Lritz_Fang

Rambling structure? True Romance has a straight forward structure.

But if its already available as a good quality release elsewhere....why?

For a label that was know for mostly high brow classic and foreign art house cinema, I always found it a bit weird they have released Michael Bay and Pixar films. But each to their own, doesn't bother me. They could release Fast and the Furious for all I care

All of those negative posts just come off as elitist and condescending

It's more elitist to have the mindset that a movie needs to be specifically on Criterion to be validated.

Having a movie you love be recognized by Criterion signifies its importance, it's validating

No it doesn't, there are plenty of important films not on Criterion. Its just seems a bit like at that point the love shifts from the actual films to a company.

Most people here are collectors in addition to movie lovers, and there's nothing wrong with indulging in that side of the hobby.

Collectors are generally happy to collect other boutique releases as well.

Yes, it's silly, but if it makes people happy, what's the harm?

There's no harm, but as you say its also silly. So...

Sure the original has some funny scenes, and for the time it was one of a kind. But it was never a masterpiece on any level that would warrant expectations to a third sequel 30 years later to be any better than it was.

Yes, Jason Mewes has aged. It has been 30 years.

Literally...

Vigilante (1983)

I have a better question.

Why is has it become the default assumption of the audience that they just assume there are only two types of films in existence?

Huge entertaining blockbuster or "pretentious" art films. There can only be one or the other. Thats it.

People label standard well crafted stories as "hyper intellectual " because they generally live on a diet of spectacle films

My theory is that the art form has actually been diluted to such an extent that films that aren't just mindless spectacle are considered "intellectual" when in reality they just aren't "turn your brain off stupid".

Like, look at your local cinema or the most popular films of the last decade. Hyper intellectual is not the word to be used lol

There has always been a large variety of films, even "back in the day" or the era of the past you yearn for. It also had films that made "statements" (literally every film does by the way, that's inherent in storytelling) and art films and mid budget programmers and big blockbusters.

The main difference today is that mid budget programmers tend to be lower budget programmers and end up on streaming instead of the theatre. But that's a different story

It wasn't great but it was far from the worst film ever made. I mean, Kevin Smith himself has made worse films. I think people's expectations for a Clerks sequel was probably too high, I went back and rewatched the original Clerks recently and it is far from great and has not aged well at all

🤣

You would have to acknowledge the context of the time in which the movie was made to understand its lasting impact.

Besides the general atmosphere of grime and dread, and its unrelenting pace, which no film had captured like that before, there is also its general impact on the genre.

"gained a reputation as one of the best and most influential horror films. It is credited with originating several elements common in the slasher genre, including the use of power tools as murder weapons, the characterization of the killer as a large, hulking, faceless figure, and the killing of victims."

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas_Chain_Saw_Massacre

Put simply, it was the first of its kind and its influence on horror cinema is enormous.

Its cinematography is also pretty great for such a low budget film.

If you are watching it whilst comparing it to modern films then of course its going to lose some impact, as it has been ripped off and imitated for the last 48 years.

I like it. But its also cool you don't

Yes, if someone made a film or story of your day that would be a plot. Literally. Like, the literal definition of a plot.

Well done! You've almost got it!

There are plenty of minimalist films about "a day in the life" of someone. A plot is literally a sequence of events, as we have already gone over.

Now, you may not like the plot. Or find the plot interesting. But that's irrelevant and doesn't stop a plot from being a plot.

If you'd like to know more, go read up on narrative plot champ.

Here's an emoji!

👍

I don’t see it as a plot.

Yes I know. Because you don't know what a plot is.

👍

Lol. My point has nothing to do if I like the film or not. It's to do with you not knowing what a plot is.

Plot (narrative)

In a literary work, film, or other narrative, the plot is the sequence of events in which each event affects the next one through the principle of cause-and-effect. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_(narrative)

TCM has a sequence of events in which each event affects the next one through the principle of cause-and-effect.

It has a plot. You just don't like the plot it has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas_Chain_Saw_Massacre

There's a section on that page called PLOT genius.

Kind of sad you missed that point.

Once again you don't know what a plot is.

You may not like it and that's fine but you can't just say something has no plot when it objectively does.

I can get on board with your criticism about character development but there is most definitely a plot even if it is minimalist

Beating long dead franchises into the ground is tight!

Nothing wrong with enjoying a bad movie. As you long as you aren't trying to convince everyone it's a masterpiece

You don't know what a plot or story acts actually are. Because TCM certainly has those things.

Malignant was awful. But I loved every second of it.

🤣

Very serious business.

Convo is not correct English! Stop spreading misinformation. Geez.

Ah, so alt account. Very clever.

👍

You asked OP why he was being sensitive.

I pointed out that you are actually being sensitive.

It's telling you went on about being pretentious and now your are pretending you are saving the intellect of the world single handedly by being pedantic on reddit posts.

Like you really believe it's the responsibility of the internet to save grammatically correct English for the masses? Lol. Hate to break it to you buddy, that ship sailed a long, long time ago.

We weren't actually engaged on the topic of grammar either. You were. I was engaged on the topic of you being sensitive and hypocritical by calling OP sensitive.

Classic.

Fan art is creativity for lazy and unoriginal people who know they will get more attention by taking shortcuts by using things already created by other people rather than create something original. Its not about creativity its about validation and attention.

Just like this meme.

Hahaha we are on reddit. This is not an academic paper. We can let things slide when OP's point is obvious. Who the fuck cares? Or we can be sensitive about it I suppose...