Movies

[Habitforming]

How Green Was My Valley (sorry, I got the word order wrong the first time is a magnificent John Ford movie about a little boy who grows up in a small mining village in Wales. Drama doesn't get any better than this in my opinion. Perhaps too nostalgic for some, but I thought it was great.

Still haven't seen it

[BTH]

I saw Modern Times last night. The first Chaplin I've seen, I liked it but probably not as much as I should have. I got bored at some parts and you need to be paying full attention in a silent movie if you want to catch the jokes.

Check a few pages back, I seem to remember Quebecois and BTH talking about it. Pretty sure they both loved it.

I STILL have to get around to watching it.

When I first saw it, it would have been my favourite movie of the year. I've seen a few I liked more since then but it is definitely good.

BTH, do the members of "The Academy" have guidelines to determine what movies are deemed the best?

It seems to me that arguing over which movies are great and which ones aren't pretty much comes down to personal opinion; from Joe Shmoe to the Academy.

And if how you view art is a personal matter, and I believe it is, I don't see how someone else can come in and say, "This movie is best, and be damned what you think."

You totally misunderstood what I said. Who was arguing over what was great and what wasn't? He's never even seen the movie. What Fanpuck claimed was that a movie being slow = a movie being bad which is very far from the truth, especially since many slow movies are intentionally paced that way (Das Boot, Sydney).

Anyhow, I don't consider every single movie art. If you are comparing two artistic movies.... for example.... The Shining and Rosemary's Baby - it all comes down to opinion and what you like in your movies. However, there are other movies - let's take Jumper. I thought Jumper was half-decent (or the first half was anyway) but it would fall in the category of entertainment, not art. It is bought and sold as entertainment and the prime objective is to make as much money as possible, as opposed to sending some sort of message or advice to the audience. Art, for the most part, is personal and it involves the audience (it's being personal is what makes it subjective, in the case of the first example). I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that when viewers went to see Jumper their goal was to have fun for 90 minutes and enjoy the action, or drool over Rachel Bilson, or see Samuel L Jackson looking cool. It isn't personal, you just have to sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

Maybe the Academy has it wrong, but you will very rarely see a movie like Jumper nominated for major Academy Awards and that's because it is made and experienced purely for entertainment purposes. The Academy and critics tend to like the more artistic and personal movies. Even great directors like David Fincher and Christopher Nolan who have made plenty of great movies (I saw Memento last night, by the way, awesome stuff) I wouldn't call them artists because what they make is awesome entertainment. The medium is called an art but it isn't quite used in that way even in some amazing movies.

I know you will disagree with this but I do think there are objective guidelines to moviemaking. For example, let's say you film the same movie twice except in one version the acting will be average and in the other version the acting will be engaging, convincing and just all-round amazing. Would it not be correct to say that the second version was better? If you're comparing two different movies, it's tougher obviously but there actually are rules (in film school, I know they hammer a ton of rules into your brain - the 180 degree rule, about angles, etc..) which can be broken by people who know what they're doing but will usually be frowned upon by critics when broken.

Edited July 25, 2008 by BTH

[Fanpuck33]

You totally misunderstood what I said. Who was arguing over what was great and what wasn't? He's never even seen the movie. What Fanpuck claimed was that a movie being slow = a movie being bad which is very far from the truth, especially since many slow movies are intentionally paced that way (Das Boot, Sydney).

I said no such thing. There is a big difference between being slow and being boring.

Just got back from the X-Files movie and what a disappointment. It wasn't terrible, but it didn't deal with the mythology of the show at all. It easily could have been a regular mystery-of-the-week episode of the show. The story really had no business being a feature film.

[Doktor Kosmos]

BTH, I felt the same way about Modern Times. I liked The Great Dictator a lot better.

[jetsniper]

I said no such thing. There is a big difference between being slow and being boring.

Just got back from the X-Files movie and what a disappointment. It wasn't terrible, but it didn't deal with the mythology of the show at all. It easily could have been a regular mystery-of-the-week episode of the show. The story really had no business being a feature film.

I heard that there really isn't anything paranormal about the movie. I was surprised to read that in the paper, I'd be pretty pissed off if I was an X-Files fan. The guy said if it was a regular episode, it wouldn't even be in the top 20.

Edited July 25, 2008 by jetsniper

[Doktor Kosmos]

Just got back from the X-Files movie and what a disappointment. It wasn't terrible, but it didn't deal with the mythology of the show at all. It easily could have been a regular mystery-of-the-week episode of the show. The story really had no business being a feature film.

