Track the Films You Watch (2008) - Page 39

Joe Karlosi · 06-17-2008, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario Gauci

This is for Joe – you commented on my stinginess with

ratings once and you’re perfectly right…so, for someone who also technically agrees that movies are basically growing worse with each passing year, it’s not so hard to grasp that what would once have been worth

, now only merits

because the standards have decidedly been lowered. I may be wrong in not judging today’s movies fairly by refusing to lower my own personal standards accordingly but that’s my own prerogative. Critical reception has next to no bearing on my rating of contemporary viewings because otherwise films like ATONEMENT (2007) and GONE BABY GONE (2007) would have gotten a higher rating from me, while something like the new Indiana Jones movie or Peter Jackson’s version of King Kong would have been rated considerably less! Or don’t you agree?

Well, Mario, don't forget that you actually said that Michael had "gone overboard" in giving RAMBO the full four-star rating. THAT'S what prompted my reaction. That's just weird to me, since it's up to the individual and where's the "rule" as to what constitutes going "too far" on a "modern" film like that? Is it also because RAMBO is a "4th sequel" movie in a "mindless action romp", or something? Maybe because FIRST BLOOD, being the original movie, is "supposed" to be the chapter that gets the "highest ranking"?

Also - I was not only referring to your take on modern films; it just seems like you very rarely give out high ratings for movies of any decade. I may be wrong but it also seems that those rare **** appraisals only follow movies which traditionally have been awarded the same.

You've mentioned the new INDIANA JONES movie as an example, but this is not a movie that has gotten all "lesser" reviews. When it comes to brand new movies I think it will require more time to go by before we can gauge where its general reputation will stand, but already I can see that IJ AND THE CRYSTAL SKULL has garnered "mixed" reviews. There seems to be no set standard for this one, and even on the IMDB we are seeing a general "7 of 10" rating, based on 67,000 + voters. In fact, now that I think of it, this (coincidentally) falls right in line with your own rating for the film (you've given it a 7 of 10). But whatever the case, IJ does not have an overall "low" rating, and you've not rated it "higher than most".

You know that I prefer older films in general, but I still enjoy the occasional new movie. I've given new films ranging from THE ILLUSIONIST to THE DEVIL'S REJECTS, WAR OF THE WORLDS, RAMBO, and SAW all high rankings.

Quote:

I may be wrong in not judging today’s movies fairly by refusing to lower my own personal standards accordingly but that’s my own prerogative.

That goes back to what I've always said about people having their own personal feelings about film, and personal standards or "baggage", if you will. People like to think they're being non-biased when it comes to film reviewing, but I don't always buy that and have always felt that when someone's reviewing a movie they are, in fact, displaying their own personalities and set of preferences. If a person does not like watching gore films or is repelled by torture movie in general, for instance, this will figure into why they would not like something like HOSTEL.

I want to address Michael Elliott's post too, but one thing he said fits in here, so I'll quote him now:

Michael said:

Quote:

I think people want today's films to be like yesterdays but it really isn't fair to either side. We can say we want romantic comedies like JUST LIKE HEAVEN to be like BRINGING UP BABY but it's not fair. We can't watch Lugosi's DRACULA and say it needs more T&A and gore like a current vampire film.

I'm sort of in the middle on this. Meaning that I do think we should try our best to be non-biased and understand that we're talking about different decades and styles of filmmaking and we should take this into account... you make a good point there. However, by the same token, people do bring their own set of standards and preferences and personalities into film critiquing. That's why Michael Elliott's reviews would be unique from Mario Gauci's or Joe Karlosi's, or anyone else's. If everyone reviewed each and every movie without personal baggage, then where would be the individuality? Each and every movie ever made would be getting the exact same review, same descriptive texts, same amount of star ratings. A movie review should be a reflection of that person's tastes, standards, interests, etc.

