Movie Reviews (1 Viewer)

[Michael Elliott]

I look at fact or fiction as a "general" way of talking movies. That means leaving out our personal opinions and discussing a film's reputation. I could call ON THE WATERFRONT the worst film ever made and call Brando's performance worse than something we'd see in an Ed Wood film but it isn't going to change the film's rep.

Someone's knowledge could also come into play here. I love Ed Wood to death but there's no way in hell I'm going to say PLAN 9 is a better made film that 2001. I know several people who think that and when asked why, they haven't given a good answer yet.

I understand if people have more fun with PLAN 9 and enjoy watching it more, but I think it's a "fact" that 2001 is the better made film. Some might enjoy VAN HELSING more than BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN but I think it's a fact that BRIDE is the better made film.

People can have different opinions on the subject but if you left these opinions to the side and critically reviewed both films, discussed them and compared them, I don't think there's anyway someone could get a winning case in court saying PLAN 9 was the better made film.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Again, I know what you're saying - there's no way, at least to me, that I could see anyone thinking that PLANE NINE was a better-made film than 2001. And yet there could never be such a case accepted in court in the first place, because it's all subjective! Which brings us back to the beginning.

 

[Michael Elliott]

The opinions are subjective and those who don't agree with the "fact" (or whatever word they want to use) are usually the first ones to rip another member for starting a thread saying Citizen Kane is overrated.

What happens when someone disagrees with a rep?

1. People say he has a point.
2. People say he has the right to that opinion.
3. People say he doesn't know what he's talking about.
4. People say he needs to watch it again.
5. People say he didn't understand the film.
6. People say he didn't "get" it.
7. People say he can't appreciate classic films and should stick to trash like (insert big Hollywood film).

From my experience, 3-7 are the replies he'll get if we believe there are no "facts" when we should be saying 1-2. The AFI, Track Your Films and S&S threads are rather large and when someone doesn't agree with the rep of a real popular film, most of the time fans of the film use one of the above terms yet they hardly say he has a right to that opinion until a moderator steps in to stop the fights.

Trust me, 3-7 are my favorite (snob) replies. :b

 

[Dustin Elmore]

Michael has managed to express my feeling more than adequately. As I first said its a topic that is daunting to approach. Even if film were 99% technical, with only 1% art, that one % would have a profound impact on the entire film. That doesn't change the fact that there are good movies and bad movies.

Patrick, I only mentioned science and fact as a reply to the given example. No need to nitpick the comment. A consensus is certainly more than an opinion, and I could go along with that thinking, sometimes when I discuss this with friends I use "truism" to describe it instead of fact. But its really just tomato/tomato territory there (i'll just assume everyone reads that right.)

John, we're still in agreement. You just don't know it. There is always a right time to make a cut, even if there is more than one right time. It's kind of like making a right turn at a stop light. Some directors will turn right while the light is red as long as there is no traffic coming. Some directors will wait until the light is green ( ). Both are legal choices. Some directors will drive threw the light with cross traffic at 90 mph and cause a huge wreak, killing the seven babies who were in the car. That was a bad cut.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Is that why you never dislike a single so-called "great" film? I mean, come on, Mike -- not everyone can love and appreciate "every" film ever made that has an excellent reputation. At least not unless the person is forcing himself to appreciate it, or is trying to "look good". Or wants to be desperately accepted as "one of the elite".
It's just not possible to love each and every revered film ever made. If anyone does, I question the authenticity of that "opinion".

 

[Joe Karlosi]

A car wreck is always a negative thing, and so are the deaths of seven babies in the car. How does that equate with different opinions on whether or not a director did right or wrong by making a certain "cut"? That is totally a matter of personal taste and preference.

 

[JohnRice]

Dustin, I really don't agree with you all that much, and I am quite aware of it. Invariably, when I get into a discussion like this I end up offending someone by something I say. I run into this quite a bit on HTF because, no matter how much the people here spend time thinking about film, most of them have not spent that much time actually creating something. That's not criticism, it's just the way it is. Now, I know someone may chime in talking about how they do this or that as a hobby, but there is usually a big difference between doing something as a hobby, no matter how good you are at it, and doing it for the majority of your life.

When you have spent decades building a creative skill, statements like "there are right and wrong ways" to do almost anything come across as overly simple. Editing a film is not a good example for me personally, since that's not where my expertise is. When you go into photography (or cinematography) then you are in an area where I can guarantee I know volumes more than you do. Yes, there are "bad" decisions, but I completely disagree that "right" or good decisions are so clear cut as what you describe. This is absolutely NOT like running or not running a red light in many cases. There is no doubt that filmmakers "run red lights" at least from time to time, but most of the time they had a reason for their choices. It is rarely something so careless. Honestly, it surprises me how often I see sentiments like that on HTF. Do people really think the director is paying less attention to the movie than they are? Of course, with movies there is almost always many other forces at work and not everything is up to the director.

