I haven't said anything before, and I'll admit that I actually agree with you up to a point. I have no idea about who's in charge of USA Today or what religion Ms. Puig practices, but you have to cool it when you call Mike a moron. I guess you missed the day when they explained what sarcasm was. I also don't appreciate your calling her a "pig" because of the spelling of her name. That doesn't go along with your thoughtful reasons why you think she may be an "idiot".
Anyway, I certainly enjoyed Braveheart and The Passion of the Christ (yeah, I'll defend "enjoyed" as an accurate word ), and I'll probably see Apocalypto next week when I start an extended vacation. I do think that Mel has made himself an easy target, but I try to keep personalities out of film criticism, even if others can't. But please leave personal attacks, especially of our members out of it. Attack the argument, but not the person.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." ---Voltaire
"With humor, my dear Zilkov! Always with a little humor." ---Yen Lo, The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
So, is there anything else you'd like to discuss at the forums? What are your favorite films?
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12922 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
Originally posted by ericg75: I'm still not clear on the point you're trying to to make. First, you claim this woman is a hateful Jew who's out to get Mel Gibson, and to further support you're argument, you show us that Apocalypto is turning out to be a box office smash. How does that prove anything? Lots of successful movies are given terrible reviews by critics. I fail to see how that makes the critic wrong. It just means the movie-going public has crappy taste too. Look at your first post. You alluded to the fact that Pirates of the Carribean II was a crappy film, but it was also highly successful. Are you an idiot for having an opinion that differs from box office sales? Are you a mean-spirited anti-Pirate?
To answer you:
My main contention with Claudia Puig's critique of "Apocalypto" is that she lumps all three films of Mel ("Braveheart", "Passion of the Christ", and now "Apocalypto") as "a revelry in violence". Now, to me, that is a deeply flawed assessment of these three films, would you not agree? And to make such a highly erroneous statement seems to suggest that Claudia Puig is critiquing Mel's films not on their own individual merits but rather on Mel's politics.
I mentioned POTC II since that is a WIDELY criticized film. The only reason it did the box office numbers that it did was because of its star power. In other words, it would be HIGHLY ODD if it did poor in the box office based on how mainstream it was. However, Mel's "Apocalypto" is completely subtitled and features no mainstream actors. Therefore, it would be HIGHLY REMARKABLE if it did well in the box office. That it did so well in the box office is a credit to the film's strength. Whereas POTC's II box office success can be credited to other factors (such as star power) "Apocalypto's" success has a stronger correaltion on its merits as a great film simply because it has no star power to fall back on, and is in fact further hindered by subtitles.
My point is that:
1. Claudia Puig is not critiqueing the film "Apocalypto" based on its own merits as a film, but rather on Mel's politics.
2. This is evident since she is also highly critical of his other works (Braveheart, Passion) but those two films are WIDELY RECOGNIZED as great works in film. One is an Oscar winner, and the other is a box-office smash (even though, once again, it is subtitled with no mainstream actors.)
3. Claudia Puig's credibility as a critic is further damaged by her 3 1/2 star ranking of POTC II, which both critics and fans alike felt as a popcorn flick with little to no depth. Granted, I can enjoy an entertaining film just like the next guy, but just because I laughed at "Happy Gilmore" doesn't mean I'm giving Adam Sandler an Oscar.
4. The fact that "Apocalypto" is being embraced by the audience, despite its subtitles and unknown actors, means that the strenght of the film and its storytelling is actually greater than what Claudia critiqued it.
Adieu, my dear friend, Adieu.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: PenguinIzzy,
Originally posted by mark f: I haven't said anything before, and I'll admit that I actually agree with you up to a point. I have no idea about who's in charge of USA Today or what religion Ms. Puig practices, but you have to cool it when you call Mike a moron. I guess you missed the day when they explained what sarcasm was. I also don't appreciate your calling her a "pig" because of the spelling of her name. That doesn't go along with your thoughtful reasons why you think she may be an "idiot".
