oh no i'm not coming back with more at all. i'd already finished your hapless attempts at reviewing etc. three posts down.

for all you know.. i might start posting mp3s here from now on which come to think of is not a bad idea. maybe later.

flag objectionable content

RD...you are still on my case? Move on with life.

I have a feeling because I just had the last say, you will come back with more. My fault.

flag objectionable content

I think this deserves an encore:

"Would you believe me if I said the film is weird and surreal? It is...and this only adds to the building confusion."

flag objectionable content

RD...you're not terribly good with babbling. And thats all that you've managed to do so far. You're also not very good at comprehending. I guess you just need the attention. Get yourself a pet dog.

flag objectionable content

"so it is permissible to write what I did in the manner that I did."

You're not terribly bright at shifting argument either. First, it was the question of you don't like the film for some reasons then it became the question of film's purpose (to entertain etc.) now it's about permissibility of your expression.

Let me suggest the next tack, make it a question of freedom of expression and imply that peeps who don't like your spiel on a public forum are actually shutting you up.

flag objectionable content

RD...

"Your God-like pronouncements notwithstanding on what a film's "purpose" should be or shouldn't be (who talks like that anyway?)"

I wasn't "talking" to you...I was writing down my thoughts, so it is permissible to write what I did in the manner that I did. You know Sam Peckinpah? Super....so do I along with about a billion other people.

I seem to have touched a raw nerve with whatever I've written about the film and you sound extremely irritated (not to mention anal) about it. There is no point even talking about the film, because you are talking about my approach (and my writing) about the film, not the film itself. You know Dylan and understand the film. Hooray! I don't - ignorant me.

flag objectionable content

a one line review as according to "movie-purpose" should have been:

I get entertained or
I didn't get entertained.

It would have made perfect sense. See a take on Balls of Fury on this board.

flag objectionable content

By the way, let me rip the fightclub reference too ... fightclub is a movie about a book about a character that invents a character. I'm Not There is about characters that are pulled by a character that is invented by a real life person so the abstractions (that we see but actually exist as music in back catalogue of bob dylan) are two degree removed from the real guy. It's better you just let it go... watch a ron howard biopic (whatever that is) instead.

flag objectionable content

Your God-like pronouncements notwithstanding on what a film's "purpose" should be or shouldn't be (who talks like that anyway?), But if your pop culture knowledge enables you to have such a condescending tone, then please, by all means, enlighten me. let me say this: looking up Billy The Kid will run the risk of introducing you to Sam Peckinpah so my advice is don't...

flag objectionable content

I think many people here, and generally elsewhere, in their God like awe of a mere man known as Bob Dylan, forget that the purpose of a movie is to, first and foremost, entertain us. Sometimes it may even inform (docs for eg). Being the bankrupt director that Haynes is, he does nothing except prove to the world that he knows how to make one film that look like 6 distinct films. Wow...great, the man has technique, but not the ability to tell a story. Also, the multiple references to Fellini in the B&W segments featuring Blanchett had 'look at me do this' posted all over it.

I don't think I'm expected to know the purpose and history behind the connection behind why Billy the Kid pops his head between a Dylan biopic. But if your pop culture knowledge enables you to have such a condescending tone, then please, by all means, enlighten me.

Interesting analogy about Godfather - except the examples you cite are from 3 distinct movies, with the exception of Godfather 2, which was set in 2 very different timelines. Admit it, even the people who like 'I'm not there' are able to explain why. Its just friggin cool art you say? Bah...

P.S. Reminder: My reviews are subjective and my own opinions.

flag objectionable content

'It's not the first time more than one actor has been used to show a character...everyone remembers "Fight Club" right?'

The fictional Pitt/Norton DICHOTOMY should not be confused with the DIFFERENTIATED reality that is Robert Zimmerman. It is like saying that Don Corleone was played by three different actors in Godfather I, II & III and that the trick is nothing new. Obviously, Dylan's facets are better captured by a 6-dimensional gem than a 2-faced coin parable.

flag objectionable content

'they have different names, and one of them is, strangely enough Billy the Kid? Huh...what the hell is going on?'

If you can't figure out where Billy the Kid reference comes from, excuse yourself from reviewing the movie.

flag objectionable content

for someone who comes up with gems like well, this one: Would you believe me if I said the film is weird and surreal? It is...and this only adds to the building confusion. And there are many more.

your distaste for this flick is extremely welcome.

flag objectionable content

this was more for dylan groupies anyway, of which there are quite a lot.

flag objectionable content