Mario Gauci

Joe, Mike and George,


I’ve read your latest posts with great interest and you’ve all made some relevant and thought-provoking points but, ultimately, I feel we’re going around in circles.

I had already started replying to Joe’s posts yesterday evening but, proof-reading what I’d written later on, I realized that I was merely bringing up the same arguments I’ve been discussing with Joe for over two years now on other Forums. He’s still singing the same old song (as he’s every right to, of course) so I feel it’s kind of futile, tiresome and, most importantly, time-consuming to keep this discussion going “on those tracks”.

I do need to make some points clear, though:

• “Mario - just looking at your own list of ratings on Page 3 - they all seem pretty much consistent with the "popular" opinion. ”

I’m glad that you do keep track of what I’m watching, Joe, which is essentially what this thread is all about…but, I guess you’re just lucky that I dedicated most of January to watching horror movies because otherwise I’d bet that you wouldn’t have watched 25% of them and thus be aware of my ratings being “pretty much consistent with the ‘popular’ opinion”!


• “You say you still manage to give THE BLACK CAT four stars though, despite what you describe as "gaping plot holes" - that's great for you! Do you do so because that's its general reputation? I too give it a solid **** but I don't see any plot holes in that film. That's why we're all entitled to our own opinion.”

Joe, it seems you have a tendency to race through my posts but, given that they’re as long as they often are, I can’t really blame you: it isn’t I who finds THE BLACK CAT (1934) to be a **** film but yourself! Actually, when I saw it for a second time, I found it to be so visually striking and well-acted that I was prepared to give it a ***1/2 had it not been for those “gaping plot holes” which then made me reconsider and settle for just ***; likewise with THE RAVEN where it landed a **1/2 rather than a *** which was how I had rated it on viewing it for the first time. In case you wish to be reminded what my problems with the plots for these two films are exactly, you can always look my reviews up over at the IMDB. As for THE BLACK CAT’s “general reputation”, I didn’t even know it had one before stumbling upon those discussions on the other Forum…


• “You don't need Joe Karlosi, Michael Elliott, George Kaplan or Mario Gauci to give you their own "take" on a film otherwise; you can merely go and check the "Rules of Movie Rating Textbook Guide". Every fan knows what rating AMDAEUS or CITIZEN KANE is supposed to receive (I agree that KANE is a **** though - as you know); everyone knows what rating PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and BILLY THE KID VS. DRACULA is supposed to receive. Where's the fun in going by "the book"? Where's the originality and subjective opinion? I want to know what YOU think! ”

Frankly, I don’t know what it is that you have against textbooks. I don’t know the circumstances which brought about your becoming a lifelong film fan but I can say that I became one MAINLY due to all the “textbooks” on film history/criticism I’ve read since childhood. My earliest movie theater recollections are HERBIE GOES BANANAS (1980), SUPERMAN II (1980) and CLASH OF THE TITANS (1981) and, while I’m still rather fond of the last two, they didn’t hold the same allure when I caught up with them later on in life so I can definitely say that I didn’t become a film fan through watching those kind of movies. Furthermore, while I do attribute my becoming an avid horror film fan (which, despite all my other cinematic interests, I still am more than anything else to this very day) to my TV viewings of FRANKENSTEIN (1931), KING KONG (1933) and THE WOLF MAN (1941) in the early 1980s, I had previously been held spellbound by copious stills from each of them (and others of their ilk) which I found in two books from my father’s library – both written by Alan Frank - which I still often peruse to this day: “Monsters And Vampires” and “Horror Films”. Some other textbooks which, for better or worse, have shaped my cinematic tastes are: “The Great Movie Stars - The Golden Years” by David Shipman, “Halliwell’s Film Guide”, “Leonard Maltin’s TV Movies And Video Guide” and, much later on, “A Biographical Dictionary Of The Cinema” by David Thomson and “Cinema - A Critical Dictionary: The Major Film-Makers Vols. 1 & 2” by Richard Roud. Naturally, the medium of the Internet has recently made me reevaluate several long-held beliefs (Jess Franco, Euro-Cult, Slasher movies, etc.) but what I’ve learnt in textbooks throughout the years is still very much valid. I’d love to hear your thoughts on all this, if you’ve got any to share with us…


• “But yet you still acknowledge that you think they're "good and often brilliant", just to keep that toe in the water of "credibility"! If you don't like them much, you don't like them much. If you only enjoy them enough to barely give them a heartfelt ** rating, then go for it, I say.”

