Johann_Nick_vonStone

Comments by Johann_Nick_vonStone

Back to the Future

And it is good!
— June 9, 2010 2:57 p.m.

Little Wonder

Five+ hours are more than enough for a finer pursuit (and one that won't give one melanoma), which is: give the beautiful, masterly 'Mystic River' a second chance, uninterrupted, then quietly reflect on how very, very, very wrong you were. I read most of that needless, foolhardy thread (http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2010/feb/03/...) from a few weeks back, and can say that with the exception of a couple single-posters, that was a sucky-ass thread. I'm glad I can say I wasn't a part of it. I know many couldn't "relate" to the Tim Robbins character, couldn't empathize. And I know a "bad" or "too contrived" ending can spoil a whole movie for many folks. But -call me less than tolerant- I have one word for those who say this and that('Mystic River' "sucked" because of the "most amazing of coincidences" that concluded the drama, was shizzyfinn's conclusion), and that is: imbecile. Because they are intolerant of art, asking that it be easier to comprehend than life, more logical. We need art to provide a condensing focus on reality, not to unfold all the creases to make it flatly obvious (see 'L.A. Confidential'), or to add extra complications to create pointless obscurantism (see 'Shutter Island'). The greatest of art (like the movies of 'Mystic River' or 'The Bridges of Madison County', not the books) is not easy, it's a moral as well as intellectual challenge. Some of us, regardless of how smart we are, aren't up to the challenge. Please note: I do not mean those who dislike this movie, even hate it, are immoral, only that viewing a movie of this high a caliber is itself a moral act, like the making of it was. to meet such a summit half-way requires some true skill. It helps t have a sherpa of the expertise of Duncan Shepherd, to help those who know as well the art of viewing as reading.
— March 12, 2010 4:44 p.m.