That's disappointing, although perhaps not surprising. And btw, if I haven't said it before I'll say it now: when I had seen the final episode of the X-files, I wanted to murder Chris Carter.

[jetsniper]

That's disappointing, although perhaps not surprising. And btw, if I haven't said it before I'll say it now: when I had seen the final episode of the X-files, I wanted to murder Chris Carter.

I actually took the time to watch that episode when it came on just because of all the hype surrounding it. I came away wondering what the hell the fuss was all about (my dad and sister both really liked The X-Files)

[Doktor Kosmos]

After having watched the show every Thursday evening for nine years, the bitter disappointment I felt after the final episode soon turned into a murderous rage. I wanted answers and got nothing. I think Carter owed me a lot more than I got for being loyal for almost a decade. I honestly thought there would be closure, but there were none. So yeah, at that point, if I had run into Chris Carter in the street the following day, I would have killed him with my bare hands.

[Fanpuck33]

After having watched the show every Thursday evening for nine years, the bitter disappointment I felt after the final episode soon turned into a murderous rage. I wanted answers and got nothing. I think Carter owed me a lot more than I got for being loyal for almost a decade. I honestly thought there would be closure, but there were none. So yeah, at that point, if I had run into Chris Carter in the street the following day, I would have killed him with my bare hands.

Haha, I had given up on the show about the time David Duchovny stopped being in it full time. It had started to get so convoluted by then that it was more frustrating than enjoyable to watch the show. I did watch the finale, but don't really remember it much. About the only late episode I remember was the one that served as the series finale for The Lone Gunmen spin-off. I freaking loved that show. It was perfectly corny and goofy. I was so pissed when they killed them off.

[Doktor Kosmos]

Haha, I had given up on the show about the time David Duchovny stopped being in it full time. It had started to get so convoluted by then that it was more frustrating than enjoyable to watch the show. I did watch the finale, but don't really remember it much. About the only late episode I remember was the one that served as the series finale for The Lone Gunmen spin-off. I freaking loved that show. It was perfectly corny and goofy. I was so pissed when they killed them off.

Yeah I loved the Lone Gunmen. And Cancerman. They were all awesome. Sure, Mulder and Scully (and I always liked Agent Doggett too actually) were the main characters so it was hard not to like them, but in a way I liked a couple of the supporting characters as well like the aforementioned quartet, Skinner, Deep Throat to name a few).

[JoeLassister]

I said no such thing. There is a big difference between being slow and being boring.

True. Many of my favorites movies are slow. Juno, Collateral, The Last Samouraï. But when you shoot a slow movie, you better have a SUPER interesting story, something i think TWBB doesn't have.

BTW, I didn't post about it, but went to see TDK wednesday : ! :bow: to Nolan and Ledger.

[BTH]

BTH, I felt the same way about Modern Times. I liked The Great Dictator a lot better.

I saw City Lights since then and it was pretty much the same thing.

The Dark Knight was good or even very good but didn't nearly live up to the hype for me. The Joker reminded me of Hannibal Lecter, especially his escape from capture.

Joe, it is the abstract story that is super interesting, not the concrete story. Not the actual things going on but what those things represent.

[JoeLassister]

I saw City Lights since then and it was pretty much the same thing.

The Dark Knight was good or even very good but didn't nearly live up to the hype for me. The Joker reminded me of Hannibal Lecter, especially his escape from capture.

Joe, it is the abstract story that is super interesting, not the concrete story. Not the actual things going on but what those things represent.

I know, but it failed. Bigh Fish suceed, TWBB failed.

[Doktor Kosmos]

Gangs of New York

Didn't like it. Couldn't stand Daniel Day-Lewis' performance and his accent ticked me off to no end. This was more Pretty Boy Leo than Good Actor Leo.

Too much fighting and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long. We get the point Mr. Scorsese.

[BTH]

I know, but it failed. Bigh Fish suceed, TWBB failed.

*shrugs*

For you, it failed. Thousands of people have understood it and taken meaning from it, there's got to be something there.

I could hardly stand to get through 2001: A Space Odyssey but I would never be so ignorant so as to call it anything other than a masterpiece and a classic. I couldn't get into it, it's my loss.

Gangs of New York

Didn't like it. Couldn't stand Daniel Day-Lewis' performance and his accent ticked me off to no end. This was more Pretty Boy Leo than Good Actor Leo.

Too much fighting and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long. We get the point Mr. Scorsese.

I thought that was decent. There are a bunch of people who love it (and even more who think DDL was robbed of that Oscar) but there are also a lot who find it a mess. I just didn't really like it that much.

By the way, Day-Lewis has confirmed that his next performance will be in Nine.

