The director has NO visual style at all.
Wow, this was probably the most visually bland film I've watched since Breach.
NO, YOU IS DEFINITELY SUCK!
See? I can type like a moron, too.
Now that you are 5 yrs older maybe time for a relook? Saw your comment about The Godfather and if it took multiple viewings for that one (and all the others listed in your post) maybe it's time to rematch this one?
shareNow that you are 5 yrs older maybe time for a relook? Saw your comment about The Godfather and if it took multiple viewings for that one (and all the others listed in your post) maybe it's time to rewatch this one?Hell no. 1st, the movie is still visually bland five years later. I streamed the film on a movie website recently and watched a few minutes in different spots, it's still visually insipid. 2nd, there has to be at least ONE element of the film that I liked to warrant a rewatch. In all the cases with those previous movies I've listed, I didn't like them overall on first viewing but those films still had some appeal, whether it was a great score, great acting/characters etc. There was nothing about The Red Violin that I liked. And 3rd, this movie isn't wildly acclaimed or particularly notable. I never see this film mentioned anywhere. It got mixed reviews upon release and it hasn't gotten better over the past 16 years:
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-red-violin
Religion should be made fun of. If I believed that stuff, I'd keep it to myself. -Larry David share
I agree at first the film doesn't really catch the admiration of the eye, but once the story gets going, and we get Vienna it starts to look a little better. I think mostly the problem is with the HD transfer, which is really bland and I hear not much sharper than the DVD.
It should be given a higher quality release, re-colored to fit modern presentation. Give it a few years and maybe we'll get it.
Hell no. 1st, the movie is still visually bland five years later. I streamed the film on a movie website recently and watched a few minutes in different spots, it's still visually insipid. 2nd, there has to be at least ONE element of the film that I liked to warrant a rewatch. In all the cases with those previous movies I've listed, I didn't like them overall on first viewing but those films still had some appeal, whether it was a great score, great acting/characters etc. There was nothing about The Red Violin that I liked. And 3rd, this movie isn't wildly acclaimed or particularly notable. I never see this film mentioned anywhere. It got mixed reviews upon release and it hasn't gotten better over the past 16 years:
I don't understand your point, why do you need to be auteur to make a good film?I know the auteur movement has been a popular one for the last 40 years, but it really doesn't reflect great direction at all. You know who never had a visual style? Robert Wise...and yet he's made some of the best films I've ever seen. Did you know that The Set Up, The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Sound of Music, and The Sand Pebbles were all directed by the same man? I find it fascinating that someone can have such a wide range and such a flexible style and palette. Orson Wells also never had a visual style. It all really depends on how you see the purpose of the director, is he a photographer like John Ford? Or is he a storyteller like Robert Wise?
I actually think it's tacky and gimmicky to use the same techniques over and over again. Directors like Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorcese have never done anything for me as a film enthusiast and their technique is starting to fade and fizzle as they get older.
This director on the other hand legitimately set out to tell a beautiful story and make a well crafted piece of cinema. He succeeds because he avoids all of the obvious film traps that many directors fall into. He doesn't need a visual style to tell this story, he allows the cinematography to illustrate this himself.
The film has beautiful cinematography, you can't deny that. It just doesn't have cliche over stylized elements in it, big deal. I can live without them.
Also, yes the film is widely acclaimed for reasons you don't understand. Perhaps you need to give it 5 more years. I don't know how old you are, it's possible that you will never understand the beauty of The Red Violin. That's ok, I'm sure there are plenty of other overrated films out there with gimmicky cinematography for you to salivate over. I know they play The Godfather on tv a lot. Some people just don't like art, that's ok. No one is forcing you to watch it.
For the record, I once felt the same way you did. I thought the film was boring, long, and visually bland. It really took some time for me to appreciate it from a cinematic perspective. share
I don't know how old you are, it's possible that you will never understand the beauty of The Red Violin... Some people just don't like art, that's ok.Don't condescend to me, you f-cking prick. You couldn't recognize art even if you attended a filmmaking workshop hosted by David Lean, Kubrick and Sergio Leone, with a special appearance from Haskell Wexler.
Also, I guarantee I'm considerably older than you. Otherwise, if you're over 30 and regularly watch Girl Meets World on the Disney Channel, then you've got issues to sort through.
why do you need to be auteur to make a good film?I never said the director needed to be an auteur. However, the director must attempt to make his film visually appealing to the viewer. Film is a visual medium or are you not aware of this fact?
