything worthwhile? Not in the least.

Hate to break the news to you, babe, but NO movies do anything worthwhile. They're all created to speak to the lowest of the low and the dumbest of the dumb (ya know, most of America), and to make money. Don't look too hard for anything worthwhile in movies. It's a losing battle. Stick to theater and real life.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:53am

You're right, WBF. That's what makes CS's "Love for The Cinemah" such a sad thing to read. Face it kid, you picked entirely the wrong major.

What were you expecting from that movie? Why would you waste your money on it?

[StageManager2]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:55am

Wanna Be A Foster: Never thought you'd be so condescending!

(Yes, I did sing that when I typed it.)

Updated On: 10/28/06 at 12:55 AM

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:55am

WBF: I disagree with every word, every letter, and every contortion of syntax of that statement.

NAMO: It was free.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:56am

Life's too short to see sh*t for free.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:57am

I at least sought to be engaged. Not by the content but by the execution. (No pun intended)

[StageManager2]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 1:01am

Cruel: Don't listen to the theater snob or the cynic.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 1:23am

Or the airhead.

(Not so nice being dismissed with a one-word epithet, is it SM2?)

[StageManager2]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 1:34am

Theater snob is actually two words.

BTW: My feelings are hurt.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 1:47am

Then just go with A.H. and make of those initials what you will.

[Raviolisun]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 2:46am

I'm proud of you, BWW. We've turned yet another thread into a fight.

Rudeness, much?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 5:31am

oh I have to disagree majorly with you, foster (assuming you weren't being sarcastic). film is a valid art. there are great films and there are crappy ones. but there is great theatre and crappy theatre as well.

I don't think it's fair to damn all of film, which includes great artists from kurosawa to kubrick to scorsese to ford to wilder to welles to almodovar to hitchcock to, yes, spielberg just because a lot of fluff is put out there. and even some of that fluff is great entertainment.

but you must have been sarcastic as I recall films you like. at least, documentaries.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 8:47am

Thanks for the review. I wasn't planning on seeing it anyway. Now I know what I'm not missing.

Do you know this book by Nick Clooney (George Clooney's father and Rosemary Clooney's brother), called "The Movies That Changed Us"? It counters WBF's argument that "NO movies do anything worthwhile."

Clooney argues that once every ten years or so, a movie is made that profoundly changes the way we view ourselves or society.


The Movies That Changed Us: Reflections on the Screen

[jasonf]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 10:22am

WBF -- how condescending and pretentious could you POSSIBLY be? No movies are worthwhile? Even at its basest form, movies provide entertainment, and anyone who finds THAT worthless is way to involved in the "importance" of their own life and needs to remove the stick out of their ass just a little bit.

They're all created to speak to the lowest of the low and the dumbest of the dumb? Really? Schindler's List is meant to speak to the lowest of the low? Amadeus is aimed at the dumbest of the dumb? Do you say that because you believe it or because you can't understand the films?

What an asinine, pretentious, ludicrous statement. Get off your high horse and join the rest of humanity, you might have a little more fun.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 11:20am

I think the most utterly stupid moment of DOAP (what a fitting acronym...) is when Dick Cheney is giving the eulogy and, while his voice says "George Bush", it is so very very VERY obvious that his lips are saying another name. Awful overdubbing.

[erikaamato]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:02pm

Just wanted to chime in in support of film as a valid art form that can indeed "do [something] worthwile."

WBF: Did you find Hotel Rwanda to be worthwhile? Or Munich? Good Night And Good Luck? I certainly did. Plus, these were thoroughly engaging, "entertaining" (for lack of a better word) films. And recent, I might add. Even the thriller The Constant Gardener was extremely well done and had lots to say about the pharmeceutical industry and its use of Africans as guinea pigs.

I love film. I love theater. And as jerby said, there's good and bad to be had in both art forms.

Speaking of "good" films, I'm hearing fantastic things about Babel Anyone else looking forward to seeing it?

[StageManager2]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:11pm

erika: Thank you! THANK YOU for using the correct American spelling! Even the Americans on this board spell it "theatre." Stupid Americans. :-p

[erikaamato]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:33pm

SM2:: I was pretentious in junior high and high school and would spell almost everything with the English spelling. Colour. Favourite. Theatre. Centre. Then I realized that I'm actually American, and I gave it up. (I must admit, however, that I still refer to the bathroom as the "loo" in public.) lol

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:38pm

Theatre is a playhouse.
Theater is a cinema.

