I assume that this post is directed towards me … please use the reply function next time as I get a notification by mail every time someone replies to my posts.
Your point is that one shouldn't critizise flawed films because something can be learned from them and that you can't learn from great and flawless works of art without being a copy cat?
First of all, is there such a thing as a flawless film (does "flawed" even equal "bad"), and if your copy cat theory should apply, movies that every one think of as flawless.
For example:
I recently watched The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and really liked it (as did many others) and thought it worked well with its slow tempo when some people on the internet seems to hate it because of this and calls it boring. If I learn from it I'm a copy cat, just because I really liked it when someone who didn't like it isn't?
The reason that I brought that movie up is that if I made a movie on Edmund Kemper I'd draw inspiration from movies like Assassination to emphasis on his love for John Wayne and the western-genre and thus try to bring the audience closer to the mind of Kemper.
You mention my Wonderwall video and just asume that I don't want critique, but what if I do? How can there be improvement without critique and all criticism isn't negative, mind you. The song wasn't the most important thing for me making the video (that was to get familiar with the camera and Final Cut) and I'm not an Oasis-fan so I don't really know what Noel had in mind but wikipedia says this:
It is often claimed that "Wonderwall" was written for Gallagher's then-girlfriend, Meg Mathews. Noel married Mathews in 1997, but the couple divorced four years later. Gallagher now claims that the song was not about Mathews at all, but he felt he had to go along with the rumour, saying "The meaning of that song was taken away from me by the media who jumped on it. How do you tell your Mrs it's not about her once she's read it is? It's a song about an imaginary friend who's gonna come and save you from yourself." It also can refer to Swati.
Based on that I'd say that the meaning of the song could be disscussed for quite a while … and who says that Noel was 100% truthful when he denied the rumor?
I'm afraid that I don't share your quite nihilistic point of view when it comes to criticism. I love reading reviews and gladly watch "At The Movies" – only the older reviews with Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel and Richard Roeper, though – and I like them a lot even when they don't happen to share my point of view.
What's annoying with this movie is that it doesn't even seem like an artistic attempt to change anything but more like a way to earn money by using the name of Ed Kemper in the title when the movie itself has very little to do with the actual events. Getting his name wrong is just lazy. It's funny that they got the name of the hospital right but not the name of the main character.
I think that the main reasons serial killer movies can be this bad are that none of the killers they're based on could possibly sue the makers (who the hell would care if Edmund Kemper felt insulted by this movie, if he even knows about it) and that people still buy the "based on a true story"- thing and a fancy dvd-cover.
"there is no room for ego in ART..." – Funny, I always thought it was quite the opposite.
EDIT: Ok, just found out that you're in the move – sorry if I offended you or so, my main problem with this movie is not the acting but the inaccuracy of the script, poor dialouge ect. I don't blame you for being in it either, an actor has to eat and pay bills just like the rest of us and some of my favourite actors (Jeremy Davies, Brad Dourif and Ted Levine) has been in some real stinkers.
Oh, and did you know that they didn't just get Kemper's name wrong, they also misspelt the name of Robert Sisko (who also did a fine job) in the end of the trailer. I think that's disrespectful towards the actors and shows that movies like this is all about making money rather than art.
Good luck with the acting, btw!
reply
share