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 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.
Everything I do, I do it for you Ryan.
Adieu, adieu, sweet nothings, adieu.
hmmm...wat a bitch.
You can't take a little humor? It's called "reality" my friend. =)
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 have read the reviews, and it's completely clear to me what she means in both cases. I've tried to convey that here, but you're obviously too stupid to understand and you'd rather repeat the same, tired arguments with nothing new to add to the mix.
And you're right that she is stating her opinion, which is what a film critic does.
It's not too late to go back and get that GED. Maybe then you can form a solid argument.
Then please share with us your noble wisdom, oh esteemed one. Why don't you tell us what makes the violence in Blood Diamond "Organic and necessary" whereas the violence in Mel's film is "a revelry in violence." Please share with us your profound insight, since you are so much more smarter than all of us put together. Please, illustrious one, don't hide your gift from the world and share your valuable wisdom.
I can't wait to hear this load of bull.
Adieu, adieu, you are a clown who will shut up now and not say anything intelligent, adieu.
I like how you start resorting to name-calling when you can't think of anything new to add to your argument. Very mature.
Anyway, to answer your question:
I have not seen either film yet, so I'm just reiterating what I got out of the two reviews. Ms. Puig feels that the violence in Apocalypto is expoitive. It's over-the-top, and it's sole purpose is to shock without adding anything to the story Gibson is trying to tell. On the other hand, when she calls the violence in Blood Diamond "organic and necessary", she means that it's an important aspect of the story being told, and that it serves a purpose in getting the film's message across. It's a pretty simple concept.
When it comes to filmmaking, usually subtlety is a better approach. I don't think Gibson as a director has mastered the art of subtlety yet. From what I've seen of his work, his philosophy seems to be, "If a little of something is good, a lot of it must be better."
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
Posts: 5475 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Originally posted by ericg75: I like how you start resorting to name-calling when you can't think of anything new to add to your argument. Very mature.
Anyway, to answer your question:
I have not seen either film yet, so I'm just reiterating what I got out of the two reviews. Ms. Puig feels that the violence in Apocalypto is expoitive. It's over-the-top, and it's sole purpose is to shock without adding anything to the story Gibson is trying to tell. On the other hand, when she calls the violence in Blood Diamond "organic and necessary", she means that it's an important aspect of the story being told, and that it serves a purpose in getting the film's message across. It's a pretty simple concept.
When it comes to filmmaking, usually subtlety is a better approach. I don't think Gibson as a director has mastered the art of subtlety yet. From what I've seen of his work, his philosophy seems to be, "If a little of something is good, a lot of it must be better."
Okay, but here's my point:
1) Claudia states that violence in Mel's film is over-the-top.
2) Claudia states that violence in "Blood Diamond" is "organic and necessary."
Now, what is the basis for her statements? PURE OPINION. Am I correct? There isn't a machine where you can process a film and a "ding" will sound if the film is over-the-top violent, is there? So her statement is completely objective.
Now, my main argument is that Claudia Puig is judging Mel's film not on the basis of their artistic merits, but rather on Mel's politics. Since you have not watched either films, how can you form your own opinion about the level of violence displayed by the two films? For all you know, you might feel that the violence in "Blood Diamond" is even more over-the-top than "Apocalypto". Am I not right?
Now, Claudia states that Mel's films are a "revelry in violence." This is my problem with her critique. It completely dismisses all three of Mel's films as a revelry in violence. It also presumes to say that they are devoid of artistic merits. Let me put it in these terms:
Supposed you made a film with a message, and you showed gore to serve a point. In comes this critic that tells you, "Hey, this is nothing but stupid barbarism." Wouldn't you be offended? Wouldn't you tell the critic, "You missed the entire point of my film."
And since Mel won an Oscar for Braveheart, and defied expetations by having "Passion" be the 5th highest grossing film ever, wouldn't it go to show that Mel's film has been vindicated by awards and records, despite Claudia's brainless critique that these films are just "violence for its own sake"?
Also, I am assuming you have seen "Braveheart". Do you believe the film is a "revelry in violence"? Do you believe that the film is not about a nation resisting and triumphing over an exploitive conquering government? Or do you believe that Mel made "Braveheart" just so he can throw horses off castles and have William Wallace become tortured?
Also, compare the violence of "Braveheart" to the violence of "Blood Diamond". See both films. And then tell me which is more violent.
Now, what is the basis for her statements? PURE OPINION. Am I correct? There isn't a machine where you can process a film and a "ding" will sound if the film is over-the-top violent, is there? So her statement is completely objective.