Hotel Rwanda is an EXCELLENT film. I didn't see Munich or Good...Luck. I want to see Babel.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:50pm

Last time I checked, SYRIANA wasn't created for the dumbest of the dumb and the lowest of the low. I walked out of that film feeling challenged, enlightened, and amazed at seeing one of the most brilliantly constructed films I've seen in quite a while. It is now one of my favorite films.

[erikaamato]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:52pm

FW: A common misconception. Both are still deemed acceptable and many theater companies and theatrical houses use "Theatre" (in which case, of course I spell it how they do), however the "official" American spelling is "theater" -

Theater vs. Theatre
Which is the proper spelling?

Theater vs. Theatre

During my seven-year stint as a theater critic for the Boulder Daily Camera, there was a minor controversy about the proper way to spell “theater.” In most cases the words are interchangeable, but for the purposes of newspaper publication, the proper spelling is with an “er,” not “re”. “Theatre” is from the French, and is commonly used in England. Apparently when Daniel Webster codified American English into his now-famous dictionary, he decided to un-anglicize many words. “Honour” became “honor,” “grey” became “gray,” and “theatre” became “theater.”

Most American theater companies use the “re” ending. Sometimes you’ll see the “re” when the word refers to the art form or actual companies, but “er” when it refers to the building itself. It was pretty funny sometimes, when a theater company used the “re,” because I often ended up writing something like “Boulder’s Dinner Theatre is a great theater.” Fortunately for all of us, the word “theatrical” doesn’t become “theaterical.”

If you are writing for publication, I recommend that you use the “er” ending, and let the publisher change it if they so desire. But whichever way you go, be consistent. Otherwise the publisher will simply assume that you are a lazy proofreader.

http://myst-technology.com/mysmartchannels/public/item/17841

Theater vs. Theatre If it matters to you, you have my permission to spell it -re. The main thing is not to let anyone tell you there's some mystical distinction between "theatre" (the art) and "theater" (the playhouse), because in the U.S. "theatre" is nothing but a pretentious spelling. You can charge an extra couple of bucks for a ticket to the theatre, that's it.

http://www.benteague.com/features/dictionary.html

theater
2 entries found for theater.
To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: 1the·ater
Variant(s): or the·atre /'thE-&-t&r, 'thE&-, oftenest in Southern 'thE-"A- also thE-'A-/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English theatre, from Middle French, from Latin theatrum, from Greek theatron, from theasthai to view, from thea act of seeing; akin to Greek thauma miracle
1 a : an outdoor structure for dramatic performances or spectacles in ancient Greece and Rome b : a building or area for dramatic performances c : a building or area for showing motion pictures
2 : a place or sphere of enactment of usually significant events or action
3 a : a place rising by steps or gradations b : a room often with rising tiers of seats for assemblies (as for lectures or surgical demonstrations)
4 a : dramatic literature : PLAYS b : dramatic representation as an art or profession : DRAMA
5 a : dramatic or theatrical quality or effectiveness b : SPECTACLE 1a c : entertainment in the form of a dramatic or diverting situation or series of events

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=theatre

[StageManager2]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:56pm

Thank you, erika. I was going to post something similar. The whole "theatre is a playhouse/theater is a cinema" theory might as well be an urban legend.

Updated On: 10/28/06 at 12:56 PM

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 1:09pm

how did we get to this!?

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 1:15pm

Jason, Erika, and all, I have never seen Schindler's List, Amadeus, Hotel Rwanda, Munich, or Good Night And Good Luck.

What I was trying to emphasize earlier (with what I admit to my own fault was a blanket statement) is that film is an industry that thrives on appealing to the masses in order to make money, and more money, over film as the creation of art for the purpose of art. I have seen many films, that were excellent, thought provoking and beautifully acted--none of which received the award recognition of the above films, simply *because* of the fact that they were different, artistic, challenging, and the public just wasn't *ready* for them. In an industry where, in order for a piece of art to be released to mass theaters and receive the necessary publicity to thrive, the art must appeal to the majority, all we are going to do is stand still and make very little progress.

Also: I take issue with the term "entertainment". It is so overused, and it seems that most of the people who use the term don't even know what they mean by it. And I'd like for you, Jason, to define for me what you mean when you say, Even at its basest form, movies provide "entertainment", and as a result, what *good* movies for the purpose of "entertainment" (whatever that means) alone do?

Updated On: 10/28/06 at 01:15 PM