TheDeceased
Ex-Bluelighter
Flirting with Disaster was terrible and no, neither it nor Huckabees has anything to do with Anderson. But it is another example of a contemporary - note: your use of the word classic - film that I regard to be a masterpiece. So it is indirectly related to the conversation.
You are being pedantic.
That is the incorrect assumption that you made when rashly labeled me. To suggest my opinion is driven by blind adoration rather than serious critique, without any reason, is patronizing.
There are multiple definitions of masterpiece. It can mean a great work or the best work of an artist. Given the context, I obviously intended it to be interpreted as the former. The fact that you chose to interpret it as the latter says something about you, not me.
For the third time, nobody is "throwing around words". Again, that was your assumption. Despite the fact that I have repeatedly said that I use the words sparingly, you maintain your perspective of me. I am one of those people that goes around calling everything a masterpiece - based on one time you have witnessed me saying it.
You are out of your element, Donny.
Don't make me bitch slap you.
In terms of preferring one film to another, Darjeeling is my least favorite of the four, followed by Life Aquatic, I like Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums equally - yet I regard all four to be perfect.
I think The Man Who Wasn't There was perfect but I prefer Barton Fink (also perfect). In a mathematical sense it might seem weird that 100/100 could be "better than" 100/100 if that's how you are interpreting the word perfect but a better analogy would be: x/x is "better than" y/y - were x and y are the ambitions of the respective films. For what they aimed to achieve, they succeeded without any perceivable flaws; perfect from conception to production. That doesn't mean I have to like both films equally.
You are being pedantic.
That is the incorrect assumption that you made when rashly labeled me. To suggest my opinion is driven by blind adoration rather than serious critique, without any reason, is patronizing.
There are multiple definitions of masterpiece. It can mean a great work or the best work of an artist. Given the context, I obviously intended it to be interpreted as the former. The fact that you chose to interpret it as the latter says something about you, not me.
For the third time, nobody is "throwing around words". Again, that was your assumption. Despite the fact that I have repeatedly said that I use the words sparingly, you maintain your perspective of me. I am one of those people that goes around calling everything a masterpiece - based on one time you have witnessed me saying it.
You are out of your element, Donny.
Don't make me bitch slap you.
In terms of preferring one film to another, Darjeeling is my least favorite of the four, followed by Life Aquatic, I like Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums equally - yet I regard all four to be perfect.
I think The Man Who Wasn't There was perfect but I prefer Barton Fink (also perfect). In a mathematical sense it might seem weird that 100/100 could be "better than" 100/100 if that's how you are interpreting the word perfect but a better analogy would be: x/x is "better than" y/y - were x and y are the ambitions of the respective films. For what they aimed to achieve, they succeeded without any perceivable flaws; perfect from conception to production. That doesn't mean I have to like both films equally.
Last edited:
