Why do you think that Kevin Smith was attacking the Catholic Church? I think that the film was merely telling us not to lose sight of the whole point of religion. Not to get wrapped up in the rules of specific religions, but to keep in mind that it's all about faith. As far as the Catholic humour is concerned, well he is Catholic, so tell me, which religion is he in the best position to poke fun at(light-heartedly I might add) ? I really doubt that he was trying to tell us that Catholocism sucks.
I really hope you weren't just looking for an opportunity to spout off about something.
I think what you say is valid. For me, wrt Being John... the jury is still out on what to think about it. It didn't hit me in any fantastic way. At face value it was a weird and unique movie. That makes me want to dig deeper to see if there is anything else under there. Who knows maybe there isn't. With The Matrix the thing that piqued my interest was the idea that with super-realistic VR, we wouldn't be able to distinguish reality from virtual reality and therefore would be succeptable to being taken advantage of. It's an interesting and scary thought, but I feel it was an idea that was left behind at the start of the movie. As far as the rest of the movie is concerned, like BJM, nothing hit me, yet nothing about it makes me want to dig any deeper. But, first and foremost, movies are meant to be entertainment, and I have to say that The Matrix entertained me more; it was well done.
Actually, the more decent posts I read, the more I tend to agree. Being a fan, I really wanted to love this movie, but I must admit that I didn't walk out of the theatre thinking "Wow!" (Not like with Chasing Amy). There were some great parts in the movie that I thought were just hilarious and others that were a great balance between humour and seriousness (the boardroom scene comes to mind). As well I liked what he had to say about religion, reminding us not to lose focus on what is really important (I'm not religious myself, but I respect the main ideas behind religion. I just scoff at the strict rule-set).
I think my initial post was just a knee-jerk reaction, worried that it's flaws were being equated to flaws of lesser films. The main distiction for me is that I see the flaws in this movie as failed attemts to carry off a good idea, not just as lame ideas.
That being said, with directors that have proven themselves to me, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt when something doesn't work for me.
I'd have to see the movie again to find scenes to back up my views. All I'm capable of remembering now is how I felt during and after the movie (I'm trying to forget how I felt before).
I liked The Matrix, but I don't see it as as a deep a movie as you do. As far the whole change of identity type stuff is concerned the only real conflict I remeber that the Matrix dealt with was Reeves' character coming to terms with own identity. Yet while that may have been an element, I don't think it dealt with it in any unique way, or too deeply for that matter.
Now if you're saying that all-around you enjoyed The Matrix more and therefore think it's a better movie, then I think I'd agree. The Matrix's action kept me attentive and the movie itself was based on a premise that I find really interesting. I got a bit bored at times with Being John...
Now, that being said, I've only seen each movie once, so who knows, I may find more to each movie upon further viewings.
After reading your post, I tend to agree. I don't think Dogma worked as well as Chasing Amy, which I think is probably his best to date. (Don't get me wrong, I loved Mall Rats and Clerks, but I think Chasing Amy is just as funny yet also has a very strong dramatic element.) In that movie the drama and the comedy worked well together, not so in Dogma, where yes I do think that comedy and drama were a bit too distinct. There were some nice parts where both aspects came together though. I think the boardroom scene is one of them.
I'm curious, what did you think was wrong with the script? As far as the Golgothan being campy, well it is a comedy and Smith is huge comic book fan. I think campy is probably what he was aiming for. Shouldn't a comedy have fun with its special effects? I think when you see something you don't like about a movie you should ask yourself what do you think they were trying to do; then determine if it was a failed attempt or if they got what they wanted. I'm not hacking on your take of the movie. I'm just intersted in understanding your opinion.
I think that we should work on how to live in space (ie build a decent space station, or a research base on the moon) before we start straying too far from our little planet. It'd be nice if we didn't have to launch everything from the Earth. What percentage of the $$ spent on spcecraft goes into its ability to escape and reenter the atmosphere and fight with gravity?