Anyway, my point is that I completely disagree that "right" and "wrong" decisions are so clear cut as you make them out to be. Often a "bad" decision is simply one that is beyond the grasp of that particular viewer. For example, a teenager I know who fancies himself a film critic was criticizing We Don't Live Here Anymore because it doesn't explain why the two married couples in the story have become so contentious. Now, to a teenager, that is a flaw. To anyone who has actually been through a longer term marriage with kids, there is no need to explain because they know how much work a relationship like that is and how when people don't invest the needed effort, things like that happen. It doesn't have to be spelled out.

I'll give a specific example. An ad I did a few years ago was for a local tea shop. It was a full page ad and it was going to have a single, full bleed photo, which means the photo is big enough for me to do some things which aren't available for a lot of other ads. There was a tea setting with a ceramic pot, cups and various tea type things set up like a fancy afternoon tea. I didn't want the image to get too cluttered and wanted to emphasize the pot, so I did a selective focus on the pot and forced the other items to fall noticeably out of focus. Nothing radical here. It's a pretty common approach. Some time later I was in the shop picking up some things to photograph and the owner pointed out to a customer that I was her photographer. The customer said how much she liked their latest ad, but then quietly added "you know, a lot of the picture is out of focus." To her, I had made a mistake, even though it was thought out and intentional, not to mention, a better approach than keeping everything in focus. She thought I had run a red light. Does that mean I did?

For a movie example. I am surprised how few people actually "get" Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. As it happens, I am a fan of the old 30s Republic Pictures serials, and I think Kerry Conran did an absolutely fabulous job with the film in virtually every way. That is one of the best movie experiences I have had in years. To me, most people don't like it, not because it is "stupid" or because Conran "got carried away with the visuals" or "put all his efforts into the effects and forgot the story" but because they simply don't get it. On the other hand, I have never cared for The Seventh Seal. No doubt I am just not getting it, or I get it it, but it just isn't that meaningful to me.


Exactly

 

[george kaplan]

Michael Medved certainly is. oops, sorry, 0.00000 (on a scale from 0.00000 to 10.00000).

 

[Mario Gauci]

Threads like this crop up every so often and, while it's always interesting to read the discussion, generally speaking no one is ever any the wiser at the end of it!

Personally, I find that ratings help because if a film gets a good grade (not necessarily by a professional film critic) one is obviously more inclined to 'check it out' himself. Of course, one can agree with that rating once he's watched the film or not - as Joe has said, film-watching is mostly subjective. However, there's also that certain something called 'reputation': much as it can be misleading (because one is then supposed to think of a film a certain way, be it good or bad), it is also inevitable - and I guess one shouldn't think of himself as crazy or anything if he's been disappointed by a 'classic' film. Then again, as I often tend to do myself, someone who loves a particular film will never really come to understand how anyone else could think so little of it...and hence my saying at the start that such discussions are perhaps futile at the end of the day!

As some of you know, I watch every kind of film but, then, like everyone else, I have my preferred genres. So, while I'm usually conscious of a film's reputation, I don't always make that extra effort to catch a particular title which has received heaps of praise - especially if it's of recent vintage - if its subject matter isn't particularly to my liking! Maybe that's why I have some 500 films recorded off the TV which are still waiting to be viewed for the first time:frowning:! Seriously though: a fair amount of these I would really love to watch, and sometimes I'm guilt-ridden about opting to rewatch a beloved classic on DVD rather than get to some of these. Then again, I also have a large backlog of DVD titles - the vast majority of which ARE films I'm already familiar with and love - and these have to be watched too, because what's the point of purchasing them otherwise?!

When it comes to blind-buying, I tend to do it often: generally, though, these are films I know of but haven't watched before rather than, say, obscure titles which have received favorable word-of-mouth on the Internet. Still, over the years, there's been quite a few of the latter as well - especially from the "Euro-Cult" stable - but, thankfully, I don't have that many DVDs which I regret having purchased.

 

[Dustin Elmore]

John, I realize my example was simplified. It has to be, there too much to the subject to be able to fully realize in this thread. Every director or editor, or whoever is making the choice to make a cut in a film has to have a logical reason for doing so. Once a logical reason is found, they then must make the cut to be as intuitive and unobtrusive as possible for the viewer. If these factors don't exist at first, then they must utilize it as some kind of overall artistic expression, which in turn will give the cut logic. If none of those things exist, then the cut is wrong. This can be applied to every cut ever made in any film you've ever seen. You mentioned not personally enjoying The Seventh Seal. Does that mean you think it's a bad film? There are good movies and there are bad movies, it's a fact. Good movies are made in ways that appeal to the our human sensibilities. And those don't change for the most part. Like how seeing the color red signals alarm. The technical side of it can be completely without artistic merit and still be quite good simply because it follows the rules. Remember the Titans falls into that category for me. I didn't think it had any artistic reason for existing, nothing new or fresh was done with the material. There isn't a short of football movies or anything. But it was still a good movie because of the sensible way it was produced.

PS. that lady who commented on your photo sounded like most of the film reviews I read. I'm a big Sky Captain supporter myself too.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I realize you're not particularly interested in hearing from me nor discussing some points I've brought up, Dustin, but I'll take another stab at it:


But ---- not every human feels such things the same way. If a film appeals to one's sensibilities, that could be considered a "good" film. And if it doesn't click with another viewer's sensibilities, then by your logic I guess it's a "bad" film. Okay, fair enough -- but it's still just a matter of different opinion in that case. Nothing is inherently right or wrong, except in the opinion of the viewer.

