Except that Doug didn't "trash" Altman and TLG.
He suggested that the movie was a revisionist take on the
book. Which it is.
> I don't like Altman and have
> >never seen the movie, but I understand it to be
a
> >revisionist take on the Chandler character,
no?
Then Doug attacks REVISIONISM and only by inference Altman or
the movie--
> >Revisionism is a lazy man's crutch for
insight:
> >pointing out that Marlowe, or characters like
him, are
> >romantic idealized figures that could never
exist in a
> >"heroic way", anyway, in reality seems to me,
again,
> >to miss the point.
> >
> >doug
Whoa! He really trashed Altman there. (NOTE THE SERIOUS
SARCASM) Altman might have missed the point. Ouch
I've never seen SAW III but I can suggest that it's a
horrible movie based on the majority of film critics across
America who've said so. Paid professionals who have watched a
lot of movies. I don't need to have seen every single movie
or read every single book to comment on it. That's futile.
"I'm sorry I can't continue this argument because I haven't
read X book. Give me two weeks and I'll get back to this
discussion."
Oh, and I will go on record as saying that Altman missed the
point on The Long Goodbye. Ooh, scandalous. He also missed
the point on Popeye, OC and Stiggs, Dr. T and His Women,
Cookie's Fortune and even, gasp, Gosford Park, where he made
a whodunnit where the murder victim isn't even killed until
halfway into the movie and the mystery is unsolveable by the
viewer. I don't care how many awards that won, it's a bad
movie. I've SEEN all those movies, by the way.
-Channing
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 24 Feb 2007 EST