I agree. I think it's too early to be sending humans to Mars. I still think we have a lot to gain (and a lot less to lose) by sending machines.
I don't think that we should send humans until we've learned all that we can learn from the machines. That doesn't mean, however, that I think we shouldn't look into to the issues surrounding manned flights to Mars. Perhaps some of those machines can be set up to investigate those issues.
Also, I don't necessarily feel that Mars exploration should continue forever on a shoestring budget. I'm sure that we could send some pretty wicked machines to Mars, before we start sending humans.
Your comment about art films reminds of a thought I had about PC games. I listen, almost exclusively, to independent/underground music due to a distaste for most mainstream music. I also watch a lot of forgein/art/indie/cult films believing that something doesn't have to be expensive and from Hollywood to be good. So what I've often thought about is, is there an equivalent to this in the gaming world? I mean, is there a potential for a whole world of games that don't meet the mainstream's expectations. Sure some games do better than others and sure some genres are more popular than others, but I don't really see two separate parallel streams like you do in film or music. If you see games as art -- which is definitely a big element -- then I would think, why not. Why couldn't there be a whole other culture that is more interested in games as art, developing on a whole other level. However, I believe that games are as much a sport as they are art. Probably more so. I can't really think of anything that I would qualify as an "alternative" sport. And it's from this point of view that I find it harder to imagine a sub-culture, making "better" games but ones that aren't appreciated by the mainstream.
Why do you say bloated? To me a bloated application is an application that has every feature under the sun, most of them useless. A case of trying to have super-app that does everything. I don't consider games to be bloated. They are getting bigger because developers are adding more depth to them and making the worlds that they exist in more detailed/realistic. How is that bloat?
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa! What are you going on about?
Why do you think that Kevin Smith was attacking the Catholic Church? I think that the film was merely telling us not to lose sight of the whole point of religion. Not to get wrapped up in the rules of specific religions, but to keep in mind that it's all about faith. As far as the Catholic humour is concerned, well he is Catholic, so tell me, which religion is he in the best position to poke fun at(light-heartedly I might add) ? I really doubt that he was trying to tell us that Catholocism sucks.
I really hope you weren't just looking for an opportunity to spout off about something.
Is it just me, or did she seem a little Laura Croft-ish in her first scene. Must be the shorts.
I think what you say is valid. For me, wrt Being John... the jury is still out on what to think about it. It didn't hit me in any fantastic way. At face value it was a weird and unique movie. That makes me want to dig deeper to see if there is anything else under there. Who knows maybe there isn't. With The Matrix the thing that piqued my interest was the idea that with super-realistic VR, we wouldn't be able to distinguish reality from virtual reality and therefore would be succeptable to being taken advantage of. It's an interesting and scary thought, but I feel it was an idea that was left behind at the start of the movie. As far as the rest of the movie is concerned, like BJM, nothing hit me, yet nothing about it makes me want to dig any deeper. But, first and foremost, movies are meant to be entertainment, and I have to say that The Matrix entertained me more; it was well done.
Actually, the more decent posts I read, the more I tend to agree. Being a fan, I really wanted to love this movie, but I must admit that I didn't walk out of the theatre thinking "Wow!" (Not like with Chasing Amy). There were some great parts in the movie that I thought were just hilarious and others that were a great balance between humour and seriousness (the boardroom scene comes to mind). As well I liked what he had to say about religion, reminding us not to lose focus on what is really important (I'm not religious myself, but I respect the main ideas behind religion. I just scoff at the strict rule-set).
I think my initial post was just a knee-jerk reaction, worried that it's flaws were being equated to flaws of lesser films. The main distiction for me is that I see the flaws in this movie as failed attemts to carry off a good idea, not just as lame ideas.
That being said, with directors that have proven themselves to me, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt when something doesn't work for me.
