Seems little George got all p**sed off at a movie critic who called Solaris boring.
"I find you fascinating. You crack me up, man. You just wanted to get up and be a rat, you know that? You just wanted to get up and say something rotten. What a jerk! I mean honestly, you know, what a s**t thing to say! You make a lot of films, do you? You make a lot of films yourself? Yeah, I'd like to see you make a film first before you get to talk about it. What a jerk!"
To paraphrase Dante, over at Dante's Inferno, another wonderful bad movie review website - Somebody doesn't need to be a chef to tell you when the cake you baked tastes like s**t, either. Grow up George and learn how to really act while your at it instead of playing George Clooney.
"Hi, Freeze, I'm George Clooney . . .er, Batman."
What's your source? I'd be interested to read the whole article.
Personally I can't stand Clooney...I've never understood why people like him.
imdb.com one of the new stories for today.
You can find this story archived in any website (I know of Drudge Report and Yahoo News).
Anyways, wouldnt you be spoiled too if people gave you and your friends (Julia Roberts, Clooney, and Steven Soderburgh seem to be joined at the hip) millions of dollars to make any movie u desire. Wouldnt you be spoiled knowing you are the last Batman for a long time? Man, I wish everyone and their friends could get millions to make a movie of them hanging out (Full Frontal anyone)?
.
What does your post even mean Gerry?
Gerry's just bulking up the number on his user profile. :)
I saw some of Clooney's outburst on TV, and it was pretty funny. Funny in the 'George Clooney's an idiot' way rather than 'isn't George Clooney a funny guy' way. I think in that position the best response would clearly have been, using the words of the Dude, 'Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.' Or perhaps, in the words of a 5 year old 'Your Mum's boring', or 'Not as boring as you'. Any of the above would have been more intelligent than what he actually said.
Pete
Multiple points:
a) Clooney is a git. However, it is a natural reaction for people to be defensive about their work particularly work with poor results.
b) Though it doesn't take a chef to tell when a cake is bad It takes a knowledge and sophistication to understand what went wrong AND a maturity to realize one bad cake does not a lousy chef make. Most critics I think have less expertise than they are given credit for. Boring is a subjective term. The Addiction was boring for most people, but I thought it was fascinating. Subjective condemnation is a flimsy criticism.
c) It is harder to make something than it is to critique it. Even a bad movie or cake took effort that tasting or watching it did not. My favorite derision of critics was "Those who can not do, teach. Those who can not teach, critique." It's a lazy skill judging the efforts of others. I'm a lousy skier, but when someone who doesn't even ski criticizes my ability I respond very differently than when an excellent skier criticizes me. One of them has rights to their claim so to speak. I as a casual observer of a movie have the right to decide and speak for myself when I say "It sucked" If my opinion is to be the basis of whether or not anyone else should watch the movie I SHOULD take great pains in what I say about the movie. Most critics that I've read don't do that, which is a legitimate criticism of critics
"Thanks (end of message)"...I was just thanking SkullNinja for citing his source. Sorry for the obscurity of my reply.
Oh right. I hardly ever even look at message headings any more. So first time I read it I thought you'd just posted a full stop.
Pete
If he loses a bit more hair, Clooney will start to resemble John Saxon. With any luck, his career will end up where Saxon's ended up . . . in the B-Movie toilet.
Nice one, Funk E. The third one in particular. The subjectivity of criticisim keeps me from takeing it too seriously.
I think most of use here are confident in our tastes. My reaction is to Looney Clooney's attitude. What a jerk! Its just a movie,It ain't the Holy Grail, George, and you are NO Graham Chapman!
Thank you Flange
I don't want him in my B movies. With any luck he'll continue to be in movies I don't give a damn about anywa.
Ah, Dante. I wish that site was around when I was 12. Dante and Stately Wayne Manor would have made puberty a lot easier. Not to mention the Hungover Gourmet!
I, for the most part, enjoy George Clooney's work. I even liked the Batman flick. But, he seems to have a somewhat inflated sense of his own importance. When Princess Diana died, Clooney called a press conference to lash into the press, I wasn't even aware that the whole affair concerned him in any way. After 9/11, when Bill O'Reilly sked questions about where the money from all the charity concerts, and celebrity events was going, Clooney, again, began releasing statements and holding press conferences. I understand that even actors have opinions(mostly high opinions of themselves it seems), but why should they have special license to inflict their politics/religion/philosophy on everyone else. This extends to rock stars as well(where's Michael Stipe). Personally I think George is f**king loopy.
Also, films, like the cake in the aforementioned analogy, are made by one person or group, for the consumption of another. They are a service or commodity which people purchase. Even though I cook or bake for s**t, if I pay for a product, then I have the right to critique it. Same with movies. I've never made a film, but I critique them everyday, to my friends, family, co-workers, and especially here. Aren't film critics basically a Consumer Report-type of thing. They're doing the same thing I do for pay(the bastards) Now if this knuckle head had said that Solaris was the best friggin' film since Gone With The Wind, Clooney would have praised his visionary genius, his unfaltering good taste, and would have added the quote to the films advertising. As it was, the guy just told the truth, Solaris is a s**tbomb remake of an older s**tbomb. Call 'em like you see 'em. More of this kinda crap and George will be back on ER, an I mean the one with Eliott Gould!!
As I had stated. As far as my opinion goes I am entitled to what ever it may be, but as you pointed out as a "Consumer Affairs" report there should be some sense of reverence for the duties that you perform and the product you review. A reporter for a car magazine isn't going to simply and merely state that he thinks the Viper is ugly. He's got to justify his statements. I, as an unprofessional, can simply state that Microsoft products that I've encountered generally suck. If I were a consumer reporter I would have to articulate concerns about over simplification, instability, excessive memory use and prove it. "This is boring" is hardly a responsible statement for a defender of public consumption to make.
And that still doesn't change the fact that lacking personal experience does undermine the authority of a critic's claim. As a s**tty skier I have more rights to critique another skier than one who doesn't ski at all because I know what the difficulties are. As a cook I can give an articulate description of why a particular cake is substandard and as a former film student I have a working knowledge of what goes into making a movie. Many a film critic does not and yet their opinion can sway many. As with the examples above: someone who does not drive should not write about cars, a person who does not use a computer in fact both a Mac and a PC or Microsaft and Unix has no right to make claims about Microsoft software.
To witness any event gives you justification to have an opinion on it. It does not however give you a "Professional" opinion and a critic is a type of professional who should know something of the profession they critique. That's all I'm saying. A lot of these critics aren't even good writers and that's their job...