Film: Spun

[ego_loss]

Spun = One of my top 5 movies EVAR.

If that is indeed the case, I think you should try to see more movies.

 

[Raz]

^^^Naw, I prefer to think that people should stop taking stuff so seriously...

 

[psychedelicious]

this was a comedy, you folks need to lighten up

 

[ego_loss]

^^
so was "Little Man".

Comedy, drama, biopic... whatever. I think the general goal of a movie is to be "good" or at least "tolerable". Spun was neither. The fact that the movie may contain some misguided attempts at humor does not excuse this.

 

[alasdairm]

movies are art and good - in the context of art - means different thing to different people. to suggest that every movie made has the same goal seems ridiculous to me.

it's evident from this thread that some people found spun more than tolerable and certainly good.

alasdair

 

[dr-ripple]

To be honest I can never or have I never watched the full thing! Just brings back flashbacks that make me do a curl stomach move.

 

[ego_loss]

movies are art and good - in the context of art - means different thing to different people. to suggest that every movie made has the same goal seems ridiculous to me.

it's evident from this thread that some people found spun more than tolerable and certainly good.

alasdair

That is always your argument. I'm surprised that someone who seems to know what makes good cinema (even if it is subjective) would simply write off my point of view as simple snobbery.

If you heard people say things like "Britney Spears is one of the most talented performers of our generation", wouldn't you assume that they are either total morons with horrible taste or just not aware of the greater talent from COUNTLESS other artists?

By someone saying that this movie is one of their top five EVAR, I simply suggest that they should perhaps expand their horizons before making such a bold statement. I can make several lists of madcap comedies, some with and some without the drug content, that someone should see and consider before they decide that Spun is a) a well made movie and b) one of the top five they have seen.

Besides, subjectivity only goes so far. Crap is still crap, no matter which way you look at it.

Spun, once again, is crap. I say this as someone who REALLY wanted to like it. It sucked. It was not funny, it was not amusing, it was not thought provoking, it was not poignant, it was not a brutally honest look into the upside-down world of a tweeker. It WAS a ninety minute long music video.

 

[alasdairm]

That is always your argument.

perhaps it's always my argument for a reason?

By someone saying that this movie is one of their top five EVAR, I simply suggest that they should perhaps expand their horizons before making such a bold statement.

you have no idea what other movies that person has seen. your statement implies you think you know how they should feel about movies better than they should.

they simply have a different opinion from you - why is that sometimes so hard for people to understand?

Besides, subjectivity only goes so far. Crap is still crap, no matter which way you look at it.

your statement is demonstrably wrong. the very fact that raz didn't think it was crap (i.e the way he looked at it) shows that statement to be, well, just plain wrong.

i'll humour you - if that's the case, then you are saying that movie quality can be objectively measured, right?

how would you quantitatively measure something as fundamentally objective as the 'goodness' or 'badness' of a movie? can you suggest how such a clinical measurement of a movie would even begin?

alasdair

 

[ppurplehhayes]

The scene in the car with Brittany Murphy and Jason Schwartzman when they are saying how everything is gonna be great for them and they're so speeded is so well done and accurate.

Great film.

 

[ego_loss]

perhaps it's always my argument for a reason?

i'll humour you - if that's the case, then you are saying that movie quality can be objectively measured, right?

how would you quantitatively measure something as fundamentally objective as the 'goodness' or 'badness' of a movie? can you suggest how such a clinical measurement of a movie would even begin?

alasdair

All movies are art, but not all art is subjective. Portions can be left open to interpretation, but there are basic fundamental principles that good cinema should have. People go to school for years and pay thousands of dollars to learn how to make movies.

Was it a good script? Did it seem like the director was competent? How was the cinematography? Was the acting convincing? Was the editing sloppy? Was the sound shitty? All of these elements and many more should be considered.

In the case of Spun, I will go through as many individual elements as I can recall from the (several) viewings I had of the movie when it first hit video.

Story/screenplay - Weak at best. The dialogue was weak and poorly thought out (aside from some of The Cooks interactions). The characters were one dimensional with no emotional depth or development. The situations were ludicrous to the point of being insulting. I understand that Ackerlund was going for a parody or satire, but he ended up making a cliched, overly long music video... lots of brief interludes that make the viewer think "man, that's kind of fucked up" but providing nothing to move the narrative along.