I'd have to see the movie again to find scenes to back up my views. All I'm capable of remembering now is how I felt during and after the movie (I'm trying to forget how I felt before).
I liked The Matrix, but I don't see it as as a deep a movie as you do. As far the whole change of identity type stuff is concerned the only real conflict I remeber that the Matrix dealt with was Reeves' character coming to terms with own identity. Yet while that may have been an element, I don't think it dealt with it in any unique way, or too deeply for that matter.
Now if you're saying that all-around you enjoyed The Matrix more and therefore think it's a better movie, then I think I'd agree. The Matrix's action kept me attentive and the movie itself was based on a premise that I find really interesting. I got a bit bored at times with Being John...
Now, that being said, I've only seen each movie once, so who knows, I may find more to each movie upon further viewings.
After reading your post, I tend to agree. I don't think Dogma worked as well as Chasing Amy, which I think is probably his best to date. (Don't get me wrong, I loved Mall Rats and Clerks, but I think Chasing Amy is just as funny yet also has a very strong dramatic element.) In that movie the drama and the comedy worked well together, not so in Dogma, where yes I do think that comedy and drama were a bit too distinct. There were some nice parts where both aspects came together though. I think the boardroom scene is one of them.
I'm curious, what did you think was wrong with the script? As far as the Golgothan being campy, well it is a comedy and Smith is huge comic book fan. I think campy is probably what he was aiming for. Shouldn't a comedy have fun with its special effects? I think when you see something you don't like about a movie you should ask yourself what do you think they were trying to do; then determine if it was a failed attempt or if they got what they wanted. I'm not hacking on your take of the movie. I'm just intersted in understanding your opinion.
As far Katz's split personality comment, I can't understand why he couldn't just accept it as both. Does it have to be one or the other?
Besides, based on the length of his reviews it makes me wonder whether he really got either of those movies. He obviously wasn't much for insight.
I think that we should work on how to live in space (ie build a decent space station, or a research base on the moon) before we start straying too far from our little planet. It'd be nice if we didn't have to launch everything from the Earth. What percentage of the $$ spent on spcecraft goes into its ability to escape and reenter the atmosphere and fight with gravity?
I agree. I think it's too early to be sending humans to Mars. I still think we have a lot to gain (and a lot less to lose) by sending machines.
I don't think that we should send humans until we've learned all that we can learn from the machines. That doesn't mean, however, that I think we shouldn't look into to the issues surrounding manned flights to Mars. Perhaps some of those machines can be set up to investigate those issues.
Also, I don't necessarily feel that Mars exploration should continue forever on a shoestring budget. I'm sure that we could send some pretty wicked machines to Mars, before we start sending humans.
Your comment about art films reminds of a thought I had about PC games. I listen, almost exclusively, to independent/underground music due to a distaste for most mainstream music. I also watch a lot of forgein/art/indie/cult films believing that something doesn't have to be expensive and from Hollywood to be good. So what I've often thought about is, is there an equivalent to this in the gaming world? I mean, is there a potential for a whole world of games that don't meet the mainstream's expectations. Sure some games do better than others and sure some genres are more popular than others, but I don't really see two separate parallel streams like you do in film or music. If you see games as art -- which is definitely a big element -- then I would think, why not. Why couldn't there be a whole other culture that is more interested in games as art, developing on a whole other level. However, I believe that games are as much a sport as they are art. Probably more so. I can't really think of anything that I would qualify as an "alternative" sport. And it's from this point of view that I find it harder to imagine a sub-culture, making "better" games but ones that aren't appreciated by the mainstream.
Why do you say bloated? To me a bloated application is an application that has every feature under the sun, most of them useless. A case of trying to have super-app that does everything. I don't consider games to be bloated. They are getting bigger because developers are adding more depth to them and making the worlds that they exist in more detailed/realistic. How is that bloat?
Does Fugazi make t-shirts now? I remember a little while back that they didn't. Hence the whole "This is not a Fugazi t-shirt" thing.