Bully

[Ripper 0]

Larry Clark is an exceptional director and I think that Bully is a GREAT film.  Also, for people who enjoyed this and KIDS, check out ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE which is another Larry Clark film with James Woods and Melanie Griffith.  It is awesome too.

I can understand liking the films, but to call this guy a great director is stretching it alittle.

 

He HONESTLY can't frame a shot, AT ALL.

 

For another exceptional Larry Clark film, check out "I was a Teenaged Caveman" Hilarity will ensue.

dude, he has professional people working for him. it's not like his DP is some 15-year-old kid just putting the camera where he's told to. his DP knows what he's doing, everything he shoots is shot that way on purpose. saying you don't like the way he frames a shot is fine, but don't make a blanket claim like "he CAN'T frame a shot."

 

For another exceptional Larry Clark film, check out "I was a Teenaged Caveman"  Hilarity will ensue.

that's just stupid. it's like if we were having a discussion about martin scorsese and you were trying to prove he was a bad director by saying "look, he made 'bloody mama!'"

 

No it's not...It's SO much easier.

then why do so few people get it right?

Come on. I hate people see that a shot is horrible, they just say "He meant it to look like that" If he meant it to look like absolute CRAP then okay. But a REAL director knows how to convey emotion through the shot, the camera movement and such. Clark has used the same crappy style in every film. The "He wants it to have a documentary feel" shit makes no sense for films like Another day in Paradise and I was a Teenage Caveman and barely works for Bully. He uses the most pointless cuts and close ups of anyone that I have ever seen. His work screams "on the fly directing" and I honestly believe he has no idea of what he is trying to do before the scene starts. The most calm camera movement in Bully came when the kids were the most frantic. The most frantic when they were sitting there looking at each other. And if it hadn't been so shittily edited, you could make a case for that having a meaning, but the way it came out, it looked like he shot one day, came back and shot somemore, but forgot what he did the day before. GREAT job.

 

 

And comparing Clark/I was a Teenage Caveman is not the same as comparing Scorsese/Bloody Mama. Clark RECENTLY shot that film. It is a recent work of his and shows his CURRENT style. Scorsese was on what...film 2-3 when he did Bloody Mama.

[Guest Dynamite Kido]

Larry Clark is an exceptional director and I think that Bully is a GREAT film.  Also, for people who enjoyed this and KIDS, check out ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE which is another Larry Clark film with James Woods and Melanie Griffith.  It is awesome too.

I can understand liking the films, but to call this guy a great director is stretching it alittle.

 

He HONESTLY can't frame a shot, AT ALL.

 

For another exceptional Larry Clark film, check out "I was a Teenaged Caveman" Hilarity will ensue.

dude, he has professional people working for him. it's not like his DP is some 15-year-old kid just putting the camera where he's told to. his DP knows what he's doing, everything he shoots is shot that way on purpose. saying you don't like the way he frames a shot is fine, but don't make a blanket claim like "he CAN'T frame a shot."

 

For another exceptional Larry Clark film, check out "I was a Teenaged Caveman"  Hilarity will ensue.

that's just stupid. it's like if we were having a discussion about martin scorsese and you were trying to prove he was a bad director by saying "look, he made 'bloody mama!'"

 

No it's not...It's SO much easier.

then why do so few people get it right?

Come on. I hate people see that a shot is horrible, they just say "He meant it to look like that" If he meant it to look like absolute CRAP then okay. But a REAL director knows how to convey emotion through the shot, the camera movement and such. Clark has used the same crappy style in every film. The "He wants it to have a documentary feel" shit makes no sense for films like Another day in Paradise and I was a Teenage Caveman and barely works for Bully. He uses the most pointless cuts and close ups of anyone that I have ever seen. His work screams "on the fly directing" and I honestly believe he has no idea of what he is trying to do before the scene starts. The most calm camera movement in Bully came when the kids were the most frantic. The most frantic when they were sitting there looking at each other. And if it hadn't been so shittily edited, you could make a case for that having a meaning, but the way it came out, it looked like he shot one day, came back and shot somemore, but forgot what he did the day before. GREAT job.