And yes, I am well aware of the films of Robert Wise. And while he may not have been an auteur, his various films like The Sound of Music, West Side Story, The Haunting, The Day the Earth Stood Still and even Star Trek were visually appealing and had instantly memorable visuals (cinematography, art direction, blocking, framing etc). Spielberg also doesn't have a distinct visual signature that's consistent in all of his films. However, many of his movies have their own unique visual style, (E.T., Close Encounters, Raiders, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report and so on) and imagery from his films have been permanently ingrained in my collective memory. And why? Because he actually knows how to tell a story visually using a f-cking camera.
Directors like Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorcese have never done anything for me as a film enthusiastWell, it's a good thing you're not a film enthusiast. Also, it's spelled S-C-O-R-S-E-S-E.
The film has beautiful cinematography, you can't deny that.The cinematography is bland. Hell, I've seen YouTube videos with more interesting camera work than this generic crap. There, I denied it. Whaddya gonna do about it??
This director made a well crafted piece of cinema... Also, yes the film is widely acclaimed for reasons you don't understand.Yes, an average rating of 57/100 from film critics is the definition of "widely acclaimed". Yes, also, don't forget The Red Violin is on a number of best films lists. But my memory is fuzzy. Which lists were those again??
Some people just don't like art.Yes, stick to your artsy programming like Girl Meets World and Melissa and Joey. I'll watch my generic crap like Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now, Come and See and The Knick.
Religion should be made fun of. If I believed that stuff, I'd keep it to myself. -Larry David share
Don't condescend to me, you f-cking prick.
Then stop acting like a moron and I'll talk to you like you're an intelligent person.
Also, stop claiming your opinion is a fact. You didn't like the film, fine, but don't say the film is generic crap. Just say you don't like it, simple as that. A lot of work, talent, and skill went into this film. The director filmed everything on location, used actors from the actual countries, used the actual language instead of bad accents. The film also takes great care with the props that were used to make the film feel authentic and real. I'm surprised to see someone show such a downright disrespect for a film.
On top of all of that, the film does a fantastic job with its cinematography. It's subtle, it doesn't shove gooey exalting Spielberg-esque tracking shots in your face. That's nice for a change. I get sick of the same boring manipulative camera work cliches we get with directors these days. Shaky cam, dolly zooms, extreme close ups, sideways tracking shots (wow Scorsese really loves these), track in shots. Why do we even need all of this camera trickery anyway? A good story doesn't actually need these, but a bad story or a bad director relies on them. That's something people just don't understand at all. They see a pretty shot and they think "oooh this director is great!" No he's not...he's photographic, but that has nothing to do with telling a story well.
Truth is...I'm fcking bored with most movies because they're all the same. It's nice to watch a movie like the Red Violin that's just....different and subtle. It doesn't need to shove its cinematography down my face. It doesn't shove quirky humor down my face with "clever" jump cuts like Quentin Tarantino always does.
You couldn't recognize art even if you attended a filmmaking workshop hosted by David Lean, Kubrick and Sergio Leone, with a special appearance from Haskell Wexler.
Of course I do, much more than you ever could. I've been watching films for 20 years. I appreciate this film, you lack the ability to appreciate a good movie because you're too busy ogling over slick camera work that people like Spielberg or Scorsese overuse.
Also, I guarantee I'm considerably older than you.
Doubt it
Otherwise, if you're over 30 and regularly watch Girl Meets World on the Disney Channel, then you've got issues to sort through.
The same issues a supposedly over 30 year old person has when they are calling a supposed "under 30 something year old" a "fcking prick?" If you talk this way to people in real life, you are the person with real issues. I suggest some Valium and a padded cell.
Just because you post on a message board doesn't mean like what you're posting about. I used to watch Boy Meets World 20 years ago, so I decided to see what the sequel was all about out of curiosity. What's the harm in that? I'm sure you have plenty of mindless things you enjoy. Do you play video games? You don't think that's mindless? Do you have a smart phone? Also mindless. Oh and posting here is pretty mindless as well, at least your posts have been mindless.
Your message board history is not a bragging right, it's a form of recreation.
I never said the director needed to be an auteur.
No, you pretty much implied that only good directors have a stylized vision.
However, the director must attempt to make his film visually appealing to the viewer.
It is a visually appealing film. If you didn't get that out of the film then you did not actually watch the film. There are plenty of visually creative and beautiful scenes. My favorite one is the scene where Kasper and Poussin are looking at Vienna through the carriage. This scene really had no effect on you at all?
Film is a visual medium or are you not aware of this fact?
A film is not just a visual medium, it's many things. It's an aural medium as well.
And yes, I am well aware of the films of Robert Wise. And while he may not have been an auteur, his various films like The Sound of Music, West Side Story, The Haunting, The Day the Earth Stood Still and even Star Trek were visually appealing and had instantly memorable visuals (cinematography, art direction, blocking, framing etc).