Now, my main argument is that Claudia Puig is judging Mel's film not on the basis of their artistic merits, but rather on Mel's politics. Since you have not watched either films, how can you form your own opinion about the level of violence displayed by the two films? For all you know, you might feel that the violence in "Blood Diamond" is even more over-the-top than "Apocalypto". Am I not right?
I think you mean "subjective", but you're right that her review is opinion. All movie reviews are. It's an informed opinion, since I'm pretty sure she's studied film to a certain extent.
You're right that I haven't seen either film, but I have read her reviews, and I can see the point she's trying to make regarding the violence in both films. I'm not judging either film, I'm just saying her reviews of both films seem informed and legitimate, and there's nothing that would lead me to believe she's just trying to bash Mel Gibson. If you read some other reviews of the film, you'd find that the excessive violence was a common criticism of many critics.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: EricG75,
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
Posts: 5475 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
It is a critics job to subjective and give you there opinion of a film. If you want facts about a film then a review is not where to look.It seems like this whole debate stems from you just disagreeing with her opinion on Mel Gibson's work in general. Because as far as I can see there is nothing in her reviews to indicate that she has some evil jewish anti-mel agenda. You also say that she says "his films are devoid of artistic merit". In the review for the passion she calls the film "stunning, haunting, and beautifully photographed". she obviously respects the artistry in it but thought the violence was over kill. People have a right to their opinion and I don't see why your going after this woman for having hers. You have a right to your opinion as well. But I'm not going to put anything else on this thread because it has become pointless and has caused me to waste to much of my time on my ass infront of a computer screen.
I would possibly put more stock in Izzy's argument if Claudia Puig was alone in panning Mel Gibson's films. But all of Gibson's films (including Braveheart) have gotten mixed reviews from critics. And this was before we knew he was a crazy fundamentalist nut-job.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
Posts: 5475 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
I am glad you have all contribuited positively to this discussion. I'm proud of all of you, like a proud Dad happy that his son made it.
Adieu, adieu. I might have something else to say about this discussion, but nothing is coming up to me at the moment. I am appeased, now that I have learned that Claudia enjoyed "Passion".
Originally posted by PenguinIzzy: Supposed you made a film with a message, and you showed gore to serve a point. In comes this critic that tells you, "Hey, this is nothing but stupid barbarism." Wouldn't you be offended? Wouldn't you tell the critic, "You missed the entire point of my film."
I'm not defending Mel's films (I liked Braveheart, didn't care about Passion, and have little interest in Apocalypto) but I think there's a good point here. As I recall, the reaction to Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers was much like what PenguinIzzy describes above.
It's pretty damn hard, though, to disentangle your like or dislike of a filmmakers politics from his or her films. If Puig has a problem with Mel's anti-semitic comments (or the sexism of sugartits), it may bias her view of the film in the same way you read critics with a conservative bent teasing out all of the lefty-liberal subtexts in Oliver Stone's movies. I don't know if it's fair to call Puig an 'idiot' but it's probably fair to assume she comes to the table (as most critics, and people in general) with a Mel-agenda.
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
Originally posted by PenguinIzzy: Supposed you made a film with a message, and you showed gore to serve a point. In comes this critic that tells you, "Hey, this is nothing but stupid barbarism." Wouldn't you be offended? Wouldn't you tell the critic, "You missed the entire point of my film."
I'm not defending Mel's films (I liked Braveheart, didn't care about Passion, and have little interest in Apocalypto) but I think there's a good point here. As I recall, the reaction to Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers was much like what PenguinIzzy describes above.
It's pretty damn hard, though, to disentangle your like or dislike of a filmmakers politics from his or her films. If Puig has a problem with Mel's anti-semitic comments (or the sexism of sugartits), it may bias her view of the film in the same way you read critics with a conservative bent teasing out all of the lefty-liberal subtexts in Oliver Stone's movies. I don't know if it's fair to call Puig an 'idiot' but it's probably fair to assume she comes to the table (as most critics, and people in general) with a Mel-agenda.
I very much enjoyed Chevy Chases' turn on "Law and Order" as a character based on Mel Gibson.
Come on now. USA Today is one of the most idiotic newspapers out there...it's colorcoded for christ's sake! It's intended readership is people like penguin. Of course it isn't going to have an intelligent film critic.
I dont understand what she means by. iron mans personanlity is a cloth of johnny depps jack sparrow..<br><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2008-04-30-iron-man_N.htm">Review</a><br> ..if anything its the other way around...the comic book portrays tony stark to be like that...and iron man has been out a lot longer than pirates of the carribean
Metacritic Forums 
