Re: The Assassin (Hou Hsiao-hsien, 2015)
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:33 pm
I preordered this before Trees went John Hinckley on it and now I'm tempted to deny delivery
This is why we need a like buttondomino harvey wrote:I preordered this before Trees went John Hinckley on it and now I'm tempted to deny delivery
It's unfortunate that this is the first film of his to receive this kind of attention here in the west. Not that I necessarily think it's worse than any of the wonderful films he's made earlier, but this is, I think, his least accessible film.Michael Kerpan wrote:Not much love for Assassin over on Amazon,,,,
If Trees falls in the forest and no one is around to hear him, does he still sing the praises of The Assassin?Trees wrote:Blu-ray for THE ASSASSIN is now shipping from Amazon for those who've not seen it.
I was wondering about that, considering all the baffled reviews, which I was surprised by, because Hou isn't typically impenetrable at all, quite the opposite, very humanist and naturalistic.mff wrote: It's unfortunate that this is the first film of his to receive this kind of attention here in the west. Not that I necessarily think it's worse than any of the wonderful films he's made earlier, but this is, I think, his least accessible
I think, by mainstream standards, Hou is generally totally impenetrable. None of his films feature conventional exposition (in fact, in terms of characters explaining the plot, The Assassin may indeed come the closest to that out of all his films) and I expect most of those Amazon reviewers, as Michael suggests, would have been equally flummoxed / outraged by any of his preceding films. But he shouldn't present many problems to most members of this forum. The main difference with this film is that the underlying storyline is more complicated and eventful than is the norm for Hou (though Flowers of Shanghai also has a lot of buried complexities that need to be sifted out). Be patient, pay attention, rewatch if necessary.Zot! wrote:I was wondering about that, considering all the baffled reviews, which I was surprised by, because Hou isn't typically impenetrable at all, quite the opposite, very humanist and naturalistic.mff wrote: It's unfortunate that this is the first film of his to receive this kind of attention here in the west. Not that I necessarily think it's worse than any of the wonderful films he's made earlier, but this is, I think, his least accessible
Looking forward to the challenge.
If you consider that this is arguably the most aesthetically beautiful film made in the past 15 years and you passed up the opportunity to see it on the big screen in favor of handing your money to a corporation intent on controlling all aspects of the movie industry (hell, all aspects of quite a few industries), no, you actually didn't come out very well.ermylaw wrote:Although this did play in my town and I wanted to see it, I wasn't able to make. If I had, I'd have had to drive across town to see it, pay for parking and pay for the ticket.
Instead of paying for all of that, I paid Amazon $15.
Whether I like the film or not, I think I came out pretty well.
New Yorker film critic Richard Brody joins inPaul Scrader on Facebook wrote:I've been waiting almost a year to see this film. Saw it tonight. What-the-huh? Camera movement, compositions, lighting, action sequences--a compendium of art house cliches. Okay, five brilliant minutes here, five brilliant minutes there, but, overall, meh. Where is Pauline Kael when we need her. This is just the sort of pomposity she feeded on.
Edit: He continues...Richard Brody on Facebook wrote:I was underwhelmed, too—engaged by the mood and the political implications but not by the drama or the overall experience, which seemed willed into being, not observed
Paul Scrader on Facebook wrote:It is a critical phenomenon I call "buying stock ". Critics and viewers consciously or unconsciously purchase shares in an artist's work. "I have ten thousand shares of Tarantino." "Fifty thousand shares of Star Wars." Etcetera. Once a viewer has purchased stock in an artist he/she becomes committed to that stock valuation. I first noticed this when Peter Bogdonavich purchased a massive holding in Howard Hawks and was then thrust into the awkward position of defending "Man's Favorite Sport". I watched as cinephiles have purchased stock in DePalma, Carpenter, the Coen Bros to the point that they are no longer objectively assessing the work but instead defending their investment. The latest is Hiseau Hisean Ho and the assumption by stock holders that it it must be a masterpiece because he worked on it for eight years.
If we're judging people's opinions based on the films they have made, what is your contribution to back up your opinion?Trees wrote:From the director of "The Canyons".....
I am not a famous film director publicly talking trash about someone else's work and attacking the motivations of people who like it.Alphonse Tram wrote:If we're judging people's opinions based on the films they have made, what is your contribution to back up your opinion?Trees wrote:From the director of "The Canyons".....
i now know what is going to be inscribed on my tombstone thanks to imdb user bachphi:Tears of laughter reading these: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3508840/reviews?filter=hate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;