GrubbTheFragger (post: 1357088) wrote:watched The Midnight Meat Train and Shuttle the other night
Midnight meat train was actually pretty dang good. I enjoyed it the ending was to be expected minus one thing.
KagayakiWashi (post: 1358225) wrote:Yesterday I continued watching movies and saw:
[color="Black"]Part of "What About Bob" which is a personal favorite[/color]
"The Incredible Mr. Fox" which was a fun watch with incredible animation
Part of "The Nightmare Beofre Christmas" in hi-def
And finally "Doubt", which was excellent.
Over against this interpretation, please read my final critical analysis in The Horror Film titled "Into the Horseman's Forest: Characterization in Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow" (link) for a more balanced critique. As I see it, Sleepy Hollow is a film illustrating the need for renewed theological emphasis on the maternalistic qualities of deity, which I argue can be met through the study of the rich body of Wisdom material in scripture and extra-scriptural Jewish and Christian writing. You can jeer all you want, but the historical fact is that whenever the church is feeling really misogynistic, it goes on a witch hunt. For example, in the influential witch hunter's manual, Malleus Maleficarum, written by the Inquisitors Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, the authors angrily ask: "What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an unescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colors!" (p. 43, cited in Barbara Creed, The Monstrous Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis p. 75) Is it any wonder, then, that these men relished the opportunity to watch the pretty birds contort and sing under excruciating torture, all the while stripping them of their plumage and dignity? That being said, do you still believe Tim Burton's imagery is excessive when you enjoy the relative protection of the combined legacy of classical liberalism and three waves of feminism?Song_of_Storms (post: 1358459) wrote:[SIZE="1"]With Bill Murray? I love that movie! >w<
A friend came over, and we rented/watched The Corpse Bride and Sleepy Hollow. The Corpse Bride was okay, but Sleepy Hollow was painful. Between the annoying lead female and the fact witches triumph over God, I didn't find any reason to like this movie. I love how people think just because someone lived BEFORE THEM, thier joy in life was killing people. -and we all know how Christians killl women for drawing stars and clouds. Wow... we must all be total morons then, huh? Yes, I'm ranting. I have a reason to rant.[/SIZE]
Nonsense, my analytic approach to films and other aesthetic arts boosts enjoyment tenfold.Warrior 4 Jesus (post: 1358491) wrote:I'm all for critical thinking but over-analysing something that much can lead to sucking the very enjoyment from it.
Last week I watched the (older) version of The Importance of Being Earnest. Awesome adaptation of the play, which is itself hilarious in the best possible way. I got to watch it with my whole family, and everyone liked it.
GhostontheNet (post: 1358488) wrote:Over against this interpretation, please read my final critical analysis in The Horror Film titled "Into the Horseman's Forest: Characterization in Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow" (link) for a more balanced critique. As I see it, Sleepy Hollow is a film illustrating the need for renewed theological emphasis on the maternalistic qualities of deity, which I argue can be met through the study of the rich body of Wisdom material in scripture and extra-scriptural Jewish and Christian writing. You can jeer all you want, but the historical fact is that whenever the church is feeling really misogynistic, it goes on a witch hunt. For example, in the influential witch hunter's manual, Malleus Maleficarum, written by the Inquisitors Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, the authors angrily ask: "What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an unescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colors!" (p. 43, cited in Barbara Creed, The Monstrous Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis p. 75) Is it any wonder, then, that these men relished the opportunity to watch the pretty birds contort and sing under excruciating torture, all the while stripping them of their plumage and dignity? That being said, do you still believe Tim Burton's imagery is excessive when you enjoy the relative protection of the combined legacy of classical liberalism and three waves of feminism?
