With the cult of cruelty wallpapering the media more than ever, and murders, wars and celebrity breakdowns as spectator sport, it was inevitable that the cinema of sadism would grab the untapped egghead arthouse crowd market. And the stampede is on.
It is once in a great while that I come across a critique, essay, or opinion that is - how simply can I put this - wrong. Prairie Miller has succeeded in creating a post that could better summarize Fool's Gold because obviously this film went right over this writer's head. I have found that people with more sadistic imaginations find this film to be more violent than it actually is. Tell me Prairie, how many violent acts do we actually see take place in this film. Imperialism? What are you talking about? Trying to appear intelligent by pretending like you have figured it out and then denouncing your own irrelevant assumptions is truly a quality way to analyze a film. Tell me, were they conquering and claiming the households? Really, I want to know; how did you come up with imperialism? I say you think about the film and if you cannot remember maybe watch it again and focus on the one moment of violence we actually see and then try your stellar analyzing skills on that. I won't tell you anymore because I believe it's something you need to find out on your own. If you don't figure it out or choose not to do any further research on this film at least have the decency of retracting your incorrect assumptions of such a clever and poignant film.
Apr 14 - 03:18 PM
Prairie doesn't seem to get this film at all. Im not even sure she realizes this is a remake of the 1997 original.
Jan 22 - 10:14 PM