I think that what then tends to happen when we follow a certain critic is that we identify with a reviewer whose pattern seems close enough to our own tastes. So if I see a reviewer always "bashing" older horror films like DRACULA because he personally is bored by them and prefers more "T&A and gore like modern films", then I am not going to take this person seriously, and he's not for me. HOWEVER, there are hundreds of like-minded people just like him who may identify and so they'd use his opinion to help them decide whether or not they ought to see Lugosi's DRACULA.

george kaplan · 06-17-2008, 06:16 AM

I really don't think this guy cares about the story. It just all technical stuff.

You should check out Ordet.

Joe Karlosi · 06-17-2008, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

I think all films need to be judged for what they are and not be judged by what they're not. RAMBO isn't GUNGA DIN so why take points away for it not being? SAW is SAW. It's not THE RAVEN.

I'm basically in agreement and I think we should always strive to be as objective as possible in our reviewing, but as I said in my last post (read it if you missed it; I also responded to you there) sometimes it's not always possible. I'll give you a perfect and appropriate example right here.... I am a big fan of the old comics on THE INCREDIBLE HULK, and they're very special to me. As a result of this, I despised what Ang Lee did in his HULK film of several years ago. He completely destroyed the comics and the characters.

Cut to TODAY. I am actually planning on seeing the brand new INCREDIBLE HULK movie this afternoon, and I am bringing into it a whole set of baggage with me. First, the fact that I love the character as portrayed in those original comics, and second the inescapable fact that Ang Lee's HULK left a horrible impression on me. I've already read many reviewers saying they felt "this new film was a big improvement over Ang Lee's movie", so in a way this actually benefits the new film a little bit. But if a moviegoer never saw the Ang Lee film and never read the comics, never even cared about The Hulk at all, he'd probably come out with a completely different and non-biased review of THE INCREDIBLE HULK movie.

So is this right? Maybe, maybe not. But it's part of who we are, and it has to be an extension of ourselves and our own belief systems when we evaluate a film. Now, this is not to say that I don't try to have an open mind when I go into the theater... I KNOW what to expect, and what not to expect, really. I already KNOW this new Hulk film is NOT the old comic book, and the question is whether the movie can entertain me on its own, or not. If the movie turns out to entertain me in spite of not following my preferences, then I'll still give it a glowing review. But if it somehow irks me and is dull or mind-numbingly non-entertaining or something, I'll roast it. As a rule I generally DESPISE these new CGI-fests, and so a movie has to bypass this and succeed in other ways too if I'm going to be entertained. RAMBO managed to do this, despite reliance on CG gore.

Quote:

There's been a lot of talk about "replay" value when it comes to new films but you and I hardly ever rewatch films. If you go down the front page, the majority of people here are watching more new films compared to repeat viewings. With that in mind, not even the old films have much replay value. You and I have a lot of favorite films that we haven't watched in years

I don't think that's true of myself, and I'm sure Mario would disagree with you there! If you look at my main list, it's mostly re-visits, and that's just my own perogative. But you also like to revisit films, now that I think of it. But unlike me, you have a strong desire to see mostly new stuff.

Quote:

Are we to be harsh on ourselves for watching so many new films? Joe and I talked about this on another thread but he loved all those Warner gangster films yet he hasn't rewatched them yet. Do we bash him for not rewatching them or bash him for not watching a new one? Are we suppose to have an even mix?

It all depends what your goal is.
I'm glad you brought this up, because we haven't had a converation like this in a long time, and I hope other members will add to the discussion.

But back to the "goal" thing. You, Mario, and I have gotten into some friendly squabbles over the years on this point. Inevitably, I get chided for "watching the same old film for the umpteenth time" instead of "expanding your horizons and watching something brand new instead". I can see both points of this, and I do think a "mix" is probably the best thing. But I've resigned myself to the fact that, for me, I'm just not interested in "seeing every film ever made before I die", or anything. It's a good goal for those who feel this way, but it's not realistic in that nobody will ever get to every movie.