[Fanpuck33]

For you, it failed. Thousands of people have understood it and taken meaning from it, there's got to be something there. I could hardly stand to get through 2001: A Space Odyssey but I would never be so ignorant so as to call it anything other than a masterpiece and a classic. I couldn't get into it, it's my loss.

That's his opinion, he's entitled to it. Not every Academy nominated film strikes a cord with every viewer. He didn't like the story, he's entitled to not like it and express his opinion. Saying that he is ingorant for not liking the story is a low blow.

Saying you don't like a movie doesn't show ignorance at all? You should be able to own up to your opinion of a movie. If you thought 2001 was crapmasterpiece then don't be afraid to say so. Saying that you thought a classic movie stinks in no way makes you ignorant. It simply means it didn't appeal to you. Many consider A Clockwork Orange a masterpiece, I thought it was the biggest flaming pile of crap I've ever seen. I'm not ignorant, I simply thought the movie sucked. The only thing that was my loss concerning the movie was the time I spent watching it. I can never have those two hours back.

[Doktor Kosmos]

You're right fanpuck, it's very subjective and everyone's got the right to have their own opinion.

I thought there were parts, especially ideas, of A Clockwork Orange that were very interesting, but the movie as a whole did not impress me. I was also put off by what I thought was a poorly executed imagery of a future society. I realize that it was probably more difficult to convey an image of a futuristic society in the 1970's because technically things hadn't evolved as much as it has today - in other words, when I saw it perhaps 7 or 8 years ago I thought the movie was badly outdated visually.

I wasn't impressed with Malcolm McDowell or the characters as such, I more or less think he got what he deserved, I could never sympathize with him, and I guess it's hard to like that type of a movie if you don't feel for the character. To me he just felt like a spoiled brat.

I liked the story and the ideas, the theme, of the movie though.

[Trizzak]

I can't figure out if BTH is saying either "If enough people say it's good, it's gotta be good" or "If the experts say it's good then I'm not going to disagree."

Going back to my previous point about not being able to judge taste, the experts in filmmaking saying a movie is good carries about as much weight to me as the opinion of a learned but pretentious windbag who has been up his own ass for years.

Jesus Christ, give me enough financial backing and a buttload of hype, and I'll produce an annual awards show that caters to my opinion. Award shows of anything proclaiming something is the best of anything are just a combined effort to add more value to something that affected you.

I like the movie Bulworth, it is the best movie I have seen. I will tell people to see it in hopes that it gets to people the way it got to me...

but if they don't like it and tell me that, and I ever have the utter gall to say, ever so condescendingly, "Oh you just don't get it," I hope those people say to me, "###### you, I don't want it."

Edited July 27, 2008 by Trizzak

[jetsniper]

I can't figure out if BTH is saying either "If enough people say it's good, it's gotta be good" or "If the experts say it's good then I'm not going to disagree."

Going back to my previous point about not being able to judge taste, the experts in filmmaking saying a movie is good carries about as much weight to me as the opinion of a learned but pretentious windbag who has been up his own ass for years.

Jesus Christ, give me enough financial backing and a buttload of hype, and I'll produce an annual awards show that caters to my opinion. Award shows of anything proclaiming something is the best of anything are just a combined effort to add more value to something that affected you.

I like the movie Bulworth, it is the best movie I have seen. I will tell people to see it in hopes that it gets to people the way it got to me...

but if they don't like it and tell me that, and I ever have the utter gall to say, ever so condescendingly, "Oh you just don't get it," I hope those people say to me, "###### you, I don't want it."

Oh my god, I'm quoting this and putting it in my sig.

You f*cking rock, Triz.

[Habitforming]

Nicely put Trizz.....

I have never seen Bullworth

Edited July 27, 2008 by Habitforming

[BTH]

I can't figure out if BTH is saying either "If enough people say it's good, it's gotta be good" or "If the experts say it's good then I'm not going to disagree."

Going back to my previous point about not being able to judge taste, the experts in filmmaking saying a movie is good carries about as much weight to me as the opinion of a learned but pretentious windbag who has been up his own ass for years.

Jesus Christ, give me enough financial backing and a buttload of hype, and I'll produce an annual awards show that caters to my opinion. Award shows of anything proclaiming something is the best of anything are just a combined effort to add more value to something that affected you.

I like the movie Bulworth, it is the best movie I have seen. I will tell people to see it in hopes that it gets to people the way it got to me...

but if they don't like it and tell me that, and I ever have the utter gall to say, ever so condescendingly, "Oh you just don't get it," I hope those people say to me, "###### you, I don't want it."

I'm saying neither.

