quote:

My school stoppe d for the day and we watched the news, some people cried, "it was suc ha bad thing" but did we ever sit and discuss it? NO. NO WE CANT DO THAT. THE TV WILL TELL US WHAT HAPPENED. THEY WILL DISCUSS IT FOR US. THEY WILL TELL US WHAT TO THINK ABOUT IT HOW TO FEEL

Kyle, where did you go to school? Is there a poster of Big Brother in every classroom?

I attended high school in one of the worst systems in the country (Mobile County, Ala.), and we spent most of the day watching the news and discussing the events -- the repercussions and the causes, how something like this happened, how the country will change, how Islam will be portrayed. We didn't stare at the television and cry. Maybe you should have sparked a discussion in your classroom; you'll be surprised by what some people have to say.

btw harris you *******, "****ing fascist" is from the Big Lebowski, you would know that if you weren't such worthless white trash, and watched something other than armageddon and XXX: State of the Union

I've seen The Big Lebowski but I didn't make that connection until you explained it. I think calling someone "worthless white trash" because they didn't get an obscure reference is a little over the top. Take it easy.

I agree "worthless white trash" is just a pinch over the top. Pretty bold statement from a newb.

Especially from a n00b who doesn't understand Harris' humor.

Back on topic... World Trade Center was a very whatever movie. I can't say it sucked because it didn't offend me every step of the way as I expected it to. On the other hand, it was a pretty damn worthless movie. I don't know; the fact that 9/11 was the setting didn't really add anything to the movie for me. All around, not worth the ticket price or wait time dling it on Bittorrent.

elliott (otiose)...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MeGrimlock,

To rework a quote attributed to Churchill: 'only good movies are interesting.' Well, not always, but polemicizing about mediocre pap seems like a waste of time.

i didnt go to school that day

quote:

I think calling someone "worthless white trash" because they didn't get an obscure reference is a little over the top.

No, he's right. I live in Alabama, and the only movies we get down here are Michael Bay films and the occasional flick from that Chinaman who did Face/Off. Actually, I don't get to see too many films. During the winter and on rainy nights (all our theaters are drive-ins) we like to study grammar, syntax, diction and other redneck past times.

Speaking of the Coen Brothers, I think I'd like to see World Trade Center if only for the spectacle of Nic Cage with his first mustache since (correct me if I'm wrong) Raising Arizona.

Dam Dirty Apes

quote:

if only for the spectacle of Nic Cage with his first mustache since (correct me if I'm wrong) Raising Arizona.

didn't he have a mustache at the start of Face/Off, when he killed Vinnie Barbarino's kid?

Films like WTC and Flight 93 are emotionally exploitative. Same thing with The Nativity and Passion of the Christ. People involved in those topics feel it is their duty to see the movie, and directors know that. I watch director interviews of them saying "This film needed to be made" and I think...mmm, I don't think so. Hollywood is a money-driven business, not an easel for you to paint your inner angst. Involving topics like 9/11 into a money-making industry undermines the sensitivity of the situation to a certain extent.

At the same time, 9/11 movies are no different than any other Vietnam movie or Desert Storm movie or Iraq movie. They are movies made about war, and people enjoy them, one way or another.

quote:

didn't he have a mustache at the start of Face/Off, when he killed Vinnie Barbarino's kid?

What? Where? Damn, you're right. Why the hell were you watching Face/Off, HDK? That movie rocks.

Funkbomb, I think you're mostly right about the production of these 9/11 films, at least in the context of today's Hollywood. However, as you go on to observe, Hollywood has given birth to plenty of Vietnam films, more than a few of which I think are great, honest cinema, so how do we judge the motivation of their creators? I don't think it's fair or adequate to say Hollywood has changed that dramatically; it's more in the nature of the stories that we see a difference. These 9/11 films seem to be all of a rally-America-we-stand-united mentality, whereas the great 'Nam flicks were inspired by anger, loss, frustration, etc.

