[atsonicpark]

Thanks for all that, Count Mecha. I don't like Breathless very much, honestly. Er, when I say "don't like"... I recognize its importance, and it's entertaining enough, but I just can't comprehend why it's Godard's most reccomended work by so many people.

Actually, Band of Outsidera and Contempt are always reccomended too and those are some of his worst!

I HIGHLY reccomend Pierrot Le Fou -- not only one of his best, if not his best, but an excellent starting point, as it encapsulates his first period, and many of the things he'd explore until his first "break" after Weekend. It's colorful, entertaining, and rips the fabric of film apart.It tells a story, it plays with cinematic conventions, and it flat-out has some of the best editing, sound (oh my god -- the soundtrack is AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!), and dialogue ever.

I'd also reccomend Week End -- that's the first one I saw and I loved it.

I also HIGHLY reccomend Slow Motion, after you've seen the other two. It's probably more in tune with the types of films you like. It's a bit slower, but it's by far his best film in my opinion. First of all, it actually has, uh, slow motion in it, a lot (a girl getting slapped in slow motion, a girl riding a bike in very windy weather in slow motion), which is extremely fascinating. I guess this is a spoiler, but... well... a character gets killed and there's this AMAZING music from an orchestra.. and the camera pans to the right and it shows the orchestra actually playing.. I guess that sentence sounds cheesy, but trust me, it's MINDBLOWING in the context of the movie. I reccomend it for the same reasons I reccomend pierrot -- it's colorful, the music's amazing, it plays with cinematic convention, the editing is probably the best, ever. But it's WAY darker.

As for my movie tastes, I just can't stand people who get so into "art films" and shit that they simply can't appreciate something mainstream. I have a friend.. er, well... not a friend.. I dont' like him very much at all, actually... he only buys Criterion films. Period. That's it. He confessed to me he doesn't even like a lot of them. But online, DAMN! He acts like he's the god of Criterion. THis is the same guy who said Salo was the best film ever and Taxi Driver was the most boring overrated film ever. He regularly "watches" 2-3 hour black and white "art" films, often of a political nature, and I know for a fact he isn't actually into that stuff, and he ends up fast forwarding through most of it. The point is, he's downright one of the stupidest people I've ever met, but he is constantly trying to pass himself off as some cool "intellectual" type.

Then again, there are also people solely into mainstream films, who dismiss anything the least bit experimental or artsy as "PRETENTIOUS". I've had a hell of a time with people who like that piece of shit Donnie Darko, trying to reccomend better films in somewhat similiar veins in various imdb posts, and people are like "UHH THAT SOUNDS SOOOOOOO PRETENTIOUS [aka the most overused, misused word on the internet, used by people who generally have no idea what it means]." I just like films, period, and I think anyone with a real interest in movies, and the language of cinema, doesn't mind who a film stars, who directed it, how much money it made -- all that matters is if it sounds interesting, and ultimately, if it is interesting. While everyone as their preference, my aforementioned "friend" simply WILL NOT watch any film that is shot on digital, ONLY watching stuff on film. While I, too, prefer the look of film -- really, who doesn't? -- that's about the most retarded thing I've ever heard... "Wow, this film sounds cool and.. oh, wait, digital? Nah, not going to watch it." He also said that no film shot on digital has ever been good, or ever will be. Oh, and he also said that if you watch movies on vhs, you haven't seen the film. He recently said blu-ray is the only way to watch a movie, and he ONLY buys blu-rays now. What's funny is he tries to come off as some "cool" cinemaphile but he is probably the most ignorant person I've ever met when it comes to movies. He doesn't know the difference between Godard and Trauffaut for example. Hell, he doesn't know the difference between Herzog and Lynch! He tries to be so fucking smart and cool on the internet but actually having a real life conversation with him is hilarious, because you realize within 5 minutes that he doesn't know shit about anything. The funniest thing is, as much as a supposed 'Art house' dude as he was, I know secretly he was watching shitty horror movies that he downloaded when no one was looking. Because he is actually the most simple person I've ever met. But he wants people to think he's an intellectual.

The sad thing is, there are TONS of people like that... people who won't enjoy movies because of some hidden bias. I guess that goes for a lot of bands too... "uhh, I won't bother with [random pitchfork band] because Pitchfork gave 'em a 9.2! Fuck them!"

I just try not to have a bias -- though, obviously, I hate certain actors and directors, I'll at least familiarize myself with a work before I criticize it or whatever. Or if a film doesn't look interesting to me, I just don't watch it.

Freddy Got Fingered is simply the most brilliant mainstream Hollywood comedy, since the golden days of stuff like Kentucky Fried Movie and Groove Tube. It gets by without tired drug jokes, fat jokes, etc... it's inventive, absurd, and genuinely funny. I've seen it 30-40 times now, and it never fails to get genuine laughs. I think Tom Green was going for something completely different than the usual Hollywood shitfest, and he succeeded. Because it didn't have an obvious hook (it couldn't just be called "stoner comey" for example), critics didn't know what to say about it. Luckily, audiences LOVED it, it made shit-tons of money, I saw it in theaters 4 times alone, and I've never met a person in real life who thought it was anything less than drop-dead hilarious. Unlike a lot of new comedies, it didn't annoy me. And it was surreal as hell -- a guy famous for going around annoying people makes a multimillion dollar movie.. it mixes animation, guest celebrities (Shaq?!), and truly original humor in a blender and offers it to an unsuspecting public, who had never seen anything like it. In recent years, with Tom GReen out of the limelight, people are being far more kind to it and seeing it as the Bunuel-like surrealist treat that it is.

What's funny is the same critics who tear Tom Green a new asshole are the ones who'll call Jackass 3D the funniest movie of all time, even though they haven't had an original idea in 10 years, are simply ripping off old MTV shows Buzzkill and The Tom Green Show, and worst of all, are the most annoying millionaire assholes ever. Bam Margera is the worst person to ever exist.

Anyway, I make no difference between what is "cool" to like and what isn't, I just try to appreciate a film on its own terms, and honestly, I can find something good in just about any film, and something bad about just about any film too... I think Mean Girls is just as good as Dog Star Man, and I think Die Hard with a Vengeance is just as good as the latest Criterion $80 DVD of the week. All that ultimately matters to me is a movie that is entertaining and/or inspiring. And that's what I base my "ratings" on. Fuck the rest. Look at Texas Chainsaw Massacre -- I gave it, like, a 5. I dont' care about its "importance"; the film is genuinely horrifying in parts, but about 50 minutes of the movie is a girl running and screaming. I'd give Halloween a 5/10, probably, as well. Sure, it was one of the first popular slasher movies (though H.G. Lewis invented the slasher film, in my opinion), but man is it ever boring to sit through. Hell, I think Halloween II is better! So, yeah, fuck "influence" and "importance", all that matters is a movie is entertaining, let Ebert sit around with a thumb up his fat ass and talk about how "influential" Star Wars is, and let him suck Jar Jar Binks's dick while he's at it.