Jump to content

robthehand

Members
  • Posts

    5,066
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by robthehand

  1. I missed this thread too.

    I only really know him from Blazing Saddles, but he was good in that.

    "I want you to round up every vicious criminal and gunslinger in the west. I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, s**t-kickers and Methodists!"

    R.I.P.

  2. I'd say simply a bad score one that lessens the effectiveness of the film. One that makes it worse than it was before. For that it would have to not only be bad/inappropriate, but also noticable.

    Good/bad stand-alone music is a different matter entirely. Many a good "score" is not particularly good "music", and vice versa.

    The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a bad score. It tries to bring down the movie to the level of a common melodrama, and cheapens the real emotional turmoil going on on-screen. Good music, though.

    <_<

    Someone on the FSM board started screaming at me when I said that a while ago. I enjoy the album, but I was apalled at how badly it worked in the film.

    annoying opera like female/male voice, like in an Morricone score everyone was praising a while back

    Not sure what you're referring to here - do you mean like in "The Ecstasy of Gold" (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) or the theme from Once Upon a Time in the West? If so, I'm amazed that you could watch the film and think that that's bad scoring.

    A bad score is background noise instead of what it should be: music that is part of the story.

    I disagree with that too. The Exorcist's score could mostly be described as "noise", but it works, that's all that film needed. A more elaborate score would have weakened the film.

  3. Another important thing about the movie which is rare these days: It takes itself seriously. Nowadays, it seems like that's some sort of suicide for a movie.

    Good point, but filmmakers do have to be careful not to confuse "serious" with "pretentious". A film can definitely take itself too seriously (not that I think 2001 does).

    The thing that really struck me when I saw it in February was how "perfectly" made it was. I wouldn't normally use that word... but here every shot seemed exactly right, the timing of every moment was spot-on. Not a single frame seemed out of place, or unfinished. Most movies have the odd line or shot that doesn't feel 100% right, but with 2001 I get the impression that Kubrick knew (and got) exactly what he wanted.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.