Boogie Nights..........

[max_tranmere]

As I recall, the JFK film is based on two books written about the assassination. If Oliver Stone had based the film on two other books written about it then the movie would have told it slightly differntly. There will never be a fully accurate account of any real life event that you see in a movie.

From memory the very inaccurate parts of JFK are: the bit about Lee Harvey Oswald apparently having 'maggies draws' (meaning he couldn't aim and fire a rifle very well); and the bit about how you could not recycle a rifle a sufficient number of times to be able to shoot as many shots and hit the car and the people in it in the amount of time that Oswald would have had on the top floor of the book depository as the car turned the corner.

Both of these things are supposed to further prove that Oswald either didn't do it, or there were numerous shooters on the day. I remember seeing in a programme about it a few years ago and the 'maggies draws' thing was proved to be false by the showing of Oswald's military record - which showed he was an excellent shot; and also one of the original investigators, who is now in his 90's and very frail, personally demonstrated how one person COULD recycle a rifle sufficient times to get off that many shots in that limited time.

So these two things, which were written in to the story to further fuel the theories of numerous gunmen and Oswald being 'the patsy', were shown to be nonsense. Those are the only things I can think of in the JFK film that were bullshit.

[one eyed jack]

Spike Lee shallow? Not the best director for such a serious subject?

On the contrary I thought he was a better choice than Norman Jewison who is also a great director but Spike had more passion to get the job and Universal knew he was more than capable otherwise they wouldnt have given it to him. Maybe also being black and Norman being jewish might have had something to do with it but other than that I thought he did a terrific job. As for the shallow aspect, well, directors have to keep it simple enough for the audience to understand. So simple works best. The nest stories always work better with stereotypes which he admitted because it gets the point across a lot cleaner and simpler.

TV is very guilty of this.

If Spike wasnt that good then Martin Scorsese wouldnt have passed 25th Hour onto him.

[one eyed jack]

His films are pretty shallow really.

That comment could be said for about 99% of films that are made these days but then people dont always go to the movies for depth. If they want that they will read the book instead.

[Big Ears Pix]

I think it's a bloody good movie. Is it entirely accurate, are any movies accurate to real life, it's the entertainment business after all.

[one eyed jack]

Should we just leave it that you didnt like it Turanhosting. Its ok not to like what many other people do. We shouldnt be even trying to convince you otherwise.

Sounds like you dont like a great many films but thats ok man. Thats your divine right

[BeestonBoy]

turanhosting wrote:

> Er, bit of a presumption to assume that I'm in a minority all
> of a sudden, have you done market research, or do you tend to
> try to fit in with the majority because you feel better that
> way and clearly more than a little nettled when somebody picks
> holes and you don't really understand the criticism. It's only
> a stupid movie and saying that it's a pretty sour and contrived
> movie is something I am prefectly entitled to say, you've said
> nothing that convinces me otherwise except to say 'no it isn't'
> to me. You haven't said anything to defend the film except to
> say that you like it.
>
> Isn't it obvious that characters which go by the names such as
> 'Dirk Diggler' and 'Jack Horner' are part of a movie produced
> by people who want to trivialise the porn industry and more
> importantly want to deny its role as a real part of the
> entertainment biz, which it very much is again, with big budget
> feature productions just as they were in the 70s. Nothing
> personal but you really need to recognise something as
> derogatory rather than just deciding if you like it or not.
>
> It isn't TRUE that I don't like a 'great many films'. I don't
> like BN and I said that I LIKED 'The Doors' but that the
> characterisation was wildly off-beam.
>
> Sorry where are the other GREAT MANY FILMS listed that I don't
> like EXACTLY?
>
> Stop putting words into my mouth like a total idiot cretin
> would ok?
>
> Did you know that Burt Reynolds sacked his agent after seeing
> BN? Seems like somebody else wasn't too keen on the movie.
>
>


My dear God you really are a very unpleasant turd of a human being aint you. I mean do you really get out of bed in a morning and genuinly think that you are living your life with out at least some serious degree of mental illness.

Your membership of this forum is some what of a puzzle to me. It would seem that you have only joined to argue with and alienate fellow forumites. I can only assume that you have managed to fall out with your imediate circle of friends and colleagues and after your missus left ,you were forced to take your ill mannered nature online in a bid to annoy people on a global scale.

As PP said.....calm the fuck down sun shine.

As for the film. Just like any normal person,I watched it (for free) apprecitaed it was better than any I had ever made and was capable of writing,producing,directing or acting like. And pretty much just used it to while away a few hours of my measly life. Turned off the telly,went bed,probably had a wank and moved on . In the way any rational and sane person would. But hey....maybe thats just me?!?!

Peace out

BB