Something interesting: Stone crafted Platoon around his own experiences in the war. I wonder how different World Trade Center would have been had he been an immediate presence during the 9/11 drama.

"However, as you go on to observe, Hollywood has given birth to plenty of Vietnam films, more than a few of which I think are great, honest cinema"

And the only honest ones were made during the '70s or early '80s, when Hollywood still had enough room to allow those types of films to occasionally be made. Hollywood *has* changed quite a bit. Also, a director like Cimino did everything possible to make his movie outside of Hollywood's grasp but using its money.

The only good Gulf War film that was made is Three Kings.

If a dozen more big-budget 9/11 films are made, maybe one or two of them could be good. So far, though, they're batting .000.

And yes, it's inherently exploitative to make a film about the event that is a commercial, profit-oriented endeavor. If they were challenging, less than fully mainstream, or somehow interesting, the commercial interests would not be as starkly obvious - WWII films can be exploitative (Private Ryan) but the best in that genre function so well as art that the somewhat dubious origins are not an issue.

I cant wait for a comedy about 11/9. Like Benigni did with The Holocaust in Life is Beautiful

quote:

What? Where? Damn, you're right. Why the hell were you watching Face/Off, HDK?

Believe it or not there was a time when I would see even the ****tiest of Cage films, back in the day of course, when he was the best actor around (an honour currently limited, imo, to Mike Pitt). Who could forget the his brillian performances in Birdy, Peggy Sue Got Married, Wild at Heart and of course Leaving Las Vegas.

Leaving Las Vegas is awesome -- one of only two movies raised to an intolerable level of greatness by Sting; the other is Dune.

You mean Michael Pitt as in Tommy Gnosis? I think I'm only familiar with him because of that role.

quote:

Originally posted by Evan Kubota:
"And yes, it's inherently exploitative to make a film about the event that is a commercial, profit-oriented endeavor. If they were challenging, less than fully mainstream, or somehow interesting, the commercial interests would not be as starkly obvious - WWII films can be exploitative (Private Ryan) but the best in that genre function so well as art that the somewhat dubious origins are not an issue.

Unless you:

A) are born rich
B) have a steady regular job outside of film
C) are okay with starving to death

EVERY film is a commericial, profit-oriented endeavor. I understand that you mean exclusively but I would put forth that that is a false assertion. I don't understand how Private Ryan is exploitative while let's say, oh Seizon isn't. You can't make blanket statements that exclude yourself because you question the relative merits and intentions of someone else's art. It's a bit presumptious and very rude.

To say that everyone at Paramount and Oliver Stone had no compassion or personal reasons to make WTC is almost 99.99999% false. But I can't presume to know that for sure and neither can you.

It's a straw man argument to say that something doesn't have the right to exist. You can say it's exploitative based on the way it handles its content such as Pearl Harbor and that's what I think you were getting at when you brought up Private Ryan. That's cool. But WTC has every right to exist and be made commercially. Every book written about 9/11 was a commericial, profit-driven endeavor for somebody.

Unless you use entirely your own money and man-power, Art and Commerce are linked and each has a responsibility to the other.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Daniel McLellan,

quote:

Art and Commerce are linked and each has a responsibility to the other.

It doesn't mean you have to sell out... It just means that if you use somebody else's money or labor you have a financial responsibility to them.

What an anomaly. HDK, your post is the funniest thing I've seen in God knows how long. On the other hand, I know the next time I watch Empire, I won't even hear "I am your father"; instead, James Earl Jones will be booming, "Art and commerce are linked." Damn.

I mostly agree with you, Daniel, though I don't believe every film is a profit-oriented endeavor. I certainly don't count myself among them, but there are a strange few who just like makin' movies.

See I'd argue that they want to see profit to fund their next movie... Maybe they should be decrying where the profits go rather than the fact that one is being made. If you make no profit than you can't make another movie.