I was gonna spend 10 minutes on a mini-review here, but I can't beat dungeonstudio's perfectly appropriate title for his/her user review: "Manically Pretentious And Shamefully Useless."
Yup. It is. And thanks for saving me the time, dungeon.
Anyone who actually thinks the phrase "manically pretentious and shamefully useless" is worthy of praise should keep their reviews to themselves anyway. Oh, and A SAFE PLACE is a remarkable movie... to those with taste (and the capacity for emotion).
shareIt is worthy of praise not only as applied to the film, but also to your pretentious and useless reply here.
Who should "keep their [sic] reviews to themselves anyway"? That would be those who feel the compelling need to post yet another "if you don't like the movie I like, it's because you don't have taste or the capacity for emotion, or you don't like women, or you're a racist, or you're just not smart enough, or whatever" response out here.
Pretentious. And useless.
There is nothing more useless than saying: "I was gonna trash this movie, but since someone beat me to the punch I'll just ape their comments and thank them as though I would have employed the same awkwardly assembled multi-syllabic verbiage they did in doing so." You're like a turd in the sun, repellant to all while putting forth no effort.
shareHere's one thing that's more useless, for example: Some pretentious and useless ignoramus like yourself, arbitrarily placing some kind of *beep* requirement on every poster that would prevent them from ever seconding anybody else's work, for reasons known only to himself (that's "yourself," in case you're having trouble following), then following up with some equally ridiculous and useless metaphor that you either heard somewhere and mistook for something profound, or maybe you generated it yourself and thereby convinced yourself of your own droll smackdown genius.
You're out of gas and badly out of your league. You have no rationale whatsoever for objecting to a brief post agreeing with somebody else's assessment of a film, and then coming back multiple times just to engage an OP for whatever obsessive reasons rattle around in your own head.
Also: It's "repellent." Not that better spelling would've made any difference at all.
Whether you give it up or keep going and continue to prove yourself an even bigger idiot, I really don't care which.
[deleted]
Well well, look who finally crawled back from his self-made gutter of faux superiority. Welcome back, EMNCAITY. You and your second-hand "opinions" were sorely missed.
"You're out of gas and badly out of your league."
No, I feel quite at home crossing swords with self-designated intellectuals, especially narrow-minded blowhards like yourself. Regurgitate any good perspectives lately?
"It's 'repellent.' Not that better spelling would've made any difference at all."
You'll want to research the two spellings as they are both widely accepted as correct for the context in which I employed the word. A bit of advice: Look into what you're planning to attack someone about. It's a great way to avoid looking like a dribbling dolt. Whoops, too late.
A SAFE PLACE may not be to your liking, but it's a film that ushered forth a long-lasting career for Henry Jaglom, who is still making movies. It also managed to attract some talent of extreme note, including Orson Welles, Jack Nicholson and Tuesday Weld, none of whom would agree to take part in a project that is "Manically Pretentious And Shamefully Useless". While you didn't connect with the picture, it likely deserves a bit more respect than your parroting of a pre-existing review. It would seem the only way to incite effort from you is to get you angry, which would appear to be your only real emotion, based on your cold, pseudo-pithy responses here.
Also, I couldn't help but notice your asinine response to BOB998's negative post, in which you essentially trashed "the period" in which this film was made (the early 1970s).
You ridiculously stated: "Sometimes I look back at films from this time and am just amazed at the mixture of didacticism and transparent vapidity, as if the point were to instruct the backward and unenlightened audience in ways of being liberated and letting go of antique ideas of meaning and structure."
First off, A SAFE PLACE (as an example of films from the period) doesn't strike me as a film that encourages anti-establishment/counter-culture ideals, but rather illustrates the pitfalls inherent in living outside the norm. Susan (Weld's character) winds up alone and miserable in a state of near-madness at the film's finale. The commune-like group she spends time with may create the impression that it's a pro-hippie statement movie, and to someone like you - who is clearly guarded against anything that could potentially challenge "meaning and structure" - such sentiment, no matter how superficial, is the kiss of death. The irony, of course, is that this film doesn't even serve as an example of such socio-political messaging. Oh, and what an insightful take on the films of the late '60s and early '70s, pointing out that they appear to be challenging the social traditions that cling to keeping women in the home and allowing the draft to eliminate the bulk of a nation's youth. We all appreciate the update, professor.
By the way, Gwen Welles was a talent. She wasn't rescued by Altman, she earned her opportunities and excelled in NASHVILLE and CALIFORNIA SPLIT (among other films) because she was a gifted actress. If you were displeased with her work in A SAFE PLACE, it could be due to the fact that she wasn't acting so much as expelling genuine emotion, which likely made you uncomfortable because - let's be honest - emotion is for the weak, right? Say it. You know you're aching to.
One more thing: I hope you're not expecting BOB998 to respond to your post, which came off as a thinly veiled and outrageously desperate attempt to either garner a much-needed friend or recruit a like-minded comrade in arms to fend off opposing forces such as myself. Either way, he's clearly not the type to engage in an interaction with anyone who uses masturbatory terms like "transparent vapidity". Also, your tantrum-like response to my last post could have been a major turn-off to the guy, which is a shame considering that the two of you were like peas in a pod with your shared annoyance of early '70s cinema. Better luck next time, lone wolf.
It also managed to attract some talent of extreme note, including Orson Welles, Jack Nicholson and Tuesday Weld, none of whom would agree to take part in a project that is "Manically Pretentious And Shamefully Useless".
What a disappointing response. You're obviously grasping at straws (again), and your desperation is more evident than ever. I'm happy to let you have the last word here, as you clearly feel you need it, but I must wrap things up by stating that you're a despicable waste of flesh and as such it doesn't surprise me that you found nothing of worth in this movie. What a pitiful exchange this turned out to be, owing entirely to your ingnorance and wholly unjustified arrogance.
One last thing: Stop watching movies. They're meant to incite emotional responses in viewers, and since you're obviously adverse to emotion (or simply don't have any) you're wasting your time.
It's truly shamefully useless, like every other one of Jaglom's films I've seen. Tuesday Weld is more annoying than I dreamed possible--even for the period. Nicholson at least brings some spirit to the project, I'll never tire of watching a lounge lizard at work. Gwen Welles is lucky that Altman found her and put her in Nashville and California Split.
shareYeah, I agree, and I think the key phrase is "even for the period." Sometimes I look back at films from this time and am just amazed at the mixture of didacticism and transparent vapidity, as if the point were to instruct the backward and unenlightened audience in ways of being liberated and letting go of antique ideas of meaning and structure. Nicholson survived films like this, IMHO, because he always seemed to be tuned to a different station, thankfully. (Agreed on Gwen Welles also, btw.)
share