Over the last several years I have seen many new "first timers" and have enjoyed many of them a lot. I've learned more as I see more, but yet I do find myself swaying back to the "old favorites" more often than not. It's just who I am, and it's what I like doing. I tend to get into these cycles where I watch no movies (right now I'm going nuts with TV DVD sets of SEINFELD and THE ODD COUPLE). But somewhere down the line I'll be laying off the TV shows and focusing a lot more first-time movies over more familiar ones. The problem comes when it gets snobby ("You're not a film buff!") or whatever.
The whole point is to have a good time, and a person has to judge what that is for himself. I just get the impression that many folks approach the obsessive "first-time movie watching" thing as more of a duty than anything else.

You mentioned that Warner Gangsters boxed set. ALL of the movies in there were new experiences for me, and I really enjoyed them. I'm so glad I took the chance of catching up with movies like LITTLE CAESAR, PUBLIC ENEMY, THE PETRIFIED FOREST, etc.. there was not one movie in the bunch that I didn't like. Yet you're right, I have not yet gone back to them. I don't know why, but that's where another subject comes in for another day - and that's the idea I have of going through "themes". One week I'd be watching Charlie Chan films, maybe the Gangsters another week, or Bette Davis another...

Speaking of Bette Davis, she's another star I've gained an immense appreciation for, and I've become a fan of hers by catching up with all sorts of films featuring her, and even buying DVD collections blindly. I have a lot more of her work to see. But I guess the bottom line with me is if I get to them, I get to them. If I don't, I don't. I'm not playing "catch up" or trying to be a film historian or completist.

Quote:

I have given a lot of films four-stars but I'll never watch them again. Just because they don't have a replay value doesn't mean the films are of any lesser quality. Looking at my list, I'd say 90% of the films will never get a second viewing from me no matter how great or poor they are.

Same here. I may give a first-time film *** but yet I'd rather watch a ** movie again (I can't say the same for **** movies though -- if I love a movie enough to give it a full four stars, I'd definitely own it and want to watch it again at some point).

It depends on a number of things with me, beginning with nostalgia. I watched SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and thought it was good (***). But still, I have no desire to ever see it again and I'll probably watch something like PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE many more times.

Quote:

I know some people say there aren't as many "great" films today as several decades ago but again, I disagree. When it comes to older films, people ONLY seek out those with a great reputation. People say that 1939 was a great year for cinema because they watch the great films that year offers up. They don't bother watching all the crap that was made that year. They don't talk about the hundreds of films from that year are now forgotten. If 1939 gave us 20 great films and 2007 gave us 12, I'd say that 2007 wins simply because less movies were produced.

I definitely see what you're getting at, but just look at the AFI lists, and similar ones. So many fewer films on there from the last 15 or 20 years...

Quote:

People talk about the great Cagney, Bogart and Tracy films but they don't mention the bad performances or bad films.

True, but I'd still rather watch a weaker Bogart, Cagney, or Tracy film than a weak Keanu Reeves, Adam Sandler, or Will Smith film.

Quote:

I'm sure fifty years from now people will talk about the great movies from 2008 while all the bad ones are forgotten.

I actually don't agree. The films of the '80s and '90s are already a good 10 to 25 years old, and they're not exactly growing in stature with age.

Quote:

So, I have to ask. Fifty years from now if someone asked you to name "great" movies from 1990-2008, would you honestly tell them that there weren't any?

I'd say there are some, but less than earlier decades. Since I love horror and science fiction and comedy best, just look at those genres. MANY more good or worthwhile ones are to be found from the older days.

Adam_S · 06-17-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

I actually don't agree. The films of the '80s and '90s are already a good 10 to 25 years old, and they're not exactly growing in stature with age.

I would argue that 90s are already a decade almost as well regarded as the 70s, and the 80s have their growing appreciators as well and are probably going to undergo or are undergoing a critical reevaluation.

Michael Elliott · 06-17-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam_S

I would argue that 90s are already a decade almost as well regarded as the 70s, and the 80s have their growing appreciators as well and are probably going to undergo or are undergoing a critical reevaluation.

