criterionforum.org

The one and only PUKEPLANET!

http://www.pukeplanet.com/images/barf.jpg

Barmy wrote:I'm glad Loach won this as no one outside of the UK will want to see his silly widdle film. (And even within the UK the audience will be teeny tiny.)

The further Cannes slides towards irrelevance just supports the "Hollywood agenda". Remember when they let themselves be bullied into awarding that subpar Angelopoulos (a filmmaker I revere)?

Yes, I know the jury itself was largely free of cheese-eating surrender monkeys, but it's hardly surprising that the craven jury members succumbed to the prevailing atmosphere.

And you'll be able to see it at the NY Film Fest!!!! Or maybe you can skip it, just like those lousy Janus films they have the stupidity to bring back.

OK - involvement with the HKFF, ie. someone who doesn't want the 'magic aura' of the festival jury tarnished. So I called that one right then...

Worst directors in the competition won first and second prize. I thought Dumont would go all the way, but still, Loach is only marginally better than him.

At this point, I would need to go to IMDb and look up the last Palme D`Or winner I enjoyed, because the memory goes only so far back.

Of course, I haven`t seen these two films, but Dumont and Loach just keep making the same movie over and over anyway.

cafeman wrote:Worst directors in the competition won first and second prize. I thought Dumont would go all the way, but still, Loach is only marginally better than him.

At this point, I would need to go to IMDb and look up the last Palme D`Or winner I enjoyed, because the memory goes only so far back.

Of course, I haven`t seen these two films, but Dumont and Loach just keep making the same movie over and over anyway.

Who doesn't? Almodovar and Inarritu are textbook examples of directors repeating themselves.

tavernier wrote:

cafeman wrote:Worst directors in the competition won first and second prize. I thought Dumont would go all the way, but still, Loach is only marginally better than him.

At this point, I would need to go to IMDb and look up the last Palme D`Or winner I enjoyed, because the memory goes only so far back.

Of course, I haven`t seen these two films, but Dumont and Loach just keep making the same movie over and over anyway.

Who doesn't? Almodovar and Inarritu are textbook examples of directors repeating themselves.

I hate most of Almodovar`s opus, and Innaritu is still far from a great director, though Amores Perros showed a lot of promise, which wasn`t really fulfilled in 21 Grams.

But, for example, Kaurismaki does the same, and yet is fascinating almost 100% of the time.

Some directors learn to do variations, and keep things fresh and interesting, or develop the same theme further in each subsequent movie. Loach and Dumont are boring directors. Not to mention that the level of their film expression is almost nonexistent (well, ok, this only goes for Loach).

cafeman wrote:

tavernier wrote:

cafeman wrote:Worst directors in the competition won first and second prize. I thought Dumont would go all the way, but still, Loach is only marginally better than him.

At this point, I would need to go to IMDb and look up the last Palme D`Or winner I enjoyed, because the memory goes only so far back.

Of course, I haven`t seen these two films, but Dumont and Loach just keep making the same movie over and over anyway.

Who doesn't? Almodovar and Inarritu are textbook examples of directors repeating themselves.

I hate most of Almodovar`s opus, and Innaritu is still far from a great director, though Amores Perros showed a lot of promise, which wasn`t really fulfilled in 21 Grams.

But, for example, Kaurismaki does the same, and yet is fascinating almost 100% of the time.

Some directors learn to do variations, and keep things fresh and interesting, or develop the same theme further in each subsequent movie. Loach and Dumont are boring directors. Not to mention that the level of their film expression is almost nonexistent (well, ok, this only goes for Loach).

I'd much rather see anything by Dumont or Loach than Kaurismaki. Talk about boring!

ugetsu wrote:OK - involvement with the HKFF, ie. someone who doesn't want the 'magic aura' of the festival jury tarnished. So I called that one right then...

Huh?! That makes no sense...what does my work with the Hong Kong Film Festival have to do with "magic aura" of juries? Plus, I mainly deal with Asian films and filmmakers, as well as gay ones (I also programmed the HKLGFF). Your diatribe on Sam Jackson, Ken Loach and Dumont have precious little to do with the films I'm involved with (unless they're secretly Asian or gay).

marty wrote:I have recently suspected that Grimfarrow is someone who works in the industry and has a personal agenda to vent his spleen in defense of his personal (and business?) interests.

Marty, you've found me out. Indeed I have a malevolent personal agenda...its name is TASTE. And yes, I'm biased because I know Chris Doyle and I like John Cameron Mitchell's works. Oh how demonic! To prove my evil plans to convert this forum to the dark side, my favourite films of last year wil surely brainwash you all: L'intrus, The Sun, Un couple parfait, Ten Skies, 13 Lakes.

Beware... Beware...

Grimfarrow wrote:

marty wrote:I have recently suspected that Grimfarrow is someone who works in the industry and has a personal agenda to vent his spleen in defense of his personal (and business?) interests.