Joe, the more I think about it the more I realize that the essential difference between the way you and I rate films is one: your main concern is basically how much they entertain you while mine is mainly how good they really are. A well-made film can end up boring you or leave you with a bad taste in your mouth but, in my opinion, that doesn’t qualify it for a ** rating. But that’s just me, I guess…


• “P.S. - Since I haven't heard any protestations, I suppose I'm "okay" with my four star ranking for KEY LARGO? ”

Well, in case you’re wondering, I’d give KEY LARGO (1948) a ***1/2. Do I need to rewatch it to see why I underestimated it so?


Don’t get me wrong, Joe: it’s always a fun thing to go into these discussions with you. I hope you’re not too disappointed with my “throwing the towel” attitude but, as I said earlier on, these long-drawn out discussions, however passionate, well-meant and enjoyable, rarely lead anywhere or benefit anyone in the end. I must say it’s great, though, that you and Michael have the ability to contact one another (even if not face to face) away from these Forums and I sure hope you do manage to meet someday!

I leave you now to go watch some film I've never seen before. Until next time…

Joe Karlosi

Thank you for summing up my current feelings too, Mario, as I also feel your tune is always being crooned ad nauseum as well - and it's basically the famous ditty that you just don't react well to my (or others) not giving certain classics the praise you feel I (or they) should - and that's what really put the stereo needle back down on that record of my "old song" in the first place. But I certainly agree we're really getting dull with this repetition and we're probably boring everyone else by this point.


I'm well aware of what the "popular" opinion of all kinds of films is, horror or otherwise. I don't know why you're singing the "same old song" again by "attacking" my love of horror films, but I'm very proud of that passion of mine, yet my quite versatile film choices from my movie watching lists of 2004 and 2005 (not to mention what's in my IMDB database) speak for themselves.


Thanks.


It's time for some new entries on the IMDB, Mario. It's a very handy way to keep storage of all your reviews in alphabetical order which anyone may access at a touch. I hope you seriously consider going back to keeping a steady file there, even if you might have to shorten the comments a bit.


I think you're bending things a bit, Mario. Of course I have nothing against reading books on film - I do it constantly, and all of my life. But I think it's obvious that what I'm suggesting is for a person not to allow somebody's written rule or a film's majority reputation to necessarily influence a rating.


Well, obviously! For a guy like me who's supposedly been "singing the same old song" forever, I'm surprised you've just realized this. But this is important to remember also and I'll put it in bold so it stands out: my opinion is not "solely" based on entertainment level, but "mostly". I certainly consider how "technically good or bad" a film is too - otherwise I would give a badly made film like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE just because I enjoy it, without compensating for how poorly it's made, and thus arriving at my own personal evaluation: either or a 1/2, as a compromise".

That's why I mentioned the "texbook" thing-- We all "know" what every film is supposed to get, and how technically proficient every film actually is or isn't, when viewed as a piece of cinematic work; so then what's the point of our individual ratings, then? It's to express how entertained we are by it, on a personal level. This only enforces my theory of some folks (mostly unconsciously) gravitating more to rating films from what their cinematic reputation is, rather than their own gut.


See Above!
But seriously - so, let us use the great CITIZEN KANE as an example. If you honestly were bored to tears throughout the entire film, and if you had a bad taste in your mouth when it was all over -- would you still give it anyway? If the answer is yes, then that's my "textbook reviewing" case made for me.
But if you still admired its cinematography and Welles' vision, then maybe you'd let it get off with a healthy 1/2? I'm sincerely curious about this.


Well, that's your thing, not mine. I think you can hold your head up high enough with ***1/2, though.


I agree with you that it just goes around in circles after awhile, so I'm not disappointed, no. The only thing I'm kind of disappointed in a little would be myself for wasting so much time here just because you didn't approve of my rating for THE MALTESE FALCON. I don't mind spending a paragraph or two elaborating on my view if I'm asked, but after that it's going to be "oh well, sorry".