But I do not use my subjective opinion as the final word on how good a movie is. There are movies that I didn't really like but that I can recognize are well done. If you asked me what I thought of it, I would say I didn't like it. Personally. I wouldn't say "It failed" or "It sucked".

Or in other cases, if I didn't like a movie, let's say No Country For Old Men, yet plenty of people love it and see the beauty in it, I have to assume that I just didn't understand the movie and didn't get the point the Coen Brothers were trying to send to me. It would be ignorant for me to say "this is a piece of shit" because I recognize the Coens as true artists, I like plenty of their other movies and I'm aware that I just didn't get the the point they were trying to convey. I'm not going to tell people I thought it was amazing, I'm going to tell them I didn't like it at all but that I could at least recognize it as an honest attempt at art.

True, art is subjective. You can not officially state that someone is wrong for liking one movie more than an other and that is because art is a personal thing meaning people can take different lessons or ideas from the same movie. To one person, Titanic is a glorious tale of true love and to another it's 2 and a half hours of build-up until a boat hits a block of ice.

But here is what I find ignorant: Fanpuck just stating "A Clockwork Orange is a flaming pile of crap." That is an ignorant and immature comment. Say in the comment that it is your opinion, don't just throw out a statement like that. It's not that I'm scared to admit that I thought 2001 was a piece of shit: I can tell that it's an absolutely amazing movie, especially for 1968, and I know Kubrick, I've seen all his movies and every single one of them has been technically perfect. He knows what he's doing, he is, in my opinion, the greatest director who's ever lived, and it is not my place or my right to tell him that his masterpiece is a piece of shit. It's beautiful, it has changed many people's lives (Shortcat used to say that, actually) but for me it is simply a whole bunch of awesome images on a screen, I don't quite understand the meaning. I respect it, I'm just not a fan. Anyone who just blindly throws out a fact that this movie or that movie, especially an artistic one, is terrible is just being ignorant.

That's what I meant with Joe. He just said that the story of There Will be Blood "failed." Not "I didn't like the story, I thought it was boring." Just, it sucked and that's all there is to it. PT Anderson is recognized as a prodigy and by many as the greatest working artist in film - is it any of our places to say that his movie just flat out failed? Go say that to his face. If we didn't understand it, I'm sure it at least had a lot of meaning to him. When it comes to artistic films, TWBB, A Clockwork Orange, 2001, No Country For Old Men, you name it - if you didn't like it, you probably didn't understand it. The only alternative is that the director is a hack and did a whole lot of pretentious tricks to make you believe that the movie was deep when really he was totally lost. I highly doubt this happens very often.

Trizz, as to the Oscars, that is the combined opinion of a poll of a bunch of all the people in the Academy. It is obviously not fact - you can't just say that Halle Berry is a better actress than Annette Benning because she's won more Oscars. It is their opinions. They have "mistakes" every year, but they still aim for the best movies or people of that year and they are always more or less right. It's not like it's one person saying what all his favourites were, it's a poll of plenty of people, all of them experienced in the field. Obviously, you don't have to like something just because it won awards, but in general, you will find that the best actors have the most nominations while your favourite movies will probably have won some awards. That is, if you have similar taste to film critics. If not, it's up to you to decide whether the film critics know more than you or whether you can just attribute that to everyone having different tastes. Personally, I think critics do know what they're talking about or else why would we even have them? Any guy off the street's opinion is just as valuable, isn't it?

[Trizzak]

They have "mistakes" every year, but they still aim for the best movies or people of that year and they are always more or less right.

Says who?

in general, you will find that the best actors have the most nominations

Says who?

Personally, I think critics do know what they're talking about or else why would we even have them?

Agreeing with a critic is fine. Seeing a movie because you generally agree with a critic's opinion is fine. Disagreeing with a critic's opinion of what is a great movie, but still calling it a great movie just has me flustered here, BTH.

[Habitforming]

I liked No Country For Old Men, and thought TWBB was overhyped and boring. I watch movies to not only be entertained, but to follow along with a great story or a character's plight. If I have to think back and consider the beautiful shots and cinematography involved just to make it seem enjoyable, then it lacked in every other department.

Anyone's word about a movie, critic or otherwise, holds the same weight for me because they are ALL based on a personal opinion not a set criteria.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Habitforming

[BTH]

Says who?

Says who?

The average person. With actors I thought we could agree that it is possible for one person to be a better actor than another. For example, Daniel Day-Lewis is a much better actor than myself. I would consider that a fact, not taste, as acting is a skill.