Anyway, I certainly enjoyed Braveheart and The Passion of the Christ (yeah, I'll defend "enjoyed" as an accurate word ), and I'll probably see Apocalypto next week when I start an extended vacation. I do think that Mel has made himself an easy target, but I try to keep personalities out of film criticism, even if others can't. But please leave personal attacks, especially of our members out of it. Attack the argument, but not the person.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." ---Voltaire
"With humor, my dear Zilkov! Always with a little humor." ---Yen Lo, The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
So, is there anything else you'd like to discuss at the forums? What are your favorite films?
Oh my God everytime PenguinIzzy responds to someone's criticism, he totally blows them away. He must be a genius! Or if not a genius, a hero. How heroic to stand up in the face of unaminous diagreement and what courage it takes to namecall with such chagrin! I am totally taken aback. I think I will definitely boycott USA Today forever. Join us!
Douse the Fire
Posts: 75 | Location: Everywhere | Registered: 08 May 2006
Originally posted by AIRIK: Oh my God everytime PenguinIzzy responds to someone's criticism, he totally blows them away. He must be a genius! Or if not a genius, a hero. How heroic to stand up in the face of unaminous diagreement and what courage it takes to namecall with such chagrin! I am totally taken aback. I think I will definitely boycott USA Today forever. Join us!
Yes, it's not easy being a superhero, but I do what I can.
Originally posted by PenguinIzzy: The only reason it did the box office numbers that it did was because of its star power. In other words, it would be HIGHLY ODD if it did poor in the box office based on how mainstream it was. However, Mel's "Apocalypto" is completely subtitled and features no mainstream actors. Therefore, it would be HIGHLY REMARKABLE if it did well in the box office. That it did so well in the box office is a credit to the film's strength.
Apocalypto does have a star attached to it: Mel Gibson. I'd pretty much guarantee you if that film was directed by someone else who was very talented, but less recognizable to the movie-going public...let's say Terrance Malick, it wouldn't have had the box office results it did. I don't think I've ever seen a movie trailer where they intercut talking head shots of the director explaining the film with scenes from the film.
I also disagree that The Passion of the Christ is "widely recognized" as a great film. It's metascore is a 47- worse than Pirates of the Carribean II. Even the Christian Science Monitor gave it a 50, which I find quite hilarious.
Incidentally, Puig gave The Passion of the Christ a pretty good review (a 75). I don't think that's the work of someone who's out to get Mel Gibson.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
Posts: 5481 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Originally posted by ryanryanryan102: I really doubt that Clauda Puig is on a mission to get Mel Gibson. In fact I think shes pretty right about his work. As a filmmaker he is incapable of expressing anything through subtlety and seems to think that excessive blood shed is the way to make up for this. You try to defend Mel Gibson by saying that he won an Oscar for Braveheart. Well the Academy voters suffer from the same problem as Mel in that the don't appreciate subtlety. Thats why Crash won best picture last year over the far better Brokeback Mountain and why Renee Zellwegger won an oscar for her completely over the top performance in Cold Mountain. You also try to defend him by citing how much money the Passion of the Christ made. Since when have a movies gross and quality gone hand in hand. Infact if you had looked at some of the other highest grossing films you would have noticed that the Grinch, Home Alone, and Stars Wars episode one: the phantom menace all made the list. All of those movies suck!
Again, I am offering to you two measures of success: either a critic's praise, or box office and academy awards.
Think about this in a scenario: Supposed you released a film, entitled "Ryan's Journey to the Center of the Earth." Now, Claudia Puig gave your film four stars on USA Today. But your film tanked at the box office, and you won 0 academy awards. Would you consider your film a success?
At the same token, what if you released the same film, and Claudia gave you 0 stars. However, your film was a huge blockbuster hit with America, and you won Best Director. Would you consider the film a success?
My point is, the Academy Awards and Box Office ticket sales are much better indication of a film's success than a puny critic's column, would you not agree? That is why I am saying that Claudia Puig's opinions about "Braveheart" and "Passion of the Christ" are highly erroneous since the two standard measures of a success for film, the Academy Awards and Box Office sales, clearly favored his films. We can debate the credibilty of the Academy Awards or Box Office sales, but at the end of the day, they are far more credible indicators of a film's success than a single writer's opinion in a column. WOULD YOU NOT AGREE?
you refer to Clauia Puig's opinion as "puny" and call her opinions "erroneous" which leads me to wonder why her column has sparked such a large and time consuming debate. By the way if they did make a movie called "Ryans Journey to the Center of the Earth" I believe it would make huge sums of money at the box office, win numerous awards, and get a 4 star review from Claudia Puig.