Since my latest Netflix films are on their way, I spent the afternoon off today with a triple feature of GODZILLA films.
Just my luck, the timing! Anyway, I hope you don't mind

george kaplan

That's certainly one way of looking at it, but it implies that there's an objective way to evaluate greatness of films, which I disagree with. Roger Ebert has a new book out, The Great Movies II, which has a couple of quotes I very much agree with:

This sums it up for me perfectly. I've always felt this way. No matter how technically proficient a film is, it is great to me if I can't bear to not see it again. And for many of those films not only could I bear to not see them again, I couldn't bear to see them again! A well-made boring film is a bad film, not a great one.

Which brings me back to the Maltese Falcon. To paraphrase Ebert, Joe's rating is just an opinion, which can't be right or wrong, except in the case of his rating of the Maltese Falcon, which is wrong.

Humor aside, I do think that greatness is in the eye of the beholder, not something inherent in the film itself, and so of course there's no wrong opinion, but one can still disagree with other's opinions and be baffled when you find yourself in agreement with them on some things, but then extremely far apart on others.

"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder

"Subtitles good. Hollywood bad." - Tarzan, Sight & Sound 2012 voter.

"My films are not slices of life, they are pieces of cake." - Alfred Hitchcock

"My great humility is just one of the many reasons that I am vastly superior to everyone else." - Ramrod Clerk

Joe Karlosi

Well said, George (and Ebert). And I'm mostly of a similar view. But the nagging element of personal film rating for me is that I see that not every rule applies to every film all the time! For example, there are films I've seen which I thought were "good" movies (CHICAGO for example) and yet I have no desire to see ever again. So, objectivity often works as part of my system too, just to put that on the record.



Well, one thing I like about Ebert is that he seems to take chances. I'll never forget the praise he gave what's generally considered to be a lousy film - LIGHT OF DAY (1987) - 1/2 !!


Absolutely in agreement. At the same time, there is some validity to the "majority view" on movies setting the tone for a film's "general reputation". So with something like LIGHT OF DAY, Roger Ebert would be -- not "wrong," -- but in the minority. Likewise, I fully recognize that I'm not "wrong" for finding THE MALTESE FALCON "Above Average", but I'm certainly out of the loop as far as the film's accepted "great reputation" is concerned.

And I've always felt that a person doesn't really "need" to explain why he likes or dislikes a movie when he's in the "majority"; that's up to the guy in the minority.


You're right.

SteveGon

Behind Locked Doors (1948)

Viewed 2/11/2005 (first viewing)

Good, low-budget noir has a private eye checking himself into a sanitarium to ferret out a felonius judge who may be hiding inside.

out of


You Can't Cheat an Honest Man (1939)

Viewed 2/11/2005 (first viewing)

W.C. Fields comedy has the master playing a tightwad circus manager who feuds constantly with co-stars Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy. Fun, but a bit overrated.

out of


French Cancan (1955)

Viewed 2/11/2005 (first viewing)

Jean Renoir's delightful romp depicts the opening of the famed Moulin Rouge nightclub. Jean Gabin is the man behind it all, but will his tumultuous love life get in the way?

out of


Orpheus (1959)

Viewed 2/11/2005 (first viewing)

The second installment in Jean Cocteau's Orphic trilogy updates the legend of Orpheus. A troubled Parisian poet is fascinated by a mysterious princess who, as it turns out, is the personification of his death. Surreal and fascinating.

out of

Recently viewed films:

Onechanbara **
Night of the Living Jews **
White Heat ****
Dead Set ***
Working Stiffs ***

Zombie Movie Appreciation Thread

Mario Gauci

Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"Thank you for summing up my current feelings too, Mario, as I also feel your tune is always being crooned ad nauseum as well - and it's basically the famous ditty that you just don't react well to my (or others) not giving certain classics the praise you feel I (or they) should - and that's what really put the stereo needle back down on that record of my "old song" in the first place. But I certainly agree we're really getting dull with this repetition and we're probably boring everyone else by this point."

Just curious, Joe: would I be wrong in assuming that it would bother you somewhat were I not to post any more comments about your ratings/reviews in the future?