Acting - Again, with the exception of Mickey Rourke (and Eric Robert's surprising cameo) it was a phenomenal failure. Some of the cast has real life experience with meth and the world around it (Schwartzman and Leguizamo in particular) and they still ended up phoning it in. This isn't particularly their fault, since they were probably just accepting direction, which brings me to my next point:

Direction - Ackerlund doesn't seem to know how to carry a project past the "made for MTV" length. I'm sure his heart was in the right place, but his execution was weak. If that movie was truly "his vision" then he needs to get glasses. He relied too heavily upon basic emotional triggers rather than giving the movie any depth. "Eww! Look at Mena Suvari! She's ugly and taking a crap!" as opposed to "Mena Suvari sure does look pretty tore up in this flick, and her character really relays that look. I understand where she is coming from."

Editing/cinematography - Again, lots of quick cuts make for decent three minute music videos, but it's hard to base a whole film around them without some kind of dominant cohesive theme (ala Darren Aronofsky). The same can be said for the cinematography. I see what he was going for with the overall look and feel of the film (what the world looks like to a tweaker), but above and beyond that simple concept he failed miserably.

All of these factors combined make a sloppy, condescending, insulting mess of a movie. I can understand someone who has no exposure to either the real world of drug use or the real world of cinema could mistake this movie as acceptable, but on a drug based message board such as Bluelight, where people really know what tweakers are like, I would expect a little more.

If you want other, well made movies about drugs and the people that do them here is a little list to get started:

The Salton Sea, Withnail and I, Fear & Loathing, Leaving Las Vegas, Drugstore Cowboy, Traffic, Scarface, A Scanner Darkly, Naked Lunch... and those are just films with a dominant drug theme. There are dozens of other examples of better ways to portray drug users and their interactions with each other/society in humorous, serious, poignant, witty, satirical or thought provoking ways. It really is insulting to the people that make these movies to overlook them in favor of Spun. It's like saying that House of the Dead is one of the best zombie flicks ever made.

 

[XRoLLiNBaLLSX]

I was wondering why no one ever smoked it...they were only snorting and injecting it. I've never done it but i've met alot of tweakers, have friends who smoke speed, sat with people while they did it, and i buy rolls and shit from tweakers and it seems that they all smoke it and rarely snort it. I know one dude who drinks and eats it when he's done smoking

 

[alasdairm]

but there are basic fundamental principles that good cinema should have.

which depends entirely on your opinion of good...

People go to school for years and pay thousands of dollars to learn how to make movies.

sure they do. that doesn't mean they all make 'good' movies. nor does it mean that all 'good' movies are only made by people who "go to school for years and pay thousands of dollars to learn how to make movies". indeed, it's not clear to me how the school comment is even relevant.

i asked you to suggest how one objectively measures something like the 'goodness' or 'badness' of a movie.

the following are all subjective judgements:

"Was it a good script? Did it seem like the director was competent? How was the cinematography? Was the acting convincing? Was the editing sloppy? Was the sound shitty?"

one person might think the script was good. another might think the same script was bad. as such - in the context of the current discussion - a question like "was it a good script?" is essentially meaningless. what objective criteria do you use to say whether a script is good or bad?

i'm grateful that you took the time to dissect why you dislike spun but i think your analysis is, again, off the topic. the following are all subjective judgements:

"Weak at best."
"The dialogue was weak and poorly thought out..."
"The characters were one dimensional with no emotional depth or development."
"The situations were ludicrous to the point of being insulting..."
"...it was a phenomenal failure."
"...his execution was weak."
"...above and beyond that simple concept he failed miserably."
"...a sloppy, condescending, insulting mess of a movie."

how do you objectively measure the 'weakness' of a script? serisouly think about that question for a second. could you write a computer program to measure the weakness of a script? what criteria would such a program use to rate one script above another?