Originally posted by ryanryanryan102: I really doubt that Clauda Puig is on a mission to get Mel Gibson. In fact I think shes pretty right about his work. As a filmmaker he is incapable of expressing anything through subtlety and seems to think that excessive blood shed is the way to make up for this. You try to defend Mel Gibson by saying that he won an Oscar for Braveheart. Well the Academy voters suffer from the same problem as Mel in that the don't appreciate subtlety. Thats why Crash won best picture last year over the far better Brokeback Mountain and why Renee Zellwegger won an oscar for her completely over the top performance in Cold Mountain. You also try to defend him by citing how much money the Passion of the Christ made. Since when have a movies gross and quality gone hand in hand. Infact if you had looked at some of the other highest grossing films you would have noticed that the Grinch, Home Alone, and Stars Wars episode one: the phantom menace all made the list. All of those movies suck!
Again, I am offering to you two measures of success: either a critic's praise, or box office and academy awards.
Think about this in a scenario: Supposed you released a film, entitled "Ryan's Journey to the Center of the Earth." Now, Claudia Puig gave your film four stars on USA Today. But your film tanked at the box office, and you won 0 academy awards. Would you consider your film a success?
At the same token, what if you released the same film, and Claudia gave you 0 stars. However, your film was a huge blockbuster hit with America, and you won Best Director. Would you consider the film a success?
My point is, the Academy Awards and Box Office ticket sales are much better indication of a film's success than a puny critic's column, would you not agree? That is why I am saying that Claudia Puig's opinions about "Braveheart" and "Passion of the Christ" are highly erroneous since the two standard measures of a success for film, the Academy Awards and Box Office sales, clearly favored his films. We can debate the credibilty of the Academy Awards or Box Office sales, but at the end of the day, they are far more credible indicators of a film's success than a single writer's opinion in a column. WOULD YOU NOT AGREE?
you refer to Clauia Puig's opinion as "puny" and call her opinions "erroneous" which leads me to wonder why her column has sparked such a large and time consuming debate. By the way if they did make a movie called "Ryans Journey to the Center of the Earth" I believe it would make huge sums of money at the box office, win numerous awards, and get a 4 star review from Claudia Puig.
Ryan, I hope you are enjoying the fantasy world I have created for you. In this fantasy world, you are a talented and widely respected director, and you live in a fabolous mansion with diamond encrusted champagne glasses. You do not live with your parents in this fantasy world. You do not have acne in this fantasy world.
Originally posted by PenguinIzzy: The only reason it did the box office numbers that it did was because of its star power. In other words, it would be HIGHLY ODD if it did poor in the box office based on how mainstream it was. However, Mel's "Apocalypto" is completely subtitled and features no mainstream actors. Therefore, it would be HIGHLY REMARKABLE if it did well in the box office. That it did so well in the box office is a credit to the film's strength.
Apocalypto does have a star attached to it: Mel Gibson. I'd pretty much guarantee you if that film was directed by someone else who was very talented, but less recognizable to the movie-going public...let's say Terrance Malick, it wouldn't have had the box office results it did. I don't think I've ever seen a movie trailer where they intercut talking head shots of the director explaining the film with scenes from the film.
I also disagree that The Passion of the Christ is "widely recognized" as a great film. It's metascore is a 47- worse than Pirates of the Carribean II. Even the Christian Science Monitor gave it a 50, which I find quite hilarious.
Incidentally, Puig gave The Passion of the Christ a pretty good review (a 75). I don't think that's the work of someone who's out to get Mel Gibson.