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"I'm well aware of what the 'popular' opinion of all kinds of films is, horror or otherwise. I don't know why you're singing the 'same old song' again by 'attacking' my love of horror films, but I'm very proud of that passion of mine, yet my quite versatile film choices from my movie watching lists of 2004 and 2005 (not to mention what's in my IMDB database) speak for themselves."

Come on, now - be honest! How about this: would you care to tell me (out of the 78 films I've watched so far this year) how many you've watched yourself? I can take a wild guess but I'd rather let you tell me in case my prediction implies that I'm assuming things about you and I should never do that, right? How many of them hadn't you even heard of? However, I'd be willing to bet that if you take that result and compare it with, say, any other month from last year (when my horror film viewing wasn't so concentrated into one particular month) the percentage would be significantly higher in this year's case. Just so you know: starting tomorrow I intend to go through 23 foreign-language films I have on DVD - and after that a bunch of Silent movies, so... I'm not saying all this to seem smarter than you...I'm merely "challenging" your assertion that you are "well aware of what the 'popular' opinion of ALL (my emphasis) kinds of films is, horror or otherwise"...


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"It's time for some new entries on the IMDB, Mario. It's a very handy way to keep storage of all your reviews in alphabetical order which anyone may access at a touch. I hope you seriously consider going back to keeping a steady file there, even if you might have to shorten the comments a bit."

Thanks, Joe - I sincerely appreciate it. But, knowing that you won't be replying to most of them (since you wouldn't have watched them) kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think? I'M KIDDING. Seriously, I could have written about several of them - particularly those, like SECONDS (1966) and TARGETS (1968), which I know you're especially fond of, but I'm finding myself pressed for time most of the time these days, unfortunately. Perhaps, little by little, I may get into my "reviewing" stride again - I just have to get that attitude back into my system...


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"I think you're bending things a bit, Mario. Of course I have nothing against reading books on film - I do it constantly, and all of my life. But I think it's obvious that what I'm suggesting is for a person not to allow somebody's written rule or a film's majority reputation to necessarily influence a rating."

I'm glad that you have and do still read film history/criticism books but I see that you haven't mentioned a single example? Why? Are you afraid that they wouldn't meet with my approval just because they deal mostly with horror films?


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"Well, obviously! For a guy like me who's supposedly been ¡¥singing the same old song¡¦ forever, I'm surprised you've just realized this. But this is important to remember also and I'll put it in bold so it stands out: my opinion is not ¡¥solely¡¦ based on entertainment level, but "mostly". I certainly consider how technically good or bad a film is too - otherwise I would give a badly made film like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE just because I enjoy it, without compensating for how poorly it's made, and thus arriving at my own personal evaluation: either or a 1/2, as a compromise".

Of course I KNEW all that beforehand but I repeated it again so that you might consider considering my system for once but I see that you won't. Tough luck...for both of us! Why, because in that way you might put off watching something which you "know" isn't very enjoyable. For example, Ingmar Bergman's films are not synonymous with laughter - unless it's SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT (1955; ****) - quite the contrary, in fact. I don't know why Michael never managed to catch up with any of his films until now but I'm not all that surprised because, quite coincidentally, a Maltese friend of mine who's about my age (which also, incidentally, has been a major-league horror film buff since childhood) has also only managed to do so around last Christmas-time. In fact, he told me that he put on FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982) at midnight intending to sample it but couldn't get himself to stop watching and ended up going through its ENTIRE 5 HOURS of running time! He told me later he's been hooked on his work ever since and he even managed to rent PERSONA (1966) from our local DVD rental shop a few days ago. Truly, I couldn't hope for a more perfect illustration of what I've been going on with you all these years, Joe, even if I wanted to...


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"That's why I mentioned the "texbook" thing-- We all "know" what every film is supposed to get, and how technically proficient every film actually is or isn't, when viewed as a piece of cinematic work; so then what's the point of our individual ratings, then? It's to express how entertained we are by it, on a personal level. This only enforces my theory of some folks (mostly unconsciously) gravitating more to rating films from what their cinematic reputation is, rather than their own gut."