It's funny but I actually think this decade has been the best for movies since the 70s. I'm just going to name a few films off the top of my head and I'm sure I'll leave some out but so far WONDER BOYS, ALMOST FAMOUS, THE DEPARTED, INTO THE WILD, THE PLEDGE, GANGS OF NEW YORK, GONE BABY GONE, BLACK WATER, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA. I'm sure there are others I'm leaving out but all of these films are going to be looked at as "classics" thirty years from now. Heck, I think RAMBO will be remembered in the action category, SHINE A LIGHT in the concert field and we've got a wide range of indie movies that will probably get a crowd one day.

You'll notice I'm not including other "popular" films like NO COUNTRY, THERE WILL BE BLOOD, LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy and more.

Michael Elliott · 06-17-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi

As a result of this, I despised what Ang Lee did in his HULK film of several years ago. He completely destroyed the comics and the characters.

I'm sure you know what I'm going to say as you've heard me say it the past seven or eight years. I've never understood why people go to a movie and then get upset if it's not like the novel/newspaper article or comic. I've always said if people want THE SHINING to be like the book then they should read the book.

Quote:

As a rule I generally DESPISE these new CGI-fests, and so a movie has to bypass this and succeed in other ways too if I'm going to be entertained. RAMBO managed to do this, despite reliance on CG gore.

The problem is that very few filmmakers know how to use it. The horror and action genre (and fantasy) have gotten lazy with someone sitting behind a camera and creating the f/x. I know many will find this comment as offensive but hey, that's why I'm here.

Quote:

I don't think that's true of myself, and I'm sure Mario would disagree with you there! If you look at my main list, it's mostly re-visits, and that's just my own perogative. But you also like to revisit films, now that I think of it. But unlike me, you have a strong desire to see mostly new stuff.

Since I started these threads six or seven years ago, they have showed up on many, many message boards. I look down at least ten of them and I am shocked at how many people watch more new viewings. As for me wanting to see mostly new stuff, not exactly. I want to watch great movies. It doesn't matter their decade, color/B&W or silent or sound. It's about watching great movies.

Quote:

But back to the "goal" thing. You, Mario, and I have gotten into some friendly squabbles over the years on this point. Inevitably, I get chided for "watching the same old film for the umpteenth time" instead of "expanding your horizons and watching something brand new instead". I can see both points of this, and I do think a "mix" is probably the best thing. But I've resigned myself to the fact that, for me, I'm just not interested in "seeing every film ever made before I die", or anything. It's a good goal for those who feel this way, but it's not realistic in that nobody will ever get to every movie.

You'll notice I haven't said anything to you about it all year.

However, I'd get extremely bored watching the same stuff year in and year out especially if I didn't care too much for the film to begin with. I believe a lot of people want to watch great movies and it has nothing to do with "trying to watch every film ever made". I don't think we've ever said you should watch every Keaton, Kurosawa, Bergman or every silent film ever made. We have said that there are certain films that everyone should see at least once in their life.

I watch a lot of movies but it's not every one ever made. If you look at what I record off TCM then you'll notice they usually have a favorite star or director of mine. I know you've seen the majority of Lugosi and Karloff titles. I've seen just about all of them as well. You've seen a few Bogart, Cagney and Tracy titles. I've seen the majority of them. If someone loves Cagney in THE PUBLIC ENEMY then I don't see how they wouldn't want to see him in WHITE HEAT. If they love Bogart then I don't see how they wouldn't want to watch THE MALTESE FALCON. I know you've seen these titles so if you liked them then why wouldn't you want to try something like LOVE ME OR LEAVE ME or THE CAINE MUTINY.

Quote:

The problem comes when it gets snobby ("You're not a film buff!") or whatever.

This comes with message boards. You and I have called each others snobs when we fight about the Braves and Mets. I'm sure if we were both single, going to clubs together to pick up women that we'd call each other snobs if we didn't like the same type of women.

Quote:

The whole point is to have a good time, and a person has to judge what that is for himself. I just get the impression that many folks approach the obsessive "first-time movie watching" thing as more of a duty than anything else.

