Did anybody happen to notice that they forgot the 'A' in the word 'cameraman' twice?? For a documentary on stupidity, this is a pretty bad mistake to make, and a pretty obvious one, too. I didn't think it was a great film content-wise, either, but they obviously weren't paying a lot of attention to detail.
-dru
[deleted]
Maybe it was intentional, to see how many people weren't stupid enough to catch it.
I know I was to stupid to catch it.
Did know one else not get fooled by what this doc presented itself as on the cover? It comes off as a collage of clips of people doing stupid things, which is only around 10% of the movie. The other 90% is just people analyzing the word stupid, what it means to be stupid, and are we stupid. Then there would be really annoying inserts of people "stupidly" looking at the screen.
I found the editing, horrible music and lackluster clips of boring crap. This is just proof of how lame anything cinematic that comes out of Canada is. This doc was so boring, I was never once entertained other than the segment on Steve-O was on, and even that was pretty lame.
This movie was nothing that it said was from the description on the box and I feel stupid having watched it, and if that was their ultimate purpose in creating: Mission Accomplished. If not not? Wow!
Man I hated this movie! More than I hate Brett Kelley movies!
so, large soda, are you saying that more steve-o would have made this a better film?
and, i think you should keep canada out of this. canadians have a long tradition of making exceptional documentaries and continue to do so. your statement is simply ignorant.
There are two kinds of people who will watch this film. Those who it is about, and those who it is for. I believe, large soda, you have entirely missed the point of the whole film. I also believe you are, quite literally, the type of person who it is about.
shareThose two different kinds of people are really one: The movie is made for those who it is about. The viewers! who also play the role of LCD). The viewer enjoys the program for a very simple reason. Witnessing other people perform "stupid" acts and experience the consequences -that any individual, displaying a presence of intelligence, would recognize and comprehend immediately- creates an heir of superiorty between the viewer and the "idiots" performing these acts. Although the illusion of superiority is false, this doesn't validate that the belief that "The Viewers" are entirely comprised of what the "Intellectual World" considers to be an "idiot", intellectuals are also part of the Lowest Common Denominator. Large Soda, it's admirable that you find the clips and the production as a whole to be boring. Naturally this implies that you are not a part of the LCD. However, the fact that you did watch the movie, and are also entertained by the steve-o clips, pulls you back in to the LCD with us. All cinematic flaws aside, you can't deny that you were one of the fish, unknowingly caught in the net, cast by the director.
The movie challenges us to determine what "stupid" is for it's duration, and then blindsides us at the very end with the answer; We ARE "stupid".
Of course I presume that the majority of members on this board are considerably intelligent (if not at least film savvy), so we do not all concede to letting a barrage of outdated, rythmically re-used, visually gripping film clips to numb our minds enough to be captured by the film. But we watched it. We payed attention, assuming that we'd feel that "heir of superiority" after our viewing, but it was all just to make us realize that we are intrigued and interested in stupidity.So, as long as we remain "the viewers", remain the lowest common denominator, then we will continue to perpetuate the stupidity that has shaped so much of our present day, and what will shape our future.
Now I know Bush was targeted ruthlessly, an angle I found to be exhausted already by Michael Moore, but this is no reason to counter attack the work that Canada produces.
What other films have shaped your opinion to why we produce such terrible films?
Yes, "intellectuals" are part of the LCD. An intellectual is merely a geek in a bow tie who makes bon mots about politics.
However: "air" not "heir", "composed of" not "comprised of".
Attack me all you want; I assure you I won't be looking at this forum again. Besides, what you think is of no interest to me.
Ha ha!
share