O.K., let's play a little game shall we. One book I know you own (or at least have perused in the past) is "Leonard Maltin's TV Movies and Video Guide". Therefore, I'm giving you a few fairly recent examples of films I've watched and comparing my ratings with his. I purposefully chose several titles with which I know you're already familiar. I'll let you decide whether I'm always merely following critics' leads:

1. THE CAMERAMAN ***1/2 (mine) v. *** (Maltin's...or one of his staff)
2. ANIMAL CRACKERS ***1/2 v. ***
3. HELL'S ANGELS **** v. ***1/2
4. HORSE FEATHERS **** v. ***1/2
5. INTERNATIONAL HOUSE *** v. ***1/2
6. THE BLACK CAT *** v. ***1/2
7. IT'S A GIFT ***1/2 v. ****
8. THE RAVEN **1/2 v. ***
9. A DAY AT THE RACES **** v. ***1/2
10. YOU CAN'T CHEAT AN HONEST MAN *** v. ***1/2
11. MY LITTLE CHICKADEE *** v. **1/2
12. THE BANK DICK ***1/2 v. ****
13. EYES WITHOUT A FACE **** v. ***
14. HATARI *** v. ***1/2
15. THE PLAGUE OF THE ZOMBIES *** v. **1/2
16. THE NIGHT OF THE GENERALS *** v. *1/2
17. PLAYTIME **1/2 v. ****
18. VENUS IN FURS (Jess Franco) *** v. *1/2
19. MAN OF LA MANCHA **1/2 v. BOMB
20. THE DON IS DEAD **1/2 v. *1/2
21. THE SERPENT'S EGG **1/2 v. *1/2
22. THE BROOD ** v. BOMB
23. STAR 80 **1/2 v. *1/2
24. TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. **1/2 v. *1/2
25. THE EXORCIST III *** v. **

I'm sure there are countless other examples which, for all I know, could prove my point even more fully but I'm too lazy to go through my 793-title long list of films viewed last year so these will have to do for now...


[b]Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

¡¨But seriously - so, let us use the great CITIZEN KANE as an example. If you honestly were bored to tears throughout the entire film, and if you had a bad taste in your mouth when it was all over -- would you still give it anyway? If the answer is yes, then that's my ¡¥textbook reviewing¡¦ case made for me. But if you still admired its cinematography and Welles' vision, then maybe you'd let it get off with a healthy 1/2? I'm sincerely curious about this.¡¨

I've been enjoying CITIZEN KANE (1941) and loving every frame of it for some 17 YEARS now while you've only managed it barely 23 MONTHS ago so it's hardly the ideal example for you to "make your textbook-reviewing case with" in my case...


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"§Well, that's your thing, not mine. I think you can hold your head up high enough with ***1/2, though. ¡¨

I do, Joe, I assure you I do.


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"I agree with you that it just goes around in circles after awhile, so I'm not disappointed, no. The only thing I'm kind of disappointed in a little would be myself for wasting so much time here just because you didn't approve of my rating for THE MALTESE FALCON. I don't mind spending a paragraph or two elaborating on my view if I'm asked, but after that it's going to be ¡¥oh well, sorry¡¦.

Since my latest Netflix films are on their way, I spent the afternoon off today with a triple feature of GODZILLA films. Just my luck, the timing! Anyway, I hope you don't mind"

Seeing that you've dedicated what seems like an entire day yesterday to watching only GODZILLA movies, I'd consider THAT a wasted day but, what do I know, I've only ever watched KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1962) and I found it to be embarrassingly BOMB material. Let's see now - Mr. Maltin gave it a **1/2! What gives? I REALLY ought to brush up on those laugh-fests one of these days...

Michael Elliott

I've never really thought it was fair to compare films. Meaning, I think people have to rate THE GODFATHER and PLAN 9 differently. There's just no way anyone should compare these films and if they do, I think they wouldn't find the charm of a bad film like PLAN 9. I personally think I'm very lucky in the fact I can enjoy these bad films on some level. Perhaps I shouldn't even call them bad considering I laugh more in an Ed Wood film than most of the comedies I watch. Since laughter is a form of entertainment, Ed Wood films come in quite handy.

Going back to Franco, he has made several poor to BOMB films yet I don't give him too much of a bashing for this. I think it's a lot worse when a major talent like Spielberg delivers a film when, due to his talent, he should be making four star films everytime out. In other words, Franco, the less talented, has a reason to make a BOMB while a talent like Spielberg has no excuse. For that, Spielberg is more at fault for making a