 

 

And comparing Clark/I was a Teenage Caveman is not the same as comparing Scorsese/Bloody Mama. Clark RECENTLY shot that film. It is a recent work of his and shows his CURRENT style. Scorsese was on what...film 2-3 when he did Bloody Mama.

It makes perfect sense to shoot these movies "documentary style". He wants the audience to feel as if they are IN the movie, which that style works perfectly. You contradict what your saying anyway, because if his movies are sooooo bad, then why are you watching all of them? If you don't like his directing style, fine. Just don't tell other people that it's all crap, because I am definately sure that Larry Clark has more directing experience than you do.

[Ripper 0]

Larry Clark is an exceptional director and I think that Bully is a GREAT film.  Also, for people who enjoyed this and KIDS, check out ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE which is another Larry Clark film with James Woods and Melanie Griffith.  It is awesome too.

I can understand liking the films, but to call this guy a great director is stretching it alittle.

 

He HONESTLY can't frame a shot, AT ALL.

 

For another exceptional Larry Clark film, check out "I was a Teenaged Caveman" Hilarity will ensue.

dude, he has professional people working for him. it's not like his DP is some 15-year-old kid just putting the camera where he's told to. his DP knows what he's doing, everything he shoots is shot that way on purpose. saying you don't like the way he frames a shot is fine, but don't make a blanket claim like "he CAN'T frame a shot."

 

For another exceptional Larry Clark film, check out "I was a Teenaged Caveman"  Hilarity will ensue.

that's just stupid. it's like if we were having a discussion about martin scorsese and you were trying to prove he was a bad director by saying "look, he made 'bloody mama!'"

 

No it's not...It's SO much easier.

then why do so few people get it right?

Come on. I hate people see that a shot is horrible, they just say "He meant it to look like that" If he meant it to look like absolute CRAP then okay. But a REAL director knows how to convey emotion through the shot, the camera movement and such. Clark has used the same crappy style in every film. The "He wants it to have a documentary feel" shit makes no sense for films like Another day in Paradise and I was a Teenage Caveman and barely works for Bully. He uses the most pointless cuts and close ups of anyone that I have ever seen. His work screams "on the fly directing" and I honestly believe he has no idea of what he is trying to do before the scene starts. The most calm camera movement in Bully came when the kids were the most frantic. The most frantic when they were sitting there looking at each other. And if it hadn't been so shittily edited, you could make a case for that having a meaning, but the way it came out, it looked like he shot one day, came back and shot somemore, but forgot what he did the day before. GREAT job.

 

 

And comparing Clark/I was a Teenage Caveman is not the same as comparing Scorsese/Bloody Mama. Clark RECENTLY shot that film. It is a recent work of his and shows his CURRENT style. Scorsese was on what...film 2-3 when he did Bloody Mama.

It makes perfect sense to shoot these movies "documentary style". He wants the audience to feel as if they are IN the movie, which that style works perfectly. You contradict what your saying anyway, because if his movies are sooooo bad, then why are you watching all of them? If you don't like his directing style, fine. Just don't tell other people that it's all crap, because I am definately sure that Larry Clark has more directing experience than you do.

Because unlike other people, I don't say something is bad just because.

 

 

If you have EVER heard me say that a persons music, acting, directing is bad it is because I went through the effort to see their work and can form a opinion on it. I notice how alot of people will call a film the worst one EVER and they never saw it. It just got bad reviews.

 

And are we really falling back on the "You aren't a ________ so you can't say anything"? That is the worst argument ever. I just saw Troll 2...now those people have more acting experience than me but I can safely say that they sucked.

 

I actually am animator and had to take god knows how many classes that teach you film techniques as they are necessary in animation. I might not be a professional director but I know crappy direction when I see it.

[nl5xsk1 0]

I'm presuming that I'm going to seem wicked low-brow with this comment, but I've only seen part of the movie, and it was a while ago, so all that I really remember about it was how hot Bijou Philips looked.