The only duty is really loading the player, setting up the projector and making sure the speakers don't wake everyone up. You can push yourself to watch any type of movie whether it a new or revisit.

Quote:

If I don't, I don't. I'm not playing "catch up" or trying to be a film historian or completist.

I've never understood this completist thing. If you like Davis and want to watch her films then why is that being a completist?

Same here. I may give a first-time film *** but yet I'd rather watch a ** movie again (I can't say the same for **** movies though -- if I love a movie enough to give it a full four stars, I'd definitely own it and want to watch it again at some point).

It depends on a number of things with me, beginning with nostalgia. I watched SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and thought it was good (***). But still, I have no desire to ever see it again and I'll probably watch something like PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE many more times.

Quote:

True, but I'd still rather watch a weaker Bogart, Cagney, or Tracy film than a weak Keanu Reeves, Adam Sandler, or Will Smith film.

I don't believe this. You've seen some Sandler and Smith films over the past two years while you still haven't watched any Keaton or Bergman. You've also passed on several Cagney, Bogart and Tracy films. Not that there's anything wrong with this.

Quote:

I'd say there are some, but less than earlier decades. Since I love horror and science fiction and comedy best, just look at those genres. MANY more good or worthwhile ones are to be found from the older days.

I would ask how many of them have you actually seen from this decade? I'm not sure what to use as a "have you seen" list but you could use mine or the Top 50 list at IMDB. I'm going to guess you haven't seen many of the films that are considered great among this decade. I think if you watched some you'd end up liking a lot of them.

Pete York · 06-17-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

...I know some people say there aren't as many "great" films today as several decades ago but again, I disagree. When it comes to older films, people ONLY seek out those with a great reputation. People say that 1939 was a great year for cinema because they watch the great films that year offers up. They don't bother watching all the crap that was made that year. They don't talk about the hundreds of films from that year are now forgotten. If 1939 gave us 20 great films and 2007 gave us 12, I'd say that 2007 wins simply because less movies were produced...

My initial response was to disagree with your disagreeing, so, just for fun, the following (via IMDb power search of top rated films in each year, USA, over 200 votes):

1939 (top) v. 2007 (bottom)
1. The Wizard of Oz
Sicko

2. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
No End in Sight

3. Midnight
The Bourne Ultimatum

4. Gone with the Wind
Ratatouille

5. Of Mice and Men
Ghosts of Abu Ghraib

6. On Borrowed Time
Grindhouse

7. The Roaring Twenties
Hot Fuzz

8. Ninotchka
Superbad

9. The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Zodiac

10. Wuthering Heights
Reign Over Me

11. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
The Devil Came on Horseback

12. The Women
Mr. Brooks

13. Beau Geste
Knocked Up

14. Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Live Free of Die Hard

15. Stagecoach
Freedom Writers

16. Destry Rides Again
Transformers

17. The Hound of the Baskervilles
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoneix

18. The Old Maid
Hairspray

19. Gunga Din
Talk to Me

20. The Cat and the Canary
Waitress

21. Young Mr. Lincoln
Bridge to Terabithia

22. Bachelor Mother
The Lookout

23. Only Angels Have Wings
Breach

24. Dark Victory
Shooter

25. You Can't Cheat an Honest Man
Surf's Up

26. Drums Along the Mohawk
Disturbia

27. Another Thin Man
1408

28. Love Affair
Ocean's Thirteen

29. Each Dawn I Die
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

30. Dodge City
In the Land of Women

31. Juarez
Arctic Tale

32. The Story of Alexander Graham Bell
A Mighty Heart

33. Stanley and Livingstone
You Kill Me

34. The Man in the Iron Mask
Blades of Glory

35. Five Came Back
Music and Lyrics

36. The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex
Spider-Man 3

37. Son of Frankenstein
The Last Mimzy

38. Union Pacific
Hot Rod

39. Jesse James
Broken English

40. They Made Me a Criminal
Vacancy