Boyhood is two and three quarter hours I'll never get back.

Actually, that's not quite true, since I went to bed rather than bother with the last 40 minutes of meandering, inconsequential tedium.

Avoid.

Could you now watch Birdman & let me know what you think of that? Tia :thumbup:

Maybe I'll send it back.

endlessly. Tried to watch Before Sunrise a while back and had to turn it off as the smug hipsters were causing me to reach for my revolver.

I will make an exception for School of Rock, which is excellent and Dazed and Confused, which is at least entertaining.

Otherwise, he's ****.

Whatsoever, there is something I quite like about that. Not much escapism though.

Still, at least the fact you hold School of Rock up as some sort of example invalidates any points you make.

Slacker, Dazed and Confused, seminal films of the 90s imo

I guess you're just unhappy about your unsympathetic portrayal in your biopic, Bernie.

Seminal he may be. Doesn't mean that his influence is a good one, though. His films are full of people with nothing to say saying it at great and tedious length.

I like the character studies, the tableau approach and I don't think films are there just to be entertaining. If you want "entertaining" just watch some mindless blockbusters where huge robots kick **** out of each other.

I like Linklater, I'm pleased that he's back trying to do interesting stuff.

and undramatic series of events. I don't need to watch a film to do that.

That's phenomenally reductive and f**kwitted, j. You're better than that.

That makes you share a philosophy with a Stoke City manager of the 1970s. (Whose name I can't now recall)

actually Alan Durban

Duller than a George Graham team.

Thought provoking, moving, interesting, shocking, I'm fine with all these things which aren't entertainment

If you're bored stiff, it's your fault because you're too stupid to get it.

What's a film got to do with spunk, for God's sake?

I can't help it if your definition of entertainment is so narrow that it only encompasses CGI robots hitting each other, j.

He knows what people want.

For the record, I don't agree with all this Scorcese worship. I am uncomfortable with his faintly nauseating worship of one-dimensional psychopathic characters. However, he knows how to entertain.

Fair enough then.

It's all those other things I mentioned, particularly seminal

Boyhood is neither, but we'll let that go.

It may not be a story to your taste, but it's a story.

Or as rational people refer to it, a story.

drama because they think it makes them cleverer and better than other people is why so many godawful, overlong films with no plot and pisspoor scripts get made these days. There's no respect for the discipline of good craft these days. Everyone prefers to **** on about 'art' as though that were in some way better. Idiots.

Unfortunately for you, the film world's "lax" definitions of plot, story, drama or whatever you want to name clearly don't adhere to your more linear definitions and structures.

I fear you were born in the wrong generation b. By several generations.

Actually, the rise in genuinely terrible, undisciplined and ultimately self-indulgent crap films started with the idea of the auteur (when in doubt, blame the French) and got infinitely worse in the states in the 70s as the studios lost their iron grip on directors and the tedious c**ts started being allowed the freedom to bore the arses off everyone without a studio boss quite rightly telling them to cut it by an hour.

Of course, this period created some great movies, but it also created this awful and damaging idea of the director as artist, which has served to punish cinemagoers ever since.

Look b, you know your definitions of entertainment in film are absolute rubbish. Accept it.

somehow morally edifying. It's not. It's just bad film making.

Don't hate me because I'm able to find entertainment where the layman can only find the mundane.

admit you don't for fear of being thought stupid. We all go through this stage, j, don't worry. You grow out of it and realise life's too f**king short.

I just find it hard to see how you can be so objective about this and bracket so many films under your bizarre definitions. I hate Clerks but I love Slacker. Gummo is **** but Withnail & I is great. It's nothing to do with intellectual pretensions. It's whether the film's entertainment value is entertaining to you.