It really is insulting to the people that make these movies to overlook them in favor of Spun.

different people have different opinions of what makes a better movie. maybe they didn't overlook them? maybe they have seen them, have considered them and simply prefer spun...

you're essentially saying that their preference is wrong and yours is right. how can a personal preference even be wrong?



alasdair

 

[ego_loss]

It's not really a matter of objective vs subjective when it comes to aspects of a movie that are poorly conceived and/or executed. If that were the case, I think Hudson Hawk should have won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, and David Caruso should have won for Actor in a Supporting Roll. I think Judge Reinhold is an understated genius who is just misunderstood. I think Uwe Boll can get some of the most amazing performances out of his actors and is so impeccable that he can neglect things like dialogue and acting while he directs.

Okay. For real now. Go out and rent the movie "13 Seconds". This is the single worst movie I have ever ever ever seen... and I have seen a shitload of bad movies in my time. It is a great example of everything you should NOT do when making a movie. It is everything I have been talking about right there in one package. No redeeming qualities at all. Please. Watch it and tell me that it is still a matter of opinion what makes a movie "bad". If you can watch the entire film and come back to honestly tell me that people who say the movie was well done (and there are some loonies claiming that on the IMDB) weren't either blind/dumb/on drugs or all of the above... I will eat my freaking hat.

 

[alasdairm]

It's not really a matter of objective vs subjective when it comes to aspects of a movie that are poorly conceived and/or executed.

it absolutely is and that's my point.

i'll try to distill it one more time and then agree to disagree.

"poorly conceived" is a subjective judgement call. whether or not something is poorly conceived (and to what extent) is in the eye of the individual beholder. if i understand you correctly, you are suggesting that it's not - that an aspect such as quality of a script is an objective, measurable quality. i've asked you a couple of times to suggest how one measures something like the quality of a script and so far you been unable or unwilling to do so.

i'm truly not being combative and if i appear so it's simply because i'm frustrated that i can't understand your position.

alasdair

 

[Raz]

I didn't mean to spark a massive debate on the whole issue, but now that one is in place....

Why shouldn't this be one of my favourite movies? I never said there aren't films that are technically better....I just like it more than those films. I also count (early) John Waters as one of my favourite directors and I think that while Orson Welles is technically very skilled, he's also massively over-rated. I accept that my opinions aren't the generally accepted opinions of what is/isn't good cinema. But I don't really care.

I do actually have a pretty broad knowledge of film for someone who isn't directly involved in that industry, at least I consider it so anyway.....it's just that what I consider a good viewing experience is obviously different to what you consider a good viewing experience.

As much as you might think artistic appreciation can be deemed objective, it really can't....there are some people who think Russ Meyers is an under-appreciated genius, while others see him as exploitative and unoriginal. They're both right or wrong depending on who you ask....

 

[ego_loss]

it absolutely is and that's my point.

i'll try to distill it one more time and then agree to disagree.

"poorly conceived" is a subjective judgement call. whether or not something is poorly conceived (and to what extent) is in the eye of the individual beholder. if i understand you correctly, you are suggesting that it's not - that an aspect such as quality of a script is an objective, measurable quality. i've asked you a couple of times to suggest how one measures something like the quality of a script and so far you been unable or unwilling to do so.

i'm truly not being combative and if i appear so it's simply because i'm frustrated that i can't understand your position.

alasdair

I'm not being combative either. I love these kinds of discussions.

Since the scope of my arguments are now far outside the realm of this original topic, I will move to a whole new thread. I'll post it later tonight, since it will take me a while to write.

 

[dbailey11]

2/4 IMO. Mickey Rourke was good in this and I think it definately had its moments ( John Leguizamo beating off into a sock! fucking crazy) but it was a sad and pointless story. Oh, Mina Suvari was good in it as well.

 

[panic in paradise]

^ i personally wouldnt call it pointless, but i gave it 2 stars, maybe 3 but my first thought was 2.

the ending is what made me take it more serious.

 

[TALLY]

I cant believe people give this movie 4 stars. I mean its a good movie. I gave it three stars. I think 4 stars are reserved for classics like Goodfellas, Scarface, Pulp Fiction. Come on now people. Im a meth head too, but this isnt a classic. There are even better meth movies out there like Salton Sea.

The highest ratings should go to movies that are classics in time, not just movies that you like that are good...NO

 

[alasdairm]

^ ratings are simply a (crude) measure of other people's preferences.

is it really that hard to understand they may have a different preference to you and, further, that they may give different weight to different aspects of a movie?

alasdair