I was kind of waiting for a film geek to chime in, and I'm glad it happened.
It's like the snobby rock critic, but way more vague.
The condescending opinion stated as fact.
Q:Why is it "not good"?
A: Because it just isn't, and I said so. Trust me. I would know. I'm a film student.
Also, he predictably picks out the 2 most obscure movies they've ever released, and automatically crowns them the only watchable films in their vault.
*yawn*
Well, I'm not really sure how to respond to that completely unwarranted personal attack, but I'll have a crack:
Do you have trouble with reading comprehension or something (It would be safe to assume reading and writing isn't your forte, seeing as you fail to correctly spell the name of the subject you feel compelled to defend so vehemently)? I don't recall stating anything as fact. I would have assumed, since we are simply discussing a subject in which there is no fact - i.e. a film cannot be "Factually" a "Good" film, since the very notion of "Good" depends entirely on feelings and outlooks which are ultimately personal, meaning that there is no universal standard for it – that what I wrote would be considered my OPINION, and I don’t remember assuming any air of superiority, unlike your sanctimonious ass.
David Bordwell, who is considered one of the most prominent film academics in the world, (and does know more about movies than you, no matter how obnoxious you choose to be about the fact that someone who watches movies for a living might be a tad more knowledgeable than you about the subject - would you be as big an asshole to an astrophysics student if they contradicted your amateur opinion on that subject? Thought not.) said that when it comes to Coen Brothers films there is "Nothing there", and I was merely echoing that sentiment, not because I can't form my own opinion, but because I agree with him. In terms of the deeper underlying subtext in their work, their films are not particularly rich as compared to directors such as, say, David Cronenberg, Alfonso Cuaron or Terence Malick, whose movies are far more layered with interesting (To people who realise that using the phrase "Anything good ones I'm missing?" makes you look a complete dumbass, anyway) sociopolitical and philosophical readings. The whole point of theoretical film studies is to extract those readings in the same way that an English Lit. student does from a literary text. Did you think we just sat on our asses all day watching films and labeling them "Good" or "Bad" at the end, before putting the next DVD in? Fuck off.
The Coen's films tend to be entertaining and little else. Of course, I never claimed that there was anything wrong with that: they have added some classic moments to the canon of film history, but in terms of appealing to people who want to come out of a movie saying something more substantial than "I really like the dialogue and the northern accents" (Your wholly incisive analysis of Fargo), they offer little. My saying "for pure entertainment value you can't beat them" and "They haven't really made a dull film, actually..." hardly insinuates that I don't like the Coen Brothers, rather that I don't think they are particularly good directors in terms of the sub-textual depth of their films, which some people would argue is the point of making films in the first place. Another thing that pissed me off is the fact that Sammy Scales mentioned the two films that I did, and yet you ignored that and tried to pigeonhole me as a pretentious **** with some bollocks about me "Crowning" those as "the only watchable films in their vault", which I absolutely did not even suggest, let alone stress enough to imply that I was performing "Crowning" of any kind. Since when does describing films as "probably their best" mean that I think they're the only ones worth watching? It's another perfect example of your lack of brain activity, unfortunately, and for that I'd suggest either night school or cyanide. If you busied yourself actually reading my response rather than concentrating on how quickly you could attack it, you might not look like such a cognitively challenged fuckwit, but where's the fun in that, right? Like most people on internet forums, you'd rather act like a cocky git and not have to face up to the real life consequences like the personality malnourished shit eater that you are. The only "Crowning" you'll get out of me is now: I hereby crown you the biggest dumbass on the TMF.
Q: (Note the massively demanding use of space bar) I disagree with this guy. Should I respond in a respectful and non-confrontational manor?
A: Nah! I just shouldn't. Trust me: I've done this before. I'm an asshole.
For future reference: "When it comes to cinema, its a subjective art... and pfromptown is entitled to his opinion." - is the way to do it. It's called being polite.
I'm sorry if you feel I've been harsh on you, but I'm sick and tired of people like you behaving the way you have and I want you to know it.
Sammy Scales:
Thank you for arguing respectfully, I appreciate it even more in the light of the O.P's ill-advised motherfuckery.
I respect your opinion, but I guess I just disagree with you, mostly for the reasons stated above in my reply to him but also because of the fact that I personally don't think that because a flick is shot beautifully it is necessarily a good film: Deakins, who deserves his legendary status as a DOP (Did you know he actually built a camera to film the bowling scenes in Lebowski? Like built it from scratch? What a frickin' dude!), has made many poor films seem better than they actually are: The Shawshank Redemption, which is another massively entertaining film with nothing else to it, being a case in point. The Coen's films are often technically marvellous, in fact I'd say that they all are, but so are Michael Bay's: do you know what I mean? I'm aware that they're revered in Hollywood but I honestly think that that is because compared to most Hollywood filmmakers they come across as smart, and let's not forget, this is the same Hollywood and Screen Actor's Guild (For the most part at least) that voted Sandra Bullock as the Best Actress of 2010, which hopefully illustrates how much credence I would give to the fact that they have won four Academy Awards...
Their screenwriting IS wonderful but often appears to be more original than it is: they copied the idea for O, Brother... from a 30s novel which set the story of Hercules in Mississippi, for example. I think they have written some of the most sparkling, funny, impeccably timed dialogue ever, and their biggest strength is perhaps choosing the perfect actors to deliver it, but at the end of the day that only reinforces my main point about the Coen Brothers: Style over substance.