Are you going to sit there and tell me right to my face without blinking, "Hey, I'm not at all surprised that Apocalypto is number one at the box office?" Granted, Mel Gibson is directing, but the film is still a thinkpiece and not an action spectacle. Thinkpieces usually are not number one at the box office. Subtitled films are not usually number one at the box office. No name actors in the film are not usually number one in the box office. Even if "Tom Cruise" directed a fictional film titled "Bohemian Gypsies" entirely in Eastern European dialect, you would not expect it to do $14.2M in the box office.
Originally posted by PenguinIzzy: The only reason it did the box office numbers that it did was because of its star power. In other words, it would be HIGHLY ODD if it did poor in the box office based on how mainstream it was. However, Mel's "Apocalypto" is completely subtitled and features no mainstream actors. Therefore, it would be HIGHLY REMARKABLE if it did well in the box office. That it did so well in the box office is a credit to the film's strength.
Apocalypto does have a star attached to it: Mel Gibson. I'd pretty much guarantee you if that film was directed by someone else who was very talented, but less recognizable to the movie-going public...let's say Terrance Malick, it wouldn't have had the box office results it did. I don't think I've ever seen a movie trailer where they intercut talking head shots of the director explaining the film with scenes from the film.
I also disagree that The Passion of the Christ is "widely recognized" as a great film. It's metascore is a 47- worse than Pirates of the Carribean II. Even the Christian Science Monitor gave it a 50, which I find quite hilarious.
Incidentally, Puig gave The Passion of the Christ a pretty good review (a 75). I don't think that's the work of someone who's out to get Mel Gibson.
Obviously, she changed her opinion on "Passion" since by the time she reviewed "Apocalypto", she has derided Passion as a "revelry in violence." So clearly, she has now changed her views on the film, and this change is more than likely caused by Mel's implosion and anti-semitic remarks.
You just made my point for me. Thank you for seeing the truth, my friend.
Originally posted by PenguinIzzy: Obviously, she changed her opinion on "Passion" since by the time she reviewed "Apocalypto", she has derided Passion as a "revelry in violence." So clearly, she has now changed her views on the film, and this change is more than likely caused by Mel's implosion and anti-semitic remarks.
The only point I've been successfully making is that you haven't done your homework at all regarding Claudia Puig's published reviews of Mel Gibson films. If you'd bothered to actually read before posting your racist rant, you'd see that she had the same criticism of The Passion of the Christ then as she does now.
From her review of TPOTC:
quote:
That does not mean one should avoid The Passion. Devout Christians regard it as a powerful teaching tool. And in many ways, this will be a movie for the ages, in the way that King of Kings and The Greatest Story Ever Told are classics (in contrast to films such as Jesus Christ Superstar that have fallen way back on the bargain basement rack). However, The Passion's ascendance to the ranks of the definitive religious movies may be hampered by its unrelenting, almost orgiastic, violence.
Clearly she thinks it's a well-made and important film, but she could've done without the half-hour long torture scenes, which was a major criticism of the film from numerous critics.
Her main point regarding Apocalypto is that Gibson is continuing this trend of making these insanely violent martyrdom fantasies, only this time around his film lacks any of the poignancy that made Braveheart and The Passion worthwhile. As she says, he basically made a Mayan Rambo, a mere "action spectacle".
I have not seen the film yet, so I can't say whether she's right or wrong, but I can say for certain that your argument concerning her motives has no basis in fact.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: EricG75,
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
Posts: 5481 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Originally posted by PenguinIzzy: Obviously, she changed her opinion on "Passion" since by the time she reviewed "Apocalypto", she has derided Passion as a "revelry in violence." So clearly, she has now changed her views on the film, and this change is more than likely caused by Mel's implosion and anti-semitic remarks.
The only point I've been successfully making is that you haven't done your homework at all regarding Claudia Puig's published reviews of Mel Gibson films. If you'd bothered to actually read before posting your racist rant, you'd see that she had the same criticism of The Passion of the Christ then as she does now.
From her review of TPOTC:
quote:
That does not mean one should avoid The Passion. Devout Christians regard it as a powerful teaching tool. And in many ways, this will be a movie for the ages, in the way that King of Kings and The Greatest Story Ever Told are classics (in contrast to films such as Jesus Christ Superstar that have fallen way back on the bargain basement rack). However, The Passion's ascendance to the ranks of the definitive religious movies may be hampered by its unrelenting, almost orgiastic, violence.