Agreeing with a critic is fine. Seeing a movie because you generally agree with a critic's opinion is fine. Disagreeing with a critic's opinion of what is a great movie, but still calling it a great movie just has me flustered here, BTH.

My personal opinion has nothing to do with critics. I hardly even read reviews. But there are times when I mislike a movie but can still recognize that it's good. Going back to the NCFOM, I know there was meaning there, I know the coin toss meant a lot but I couldn't understand what it was. My fault, not the movie's. it doesn't have much to do with anyone else's opinion. I know that there are plenty of other people out there who didn't like No Country either. But it would just be stupid of me to outright say that it sucked. It's not me who gets to decide that it sucked, especially, and this is probably what is confusing you, if there are thousands or millions of other people around the world who were able to connect and understand the director's meaning. If so many people got the point, there is either something there or a whole bunch of people who got scammed by a hack director.

I liked No Country For Old Men, and thought TWBB was overhyped and boring. I watch movies to not only be entertained, but to follow along with a great story or a character's plight. If I have to think back and consider the beautiful shots and cinematography involved just to make it seem enjoyable, then it lacked in every other department.

In your opinion. I found beauty in other departments of the movie (not to mention hundreds of thousands of others) - did I imagine it? Was I wrong? Or could there be a message that you missed? I know that there are tons of layers to this movie that I missed out on as well. But I understood some and I can see there that is meaning to it.

Another person might see something different in it and another might see nothing at all. But I think it wrong to just outright say that there is nothing there. If other people see something there then surely there must be some sort of meaning at least. No?

Edited July 27, 2008 by BTH

[Fanpuck33]

But here is what I find ignorant: Fanpuck just stating "A Clockwork Orange is a flaming pile of crap." That is an ignorant and immature comment. Say in the comment that it is your opinion, don't just throw out a statement like that. It's not that I'm scared to admit that I thought 2001 was a piece of shit: I can tell that it's an absolutely amazing movie, especially for 1968, and I know Kubrick, I've seen all his movies and every single one of them has been technically perfect. He knows what he's doing, he is, in my opinion, the greatest director who's ever lived, and it is not my place or my right to tell him that his masterpiece is a piece of shit. It's beautiful, it has changed many people's lives (Shortcat used to say that, actually) but for me it is simply a whole bunch of awesome images on a screen, I don't quite understand the meaning. I respect it, I'm just not a fan. Anyone who just blindly throws out a fact that this movie or that movie, especially an artistic one, is terrible is just being ignorant.

Thanks for calling me ignorant, I really appreciate that. Everything that we say is either our opinion or what we believe to be fact. If I say A Clockwork Orange is a flaming pile of crap, that obviously means that I think it was crap and believe it sucked. "A whole bunch of awesome images on a screen" don't make a bad story into a good movie. If I hate a story, I don't give a crap about how well made the movie is. Like I've said half a dozen times, a movie can have the best acting, directing, cinematography, etc. in the world but that doesn't make it a good movie. Those are things that enhance a movie, they don't make a movie.

Agreeing with a critic is fine. Seeing a movie because you generally agree with a critic's opinion is fine. Disagreeing with a critic's opinion of what is a great movie, but still calling it a great movie just has me flustered here, BTH.

Exactly. We should not be puppets of the masses. I don't like things or say something is good just because everybody tells me so. Just because critics or the Academy tell me that A Clockwork Orange is good doesn't mean that I am wrong and should defer to them. It just means I disagree with them and I have that right. I have the right to say I hated the movie, thought it was horrible, and wish I had never seen it. I don't have to preface my opinion by saying even though I hated it, others say it is good so it must be good. And for the record, there is nothing beautiful about the movie. Disturbing, yes. Beautiful, no.

In your opinion. I found beauty in other departments of the movie (not to mention hundreds of thousands of others) - did I imagine it? Was I wrong? Or could there be a message that you missed? I know that there are tons of layers to this movie that I missed out on as well. But I understood some and I can see there that is meaning to it.

Another person might see something different in it and another might see nothing at all. But I think it wrong to just outright say that there is nothing there. If other people see something there then surely there must be some sort of meaning at least. No?

Everyone can see something different in a movie. Just because other people see something doesn't mean everyone will. That's what symbolism is all about. It means different things to different people. There is no right or wrong. And like many directors and authors have admitted, lots of times people see symbolism that isn't even there. Take House of Sand and Fog as an example, a critically acclaimed book that became a movie. I saw the author speak while I was at Dayton. One of the questions dealt with the symbolism in the book. His answer was refreshingly honest. He basically said he didn't put any symbolism in the book, that he was simply trying to tell a story. Of course, this was already after we read the book and had our teacher tell us what he was really trying to say.