Okay, this guy has officially pissed me off!
 

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bs...s-of-all-time/

:mad:

Now where the hell did I put my shotgun...

Calling Ridley Scott alone overrated is bad enougn but HITCHCOCK?!


And from this article it's all too clear which side of the political compass he is on.

*Grabs a torch and pitchfork*

Why doesn't this fucktard wanna box his critics like Uwe Boll did? I'm sure people would be lining up to put this clown on his ass.

Those are all poop nuts comments. I assume him thinks him can do better :confused::confused::confused:

Seems like a successful troll to me.

I care about the status of Woody Allen's penis, so I deem the rest of his blog pure speculation!

who cares what some nobody i've never heard of says.

controvercy for the sake of being controvercial isnt in the least bit interesting.

This guy is a complete and utter douche. But I do agree about Requiem for a Dream. It was loud, ugly and nihilistic and not in the cool Abel Ferrara way. Woody Allen is the cinematic broken clock, right twice a day and almost by coincidence. Also, Hitchcock's psychology is halfassed, but realism isn't a priority for him. I actually agree with William Friedkin when he says that Hitchcock's strength is in making you believe stories that basically make no sense. Watching Vertigo, I see him not as a polished writer of suspense, but as a man that learned a thing or two from Lewton and Dreyer. This list is bullshit. Where's Goddard? Where's Fellini? (Two great films and a lot of trpe). Where's Spielberg? Where's ORSON FUCKING WELLES?

i think urgeok is a dried up hack who has only made on good post and that was largely by accident - since then his posts have been half-baked, poorly conceived and lacklustre.

(let the controversy begin!!)


:D

Sounds about right to me..

I don't think the guy's seen Eraserhead and I'm surprised how much he dislikes Vertigo. There were some insights there but he should still go back to the retard farm where they found him.

The Last House on the Left
"Wes Craven produces another high-gloss update of one of his early flicks: the 1972 picture in which a couple take bloody revenge on the gang who attacked their daughter. The film shows no signs of forced urination and there is barely a single pee scene during its long 90 minutes of boredom... – Edward Porter

I agree with that one though..

Actually that link looks like the 100 worse film reviews of 2009 - hard to believe its the Times..

They didn't seem to get Embodiment of Evil haha :)

Sure some are deserving of the scorn but that article pretty muches hates on EVERYTHING released in 2009.

Is it really necessary to determine a year's 100 worst movies? That's a lot of work just to be a douche.

I think its as much the fact that the guy is clearly trying to be controversial and provocative, not just that he has a difference of opinion. You only have to read what the guy is saying to realise that there isn't really any intellectual value behind his criticism. It's more a cry for attention than a legitimate critique. People who try to be controversial and provocative just for the sake of it usual come off looking like a dick....

...and again, what's wrong with us disagreeing? Forums are for discussions, and discussions can stem from disagreement. This guy isn't making ligit points, he's making assumptions and speculations with no research, and no eye for cinema. He's also writing it in a crude way that is clearly to upset the reader.

"Alien is slow." for example: Yeah it is, but it's like that on purpose. It's paced that way to make you anticipate what's comin. If he knew anything about film, he would know and appreciate that.

Also, there are a lot of reasons to dissent and a lot of kinds of dissent. If you've just had a bottle of Jameson and a cop pulls you over and you punch him in the face, that isn't the same kind of dissent as calling out a crooked politician. There's dissenting to be noticed and to be obnoxious and dissenting because you're trying to make a difference. This guy has simply selected a list of some of the greatest directors of all time (and Ridley Scott) and decided they all suck. And without any kind of legitimate arguments or opinions that seem even remotely informed. To be a film critic who doesn't understand David Lynch movies is absurd. If you don't understand Lynch, how are you supposed to have an informed opinion on Miike or a sensible perspective on John Waters? How can you get anything out of The Seventh Victim if you can't follow Tarantino or you don't get Lynch. This guy has decided to be an arbiter of taste and revealed that he has none. That's a lot different from saying you don't like a movie that somebody else liked. It's like a doctor saying "who the hell knows where the aorta is?"

If you're courteous enough that you don't want anybody eating it because you know it's raw and possibly crawling with parasites, you might write a review. The problem is when ignorant people write uninformed reviews. "This restaurant's tiramisu had marscapone cheese in it! Cheese! In a dessert! Ewwww...."