Clearly she thinks it's a well-made and important film, but she could've done without the half-hour long torture scenes, which was a major criticism of the film from numerous critics.
Her main point regarding Apocalypto is that Gibson is continuing this trend of making these insanely violent martyrdom fantasies, only this time around his film lacks any of the poignancy that made Braveheart and The Passion worthwhile. As she says, he basically made a Mayan Rambo, a mere "action spectacle".
I have not seen the film yet, so I can't say whether she's right or wrong, but I can say for certain that your argument concerning her motives has no basis in fact.
I have done my homework since in Claudia Puig's review of "Blood Diamond":
She states that, "This violence is organic and necessary."
Now, what makes the violence in Blood Diamond "Organic and necessary" whereas the violence in Braveheart, Passion, and Apocalypto excessive?
I'm sure Jesus Christ's sacrifice to save all of mankind from sin by dying on the cross was just an exercise in excess, and was not altogether necessary. Oops, someone should tell Jesus he really didn't have to do all that. *Rolls eyes*
And if Claudia was smart enough, she would know that the whole point of a "Passion Play" from a historical perspective is to unflinchingly show all the gore and pain that Jesus Christ had to endure for us! But, once again, you and her are on the same boat as uncultured and uneducated.
My point is that Claudia clearly has no benchmark for what is "excessive" since she approves the use of violence in one film and not the other. This clearly shows her favoritism, or rather her disfavoritism, of Mel Gibson as a person and his work.
Adieu, adieu, once again my logic is infallible, adieu.
So to you violence is violence? It's either acceptable or unacceptable? You don't think it's possible to use violence in an effective manner vs. being unnecessarily over-the-top? Clearly, you have a lot to learn about the art of filmmaking.
Nice try calling me uncultured and uneducated, by the way. If you want to compare credentials, I'm pretty sure I'll win. Your orginal statement that Claudia Puig is a Jew pig who's doing her boss would lead me to believe you have a high school diploma at best.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: EricG75,
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
Posts: 5481 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Originally posted by Besttasteinmusicever: Penguin Izzy just got to 20 posts. I think he started a thread where he would have to repeatedly defend himself in order to get to 20 posts.
Congratulations Penguin, you can now vote on the top songs and albums of the year over on the music threads.
Thanks man. This is like the icing on the cake for me. =)
Originally posted by ericg75: Your logic is non-existent.
So to you violence is violence? It's either acceptable or unacceptable? You don't think it's possible to use violence in an effective manner vs. being unnecessarily over-the-top? Clearly, you have a lot to learn about the art of filmmaking.
Nice try calling me uncultured and uneducated, by the way. If you want to compare credentials, I'm pretty sure I'll win. Your orginal statement that Claudia Puig is a Jew pig who's doing her boss would lead me to believe you have a high school diploma at best.
You know what, I'm trying to hold my temper, but you're a fucking clown.
I didn't say "violence is violence", I am criticizing Claudia because she fails to defend her statement that violence in Mel's film is "a revelry" whereas the violence in Blood Diamond is "Organic and necessary." Read the reviews and you'll understand that she makes no distinction between the two, she simply states her opinion without credibly backing them up.
I don't feel like calling you any more names, it saddens me to think that I must berate you at every turn just for a simple concept to get inside your brain. I wouldn't normally abuse you, but since you have the audacity to act smarter than you really are, I have to put you in your rightful place. YOU ARE A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT. So show some respect to your elders. I want every rebuttal coming out of you to start with, "But Sir, if I may interject.." or "Mister Penguin, I beg to differ." I want you groveling at my feet, because clearly my intellectual capacity surpasses yours.
Adieu, adieu, the arrogant critic Penguin bids you adieu.
Metacritic Forums 
), and I'll probably see Apocalypto next week when I start an extended vacation. I do think that Mel has made himself an easy target, but I try to keep personalities out of film criticism, even if others can't. But please leave personal attacks, especially of our members out of it. Attack the argument, but not the person.
For real...not that that would bother any geniuses.