And so is the Red Violin.
Spielberg also doesn't have a distinct visual signature that's consistent in all of his films. However, many of his movies have their own unique visual style, (E.T., Close Encounters, Raiders, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report and so on) and imagery from his films have been permanently ingrained in my collective memory. And why? Because he actually knows how to tell a story visually using a f-cking camera.
I think Spielberg is the worst director I've ever seen. If you think Spielberg is a good director, than I know for a fact that my cinematic palette is 100 times more broad than yours could ever be.
Well, it's a good thing you're not a film enthusiast. Also, it's spelled S-C-O-R-S-E-S-E.
I know how his name is spelled, I just don't care enough to spell it right because I hate his movies.
The cinematography is bland.
It's beautiful. Take another look. Or go back to watching Scorsese films.
Hell, I've seen YouTube videos with more interesting camera work than this generic crap.
Like what? Generic? That's funny. There is absolutely nothing generic about this movie. If so than explain to me what exactly is generic about this film.
There, I denied it. Whaddya gonna do about it??
Go away and let you wallow in your sad pathetic ignorance.
Yes, an average rating of 57/100 from film critics is the definition of "widely acclaimed".
What film critics are these? And where are you getting this rating from? Rotten Tomatoes?
Yes, also, don't forget The Red Violin is on a number of best films lists.
So you need a list to tell you what a great or well made film is? That's kind of sad. If we relied on this for literature, 90% of the books we considered great would be chucked in the trash.
I believe Titanic made some of these lists btw...and that is the most embarrassing film to ever grace the silver screen. Actually anything from James Cameron is cringe worthy, but that's not my point...
My point is learn to think for yourself. For the record Roger Ebert thought the film was a work of art, look up his review. So that's one mainstream critic who praised the film.
But my memory is fuzzy.
So is your intelligence.
Which lists were those again??
None of which you would make, yours would include some overrated garbage.
Yes, stick to your artsy programming like Girl Meets World and Melissa and Joey. I'll watch my generic crap like Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now, Come and See and The Knick.
I've stopped recognizing IMDB as a place where a person can have an intelligent discussion about artistic cinema. Have you ever visited IMDB pages of actual art films? There's no one there...what's the point?
I recognize that Girls Meets World and Melissa and Joey are generic mindless garbage. When did I ever say they were art? That's ludicrous. I was young in the 90s, I enjoyed some of the youth programming. There's nothing wrong with nostalgia.
Like I said before, IMDB is not a bragging right. I've seen many artistic films in my life, probably more than you've ever even heard of. I'm not going to sit here and brag about, what's the point?
Name me some films you consider artistic, since apparently you think you're the expert on this.
share
I'm usually terrible at spotting the trolls and take the bait every time, but the OP's subject line is so spurious, I snorted.
Then he defended it to the point I think he might truly believe that. Could that be possible?
I saw this movie when it first came out--on the huge screen of one of those old movie palaces--and the experience was so extraordinarily rich and visual, it was mesmerizing. Maybe the only time I forgot I had popcorn.
P.S>You know what's NOT an appealing "visual style"? Slapping a filter over the camera lens so every scene has a bluish cast, with flashes of day-glow yellow for emphasis. When will that nonsense stop being trendy?
Also, I guarantee I'm considerably older than you. Otherwise, if you're over 30 and regularly watch Girl Meets World on the Disney Channel, then you've got issues to sort through.
Or, just maybe, there are kids involved. I'm over 40 ears old. I've seen every episode of Wizards of Waverly Place at least twice, every episode of Hannah Montana at least once, and most every episode of Victorious a number of times. Why? I have an 11-year old daughter obsessed with those shows, that's why.This is a small house, if she's watching the shows, there's no getting away from them.
A person can have interest in, opinions on, and have significant exposure to pop culture and still have valid, informed, and even enlightened opinions on culturally significant films as well. share
Or, just maybe, there are kids involved. I'm over 40 ears old. I've seen every episode of Wizards of Waverly Place at least twice, every episode of Hannah Montana at least once, and most every episode of Victorious a number of times. Why? I have an 11-year old daughter obsessed with those shows, that's why.This is a small house, if she's watching the shows, there's no getting away from them.
I have much younger cousins with whom I enjoy some of these shows with, specifically Girl Meets World. I introduced them to Boy Meets World which they loved. I also have a young neighbor I hang out with occasionally who enjoys some of the abc family shows. We kind of grew up together but she's about 6 years younger than myself.
A person can have interest in, opinions on, and have significant exposure to pop culture and still have valid, informed, and even enlightened opinions on culturally significant films as well.
Most definitely. A person can't be serious all the time. share