DR Ackermann

Critics really like Wong-Kar-Wai too. He was voted number 3 on a Sight & Sound top ten modern directors poll. I think there is a lot more to it than just looking good. Of course everyone is different, but I think that directors tend to place more critical weight on how well someone tells a story and solves problems with visuals (editing, camera placement, blocking, what is seen and not seen, etc.) than critics do. But that could just be my understanding. I know we're getting really off topic here, but if anyone is interested, http://www.theyshootpictures.com/ is a really cool website that compiles one giant greatest films list every year based on the information they gather from all the various published polls and top ten lists.

Yeah, I didn't see your post at first. Interestingly, the Informer is absent from the critics list, which I think fits in with the point I failed to make earlier. I know a lot of people have issues with or shy away from praising the Informer for political and moral reasons because they feel like it glorifies the IRA. Whether that's true or not, or how that plays out morally, that is a criticism that is outside the bounds someone else, like a director, might have for appreciating the movie as an expression of film art, if the are looking at it from a strictly technical and artistic perspective. I think Kurosawa is much better example too.

That is just one movie though, so its not really representative of how people feel about the director on either side. A lot of people will bash Spielberg, but still praise Raiders of the Lost Ark. But...that also doesn't mean I was right about the point I was trying to make earlier. I was basing too much of my analogy on knowledge of what a bunch of dead directors and a very limited group of critics had to say. Too many inaccurate, un-thought-out assumptions on my part.

Its possible I've misunderstood the opinions of both directors and critics in relation to John Ford. I feel like I always see critics acknowledging him as great like its a formality, but the focus on his movies is usually very limited and revolves around the Searchers. On the other hand I've read a lot about directors being enamored by him, but, they're usually directors who were working when John Ford was still alive, or they were children when his movies came out. I have David Thomson's book, and that was probably on my mind as representative of a lot of critics.

Also, thanks for clearing up Race's actual opinion of Vader. I always thought what he said was strange, and it was because I took it out of context and misunderstood him completely.

They don't dismiss him. I don't think I explained myself very well. I meant that in comparison to how a number of other directors view him and his importance, a lot of critics' don't tend to see him in the same light. Everyone likes the Searchers, though.

I definitely had that in mind when I made the post. I was thinking about film criticism specifically. When directors and critics make lists of the top directors they're always radically different. Directors usually hold John Ford in a much higher regard than critics do. A lot of critics dismiss him compared to the way a lot of directors revere him. A lot of film critics approach movies from a completely different perspective than filmmakers, or don't always seem to understand the significance of a film in the context of it's own medium.

That would make what Race said a lot more understandable. Maybe Race was talking about Vader working so stiff. I never even considered it that way.

Despite Vader being praised as one of the best wrestlers ever by a lot of people, I remember Harley Race saying that of all the people he worked with, Vader was the one who didn't have a single clue. That always stuck with me. Everyone else seems to disagree. I think Race said Lawler couldn't wrestle either. Dory Funk gets a lot of praise from other wrestlers, but from what I've seen (and read on this board from people who would know better than me), there isn't really any proof of that. I know some fans assume he was better than Terry simply because he held the NWA title longer, but I don't see any real reason to think he was anywhere near as good as Terry. Of course Bruiser Brody is another guy like that. I know we haven't seen every single match every wrestler has ever had, but there are enough examples out there that people's arguments can easily be torn apart. What are some wrestlers' opinions about each other that don't add up at all with what you've seen?

Can anyone tell me when fans started WOOOOing as a tribute to flair when someone gets chopped? Its automatic nowadays whenever anyone does a chop, but how far back does it go and when did it really catch on?

Jeff Jarrett. He was never in the main event in the WWF and he was a 4 time WCW World champ. I don't know how much people were really into him, but he definitely moved way up the card.

It always blows my mind how intelligent, logical and understanding Watts comes off in interviews and then you run into a wall of stupidity with some of his personal views and religious beliefs. I couldn't get through his autobiography because he kept repeating the same stuff about his religious beliefs page after page and using it as a crutch to excuse anything he had done wrong in life. Anyway it's a great interview. Thanks for posting it.

You guys are just seeing what you want to see. Sure, Warrior is being a weirdo, but most of those kids look elated.

My opinion on this match has changed drastically after multiple viewings. I used to think it was pretty good and its just gone downhill since. Watched it last night and didn't really enjoy it. It's not a bad match, but its not a good one either. This is starting to become a trend for me with Randy Savage matches. I don't even enjoy the Wrestlemania III match anymore.

I didn't like Flair's yelling. My friend and I were both confused and turned off by it. It seemed out of place.

I feel like wrestling fans and non-wrestling fans can really get into the Mankind vs Shawn Michaels match from Mind Games. Everyone I've watched it with has always enjoyed it whether they were wrestling fans or not. Its got a good pace, it's action-packed with enough high-spots to hold interest for the attention span challenged, and it has stars that are recognizable enough to most people.

It's really weird to see all this praise for the Wagner/Park match. I don't mean that to be condescending. I just feel like I'm missing something. This topic got me hyped up to see it and then I was bored to death by everything that happened outside the ring and after the first fall. I know next to nothing about lucha libre so maybe it would mean more if I was watching it in the right context? I did like the very beginning and there were some cool visuals but I didn't get why Wagner got Park to stop just by holding his hands up.

Outside of Joshi, what are some really good women's matches from the last 30 years?

Is *the* Kobashi/Hansen match the one from 7/29/93? If so, that's the one I was watching earlier today that inspired this post.

When it comes to putting on an enjoyable match, wrestlers with good-looking and hard hitting strikes go a long way for me. Matches and wrestlers with good strikes just engage me a lot more than matches and wrestlers with soft or weak-looking strikes do. Personally I think Stan Hansen has some of the best. I could watch him just lay into people all day. On the other hand I can't stand to see Sid Vicious throw a "punch." It takes me right out of the match. I really love the Mind Games match between Mankind and Shawn Michaels but Sid Vicious' horribly awkward punches in the aisle after the match stand out in my mind as much as the match itself. Who are the wrestlers whose strikes really stand out to you, for better or worse?