|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
10-28-2003, 09:56 PM
|
#181 of 220 
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 977
|
Just some thoughts, directed at no one in particular-
It is a mistake to say a film is great simply because it's confusing. That would be dumb.
It is also a mistake to say a film is overrated or 'not that great' because other people like it apperently because it is confusing. Like Mulholland Drive, for instance. First, a bunch of people see it and like it for its creativity. Then more people see it and pretend to like it because other people say it's a masterpiece. Then more people see it and don't like it because they think other people think it's great simply because of its complexity. The third party is judging the film based on their assumption of, and disdain for, the reason the first party likes it. This is irrational.
It is a mistake to say a film is great simply because it has academy award nominations. Nominated films are nearly always good, but they shouldn't be respected simply because they've been nominated.
It is a mistake to say the best film of the year is the one that won best picture. This is obvious. Somebody I know actually said something along these lines earlier, which is why I'm bothering to type this. In any case, that would be insanely dumb.
I've come to the conclusion that their are three types of movies in the HTF world:
1. great films that HTF loves (2001, Apocalypse Now, The Pianist),
2. really good films/movies that HTF doesn't really like (Road to Perdition, Gladiator, Mystic River),
2.5 split decision films (Moulin Rouge, Unbreakable), and
3. and bad movies that HTF doesn't like (Juwanna Mann, Mr. Deeds).
The category I find fascinating is the second one. These are films that ride that oh-so-delicate line between entertainment and art. This causes tremendous friction when deciding which the film actually is- a "movie," or a "film." Gladiator is a terrific example. No other 6-page thread has been strictly devoted to OPINIONS on a single movie/film. I think that's because Ridley has created a very interesting movie. Is it bad art, great entertainment, or both? I happen to think it's bloody good entertainment. It's the kind of MOVIE where you don't need to 'check your brain at the door.' Unlike the Scorpion King, you can sit there and inteligently enjoy the movie. I had a blast. It's a very watchable movie, and I don't have problems with the CGI.
This reminds me of Gangs, which felt like an attempt to please all demographics. Or Kill Bill, which I'm not even sure is a film or a movie yet.
This post was typed very hurriedly, so I apologize in advance for unintentionally humorous spelling errors or not conveying my thoughts well enough. Fell free to ask for elaboration.
Fantastic discussion.
Regards,
Nathan
Body of Lies / Ridley Scott / Leo DiCaprio / Russell Crowe / Autumn '08
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
10-28-2003, 11:25 PM
|
#182 of 220
|
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Local Time: 05:42 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,017
|
Quote:
|
Same thing with all the new SW movies. Everyone hates them but they bought the DVDs.
|
Some of us hate them and, beyond belief perhaps, still fought the urge to buy them. Believe it, or not. 
|
|
|
|
|
10-29-2003, 09:41 AM
|
#183 of 220
|
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Local Time: 11:42 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 414
|
Quote:
|
Some of us hate them and, beyond belief perhaps, still fought the urge to buy them. Believe it, or not.
|
Yeah... While I don't 'hate' TPM, I never liked it but bought the DVD just yesterday...
Too much debt...
|
|
|
|
|
10-29-2003, 09:50 AM
|
#184 of 220
|
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Local Time: 04:42 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 12,549
|
Quote:
|
2. really good films/movies that HTF doesn't really like (Road to Perdition, Gladiator, Mystic River)
|
Or maybe we dislike Gladiator because we genuinely DIDN'T like it? Damn film was boring. Factor in the shoddy editing during the battle scenes and the cheap-looking CGI, and it's a big 
|
|
|
|
|
10-29-2003, 10:10 AM
|
#185 of 220
|
|
Member
Location: London, England
Join Date: Apr 2000
Local Time: 09:42 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 12,857
|
Quote:
|
Or maybe we dislike Gladiator because we genuinely DIDN'T like it?
|
Again who's this 'we'?  The film wasn't boring, in fact I thought it moved too fast, way too short for an epic, Harry Potter was a longer film.
The editing was nominated for an Oscar, and the effects won that years FX Oscar.
But I admit the editing in the fights was too fast, frantic and too close-up, he tried to do something different with it and it came across as a bit too chaotic.
|
|
|
|
|
10-29-2003, 10:30 AM
|
#186 of 220
|
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Local Time: 05:42 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,017
|
Quote:
|
While I don't 'hate' TPM, I never liked it but bought the DVD just yesterday...
|
And you bought the DVD of a flick you "never liked" because?... 
|
|
|
|
|
10-29-2003, 12:30 PM
|
#187 of 220
|
|
Member
Location: Lexington, KY
Join Date: May 2001
Local Time: 04:42 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 8,424
|
The editing served its purpose, so I have no problem with it. Of course, this does beg the question: is there an age correlation with the effects of editing? I find that the older geezers ( thirty and above ) on this forum hate fast editing a la Michael Bay or the fights in Gladiator.
The effects are mediocre, but if I held that against a film, I'd hate a whole lot more movies. The African Queen being an exception of course. I didn't like that movie at all without having to criticize the effects.
|
|
|
|
|
10-29-2003, 12:48 PM
|
#188 of 220
|
|
Member
Location: Montreal, Canada
Join Date: Feb 1999
Local Time: 05:42 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 3,536
|
Quote:
|
Yeah... While I don't 'hate' TPM, I never liked it but bought the DVD just yesterday...
|
Thanks for proving my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-29-2003, 01:09 PM
|
#189 of 220
|
|
Member
Location: Ajijic, Jalisco, Mexíco
Join Date: May 2002
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 11,429
|
Quote:
|
Of course, this does beg the question: is there an age correlation with the effects of editing? I find that the older geezers ( thirty and above ) on this forum hate fast editing a la Michael Bay or the fights in Gladiator.
|
Speaking for the old geezer contingent, I have nothing against quick cuts per se.
The Battle on the Ice in Alexander Nevsky, for example moves very quickly and I love that scene (quick cutting was not invented by MTV). I like The Rock quite a bit. I only dislike Bay when he has made a mediocre movie. The same with Ridley Scott.
I’m not a big fan of Gladiator, considering it pretty much an unoriginal, one-note samba, not particularly entertaining action film On the other hand, I don’t really hate it and don’t consider it bad enough to care about much one way or the other (and could care less as to its Academy Awards).
¡Time is not my master!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-29-2003, 01:13 PM
|
#190 of 220
|
|
Member
Location: Ajijic, Jalisco, Mexíco
Join Date: May 2002
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 11,429
|
And I might add (since I decided to post in this thread) that I disagree with the title of the thread. I don’t think that all that many people dislike Gladiator. I am dead certain that my indifference to this film puts me in the (very small) minority.
¡Time is not my master!
|
|
|
|
|
10-29-2003, 01:24 PM
|
#191 of 220
|
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Local Time: 05:42 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,017
|
Quote:
|
I find that the older geezers ( thirty and above ) on this forum hate fast editing a la Michael Bay or the fights in Gladiator.
|
I forgot what I was going to say in response...
Where did I leave my Geritol?...
Damn!
|
|
|
| |