 

I saw a blurb about it just recently and was going to check it out again, so it's really weird to stumble across this thread now. Hopefully once I try to re-watch it, I'll be able to bring more to the table.

 

Until then, though ... Bijou is wicked hot.

[Guest Dynamite Kido]

Larry Clark is an exceptional director and I think that Bully is a GREAT film.  Also, for people who enjoyed this and KIDS, check out ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE which is another Larry Clark film with James Woods and Melanie Griffith.  It is awesome too.

I can understand liking the films, but to call this guy a great director is stretching it alittle.

 

He HONESTLY can't frame a shot, AT ALL.

 

For another exceptional Larry Clark film, check out "I was a Teenaged Caveman" Hilarity will ensue.

dude, he has professional people working for him. it's not like his DP is some 15-year-old kid just putting the camera where he's told to. his DP knows what he's doing, everything he shoots is shot that way on purpose. saying you don't like the way he frames a shot is fine, but don't make a blanket claim like "he CAN'T frame a shot."

 

For another exceptional Larry Clark film, check out "I was a Teenaged Caveman"  Hilarity will ensue.

that's just stupid. it's like if we were having a discussion about martin scorsese and you were trying to prove he was a bad director by saying "look, he made 'bloody mama!'"

 

No it's not...It's SO much easier.

then why do so few people get it right?

Come on. I hate people see that a shot is horrible, they just say "He meant it to look like that" If he meant it to look like absolute CRAP then okay. But a REAL director knows how to convey emotion through the shot, the camera movement and such. Clark has used the same crappy style in every film. The "He wants it to have a documentary feel" shit makes no sense for films like Another day in Paradise and I was a Teenage Caveman and barely works for Bully. He uses the most pointless cuts and close ups of anyone that I have ever seen. His work screams "on the fly directing" and I honestly believe he has no idea of what he is trying to do before the scene starts. The most calm camera movement in Bully came when the kids were the most frantic. The most frantic when they were sitting there looking at each other. And if it hadn't been so shittily edited, you could make a case for that having a meaning, but the way it came out, it looked like he shot one day, came back and shot somemore, but forgot what he did the day before. GREAT job.

 

 

And comparing Clark/I was a Teenage Caveman is not the same as comparing Scorsese/Bloody Mama. Clark RECENTLY shot that film. It is a recent work of his and shows his CURRENT style. Scorsese was on what...film 2-3 when he did Bloody Mama.

It makes perfect sense to shoot these movies "documentary style". He wants the audience to feel as if they are IN the movie, which that style works perfectly. You contradict what your saying anyway, because if his movies are sooooo bad, then why are you watching all of them? If you don't like his directing style, fine. Just don't tell other people that it's all crap, because I am definately sure that Larry Clark has more directing experience than you do.

Because unlike other people, I don't say something is bad just because.

 

 

If you have EVER heard me say that a persons music, acting, directing is bad it is because I went through the effort to see their work and can form a opinion on it. I notice how alot of people will call a film the worst one EVER and they never saw it. It just got bad reviews.

 

And are we really falling back on the "You aren't a ________ so you can't say anything"? That is the worst argument ever. I just saw Troll 2...now those people have more acting experience than me but I can safely say that they sucked.

 

I actually am animator and had to take god knows how many classes that teach you film techniques as they are necessary in animation. I might not be a professional director but I know crappy direction when I see it.

Well put it this way. Larry Clark has the balls to make films that others won't. So for that alone I give him credit. Also the "documentary style" that apparently you don't like very much, might have more to do with what you like rather than the director sucking. Keep that in mind next time you criticise shit like that.

[converge241 0]

id just like to repeat from other discussions about this movie on the board that i LOVE Rachel Miner

 

and watch this movie back to back with Teenage Caveman..a good time will be had by all

[Eclipse 0]

I have never seen that version of Bully....hmmmmmm......

 

What is the movie "Kids" about?

[Guest Choken One]

Bunch of Punk Kids dealing with HARSH reality...

 

It's merely show n shock stuff...