Marty, you've found me out. Indeed I have a malevolent personal agenda...its name is TASTE. And yes, I'm biased because I know Chris Doyle and I like John Cameron Mitchell's works. Oh how demonic! To prove my evil plans to convert this forum to the dark side, my favourite films of last year wil surely brainwash you all: L'intrus, The Sun, Un couple parfait, Ten Skies, 13 Lakes.

Beware... Beware...

This is the reason I vote Grimfarrow for member of the year, every year.

Lemdog wrote: This is the reason I vote Grimfarrow for member of the year, every year.

I didn't know anyone voted for me! Thanks very much for the encouragement Lemdog...

Sigh...ugetsu reminds me of the good old days of Dogbreath, for some reason.

I think DogBreath was a lot more pleasant, Grim.

franco wrote:I think DogBreath was a lot more pleasant, Grim.

Funny, 'cause I just saw this on Yahoo!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060529/hl_ ... ositive_dc

Over time, memories may grow more positive

Hilarious! Thanks for sharing, Grimfarrow. You made my day.

Grimfarrow wrote:

franco wrote:I think DogBreath was a lot more pleasant, Grim.

Funny, 'cause I just saw this on Yahoo!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060529/hl_ ... ositive_dc

Over time, memories may grow more positive

Oh God....so Bush will be thought of as one of our greatest presidents in 50 years?????

tavernier wrote:

Grimfarrow wrote:

franco wrote:I think DogBreath was a lot more pleasant, Grim.

Funny, 'cause I just saw this on Yahoo!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060529/hl_ ... ositive_dc

Over time, memories may grow more positive

Oh God....so Bush will be thought of as one of our greatest presidents in 50 years?????

wouldn't worry about that. He thoroughly shat himself. It'll smell for years to come. Ah, how I miss the good'ol Clinton years. Slick Willie, how I miss thee.

skuhn8 wrote:

tavernier wrote:

Grimfarrow wrote:
Funny, 'cause I just saw this on Yahoo!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060529/hl_ ... ositive_dc

Over time, memories may grow more positive

Oh God....so Bush will be thought of as one of our greatest presidents in 50 years?????

wouldn't worry about that. He thoroughly shat himself. It'll smell for years to come. Ah, how I miss the good'ol Clinton years. Slick Willie, how I miss thee.

Amen, bro.

A clip from Loach's press conference earlier in the festival, for those of you who haven't seen anything from it:

http://www.svt.se/content/1/c6/59/39/43/KenLoach_hi.asx
http://www.svt.se/content/1/c6/59/39/43/KenLoach_hi.ram

Are there any videos from the price ceremony out there? Or maybe interviews with Loach etc.

THe front page of the Cannes homepage (www.festival-cannes.fr) has links to video footage from closing ceremony and press conference.

Ken Roach fans consist exclusively of pretentious losers. I can't think of a more po-faced, cinematically boring, "director". Hello, but Stalin was voted out of office in the 50s.

I can accept fans of virtually any other director, but any supporter of this atavistic, drunken tosspot should be banished to Cuba.

Recently I've developed increasing hatred for the absurdly repetitous Won Kar Wai. Man, do I feel justified.

Anyone who tries to suggest that Ken Loach is a roach is probably more accurately implicating himself.

Barmy wrote:
I can accept fans of virtually any other director, but any supporter of this atavistic, drunken tosspot should be banished to Cuba.

I'd happily go. Cuba's beautiful.

So I guess since I adore both Oliveira and Loach I must be on your permanent shit list, right Barmy?


Also, I have to respond to this even though I know I shouldn't...

ugetsu wrote: Anyway, it's all pretty meaningless, isn't it. Look at Tarkovsky's lack of a Palme d'Or... and in a few hunded years, no-one will even care who Tarkovsky is (or Dumont or Loach or any of us)...

I've never understood this line of reasoning, other than as glib nihilism. For one thing, relatively speaking, very few people worldwide know or care about Tarkovsky, Dumont or Loach now, let alone in a few hundred years. And dare I risk elitist sentiment if I suggest that if, in fact, no one knows about these figures in the future it will be a poorer future? I mean, using that logic why should anyone ever devote themselves to exacting, often isolating artistic endeavor rather than, say, marketing (where the money is!)? If temporary, personal satisfactions are all that count we're all really kidding ourselves I'll admit. Oddly perhaps, I don't believe that.

We have another one of these on our hands:

http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/vie ... php?t=2928

John Cope wrote:

ugetsu wrote: Anyway, it's all pretty meaningless, isn't it. Look at Tarkovsky's lack of a Palme d'Or... and in a few hunded years, no-one will even care who Tarkovsky is (or Dumont or Loach or any of us)...

I've never understood this line of reasoning, other than as glib nihilism. For one thing, relatively speaking, very few people worldwide know or care about Tarkovsky, Dumont or Loach now, let alone in a few hundred years. And dare I risk elitist sentiment if I suggest that if, in fact, no one knows about these figures in the future it will be a poorer future?

After all, nobody reads Fulmerford today.