I am responsive to a well-reasoned argument, provided one can be made. But if you don't feel your rebuttal is compelling enough to defend your own viewpoint, I admire your humility. I'm sure the reason I've been listening to underground music and watching strange and unusual films all these years is that I have close affinity with every trend in pop culture. If it's not in, I'm out, that's what I always say. I understand that until very recently, America felt strongly enough about torture to include a clause against it in the Bill of Rights. Although these days, some feel that a millenarian witch hunt of another kind is important enough to justify its revival, so it's up to every blue-blooded American to determine whether the founding principles or political expediency should prevail. Either way, there's a long precedent for it in American history, which is an important part of the meaning of Sleepy Hollow. If being brutally tortured because one is a woman--and everybody knows those batting eyes are an obvious indication black magic is afoot--is not a very obvious example of institutionalized sexism, I don't know what is. But this story too is another very important story in American history, and we can't afford to forget it simply because it makes us feel bad. If anyone should be "just a little disturbed you'll find means to defend anything", it's me in regard to your indifference to the historical torture of your own gender and anyone else who occupies the role of the feared Other. Anyway, it's wrong to say the wicked witch and the Horseman defeat God, they only destroy the faithless servants who would presume to falsely represent God for their own ends. After all, no sooner does Ichabod point out that the Horseman cannot enter the hallowed grounds of the church, than the town minister frantically exclaims "We have to save ourselves!" before using the cross as an old rugged blunt force instrument to murder his rival, effectively denying the very core of the Christian faith in his words and actions. Now, if the church burned down, the wicked witch seized control of Sleepy Hollow, and/or the townspeople all died, you might have a case that Tim Burton's narrative indicates that God is defeated. Lacking this, it's clear you need to read the film more carefully.Song_of_Storms (post: 1358543) wrote:[SIZE="1"]After I typed a lengthy response, I decided not to. This isn't the defend your views thread, and I know no matter what I say won't change your wrong perspective anyway. So, go ahead and think like that. You and the rest of pop culture. It doesn't make it correct, regardless of what you think.
Oh, one thing though. Tossing around the liberal and sexist cards means nothing to me. I'm just a little disturbed you'll find means to defend anything.[/SIZE]
I'm sure the reason I've been listening to underground music and watching strange and unusual films all these years is that I have close affinity with every trend in pop culture.
Warrior 4 Jesus (post: 1358491) wrote:I'm all for critical thinking but over-analysing something that much can lead to sucking the very enjoyment from it.
GhostontheNet (post: 1358614) wrote:Lacking this, it's clear you need to read the film more carefully.
GhostontheNet (post: 1358493) wrote:Nonsense, my analytic approach to films and other aesthetic arts boosts enjoyment tenfold.
ChristianKitsune (post: 1358495) wrote:I JUST watched that movie for the first time last week! It was the one with Colin Firth though... so I'm not sure if that's the older version or not XD.
In order to be pretentious, I have to make claims not justified by the reality of my actions. As I am here quoted here, I've made three claims: a.) that I possess a savvy for underground music, b.) that I have an affinity for strange and unusual films, and c.) that these traits are inconsistent with an accusation that I slavishly follow every trend of pop culture. The first claim is easily proved by the fact that since the Summer of 2006, I have run an underground Internet radio station which, throughout the entire span of its history, has attracted hundreds of thousands of listeners (I should break the one million mark by 2010). My musical selections, meanwhile, have garnered no small amount of astonishment and praise, both from a wealth of everyday individuals, and from people with with a level of training and experience in music and the arts that is nothing to be sneezed at. And God continues to be my guide throughout, which says a lot right there. My second claim, meanwhile, is fairly easily proved with a good look at the films I've posted throughout the history of this thread. If you were to pick them up and watch them, I'm sure they would lead you down the rabbit hole and into Wonderland, to say the least. The third claim follows from the other two, and justly assumes that a person who slavishly follows pop culture is afraid to venture into unfamiliar territory because it would mark them off for their idiosyncrasies. Now, none of this means that I am better or special in a way that others are not. Anyone can do what I have done, provided they are not resigned to remain sitting on their hands. Remember, Joseph is constantly accused of rank pretension, but with God at his side he always delivers beyond anyone's wildest imagination, even his own.Tarnish (post: 1358620) wrote:No, I'm pretty sure you're just pretentious.
Simple enough, the least common denominator is an easy standard to attain (and maintain). I can just sit idly as one of the best works of my all-time favorite director, the man whose movies I literally grew up on, is carelessly slandered on the flimsiest of evidence. Never mind artistic integrity, we're all here for light entertainment, or spreading nasty rumors, as the case may be. And because Song_of_Storms plays the old hit-and-run card of bringing up her points while claiming not to bring them up so that she can get the last word, suddenly I'm in the wrong because I respond to her points.Radical Dreamer wrote:Thought it may "boost your enjoyment," Ghost, you are in the minority on a website like this. While analysis of any creative work can be very enlightening, please recall that not all people find such heavy discussion enjoyable. Some people enjoy movies simply for the movies' sake, and I'd like to ask that you would think twice before pressing the matter with people who don't want to argue with you, especially when it comes down to a matter of moral conviction. Remember Romans 14 and let the arguments go, please.
Return to General Entertainment
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 279 guests