...that the forum for this movie has none of the usual idiotic American teenagers complaining that "this movie sucks!" because there are no exploding helicopters or because you don't get to see the latest talentless starlet's breasts.
Although perhaps it's just that they'd never dream of watching it in the first place as it actually has some artistic merit.
Anyway. A masterpiece by any standard. A joy to watch.
Can't wait to see his latest offering, "Of Time and the City"
Seems like every movie I love has some jackass, or several, saying it's the worst movie they've ever seen, in their short existence.
I know what you mean... good to see a forum free of them, but I wish I saw more activity on Terence Davies boards.
Never would I expect him to be as popular as Danny Boyle or whathaveyou... still it's a shame he's not better respected among the movie literate today. I think the "serious critics" are more interested in abstract (Greenaway) or cynical (von Trier) pretensions and shock effects to move them out of their jaded complacency.
I cannot figure it any other way, why a fine cinematic poet such as Davies gets so little notice.
Maybe he doesn't include enough superfluous nature photography over simpleminded narration like the other Terence (Malick)?
Unfortunately, the alternative to exploding helicopters (which I really wouldn´t put down in principle lol) seems to be an empty stillness. Not what you´d call an active board, exactly.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
If you never give teenagers the chance to like a film with "artistic merit," they may never end up liking them at all.
share