 

[Michael Elliott]

We all go see movies based on their reputation. If you've never seen a Cagney movie are you going to start with YANKEE DOODLE DANDY or SOMETHING TO SING ABOUT? If you've never seen a Scorsese film are you going to start with RAGING BULL or BOXCAR BERTHA?

We pick films based on these reputations and if films weren't in stone as "great", "good", "fair" or "poor" then there wouldn't be a point of picking out which ones that watch. If it's really up to you, the viewer, then you could start with SOMETHING TO SING ABOUT over ANGELS, YANKEE, WHITE HEAT, ONE TWO THREE or any other classic Cagney. If it's up to you, as the viewer, then you can skip 2001, DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL and go for PLAN 9 and HIDEOUS SUN DEMON.

The two big threads here (S&S, AFI) are based on great reputations. If people were just picking whatever then there'd be no point in those people going through each one of those films. They could just grab and watch whatever they wanted.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

So it's their decision whether or not they choose to be swayed by the majority opinion. For all intents and purposes in this thread, when it comes to "Movie Reviews," there'd be no point in having critics or critiques if there was only one accepted Universal way to feel about all movies.

 

[Michael Elliott]

And in the end, your opinion doesn't count, my opinion doesn't count and Dustin's opinion doesn't count in the long run. There is a reason certain films are remembered sixty years after it was released.



You mean people who watch KANE and start threads saying "it sucks" without giving any reasons other than "it sucks"? If someone hates silent films are you going to trust his "review"? If someone hates B&W movies are you going to trust his review for FRANKENSTEIN 1931?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Probably not, but then that critic wouldn't be for me. He may, however, be just what the doctor ordered for someone else who feels similarly.

 

[Dustin Elmore]

Sorry Joe, didn't meant to ignore you. This thread has just become something I didn't really intend. Its not a bad discussion, just one that can be tedious when typing. I'd love to be able to converse with everyone in person about it. My original point was just that film is no different from writing; in that while a book has its artistic properties, it also has rules it has to follow, such as spelling and grammar. A movie is no different and I find that film reviews largely ignore that aspect of the art. To me, that is disrespectful.

I don't expect to convert anyone on the whole Fact/Opinion theory, and I already said that I can accept it as being less than fact, but it is still much more than opinion in my eyes.



In many ways we do. Look at the color wheel, it juxtaposes colors to be visually appealing based on how our eyes work. Utilizing this makes for good color design, its a natural human reaction and we will all feel the same way about it. It's why if you drive a red car, you're much more likely to be pulled over by the police than if you drive a black car (or some other color). So again there is a technical side to it all, where we will respond to certain choices no matter who you are. And there is the artistic, personal preference side. Like what kind of humor you find funny, or how you like your action directed. This is why I maintain my agreement with John, because what he says is true for the most part, but It's not all there is. There a many good movies that don't push the artistic envelope in any way, only good because they are simply made proficiently.

 

[Alex Spindler]

I think I've come to the conclusion that I don't know what you mean by an 'incorrect' or (to match the example) 'illegal' choice would be with regards to filmmaking. I mean, outside of filming with the lens cap on or mistakenly not realizing the entire film is out of focus, what would constitute an incorrect or wrong decision. Could you provide an example of a wrong decision?

John McTiernan filmed an entire section of Rollerball using green-tinted night vision. His choice isn't 'incorrect' in any sense, as all films are deliberate. The choices when filmmaking are functionally infinite, as I realized when I was given a shot from inside a snakes mouth about to swallow a human in Anaconda. There are certainly a great number of ways to make a serial killer movie, and Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers was, to me, an interesting and engrossing film built with what would be considered jarring or incongrous choices like animation spliced in with live action and desynchronized audio and video.


Also, the idea that there are good and bad movies is so amazingly subjective. It's entirely based on the person or persons providing that recommendation. Sight and Sound, AFI, IMDb, Scott Weinberg, Roger Ebert, and David Manning will all have different ideas about what the best films are (okay, maybe the last guy shouldn't be consulted...and that Weinberg fellow is suspect too). Based on IMDb's Top 250, Shrek is a must see film. If you were to consult a worldwide audience, don't be surprised if Armageddon makes a surprise showing edging out Chinatown (much to the gnashing of teeth for many at the HTF). All you can do is settle on a core source who most agrees with your sensibilities and take their recommendation for what it is, an opinion. Is Wyatt Earp a well made film? I would say yes. Is Tombstone a better movie? I would say yes. Is Wyatt Earp better crafted than Tombstone? I'd say yes. Would I recommend Wyatt Earp to anyone? No. In my opinion it is a well crafted movie but inferior to the more briskly paced action-oriented variant.


I'd never fully rely on sources like AFI or S&S because they discount genre or action films a great deal and overly emphasize well crafted drama. Are the films they suggest bad? Not in my opinion, but my Top 100 would be marketedly different.

 

[JohnRice]

I think the fact he gave :star::star::star::star::star: to Cabin Fever is grounds for great suspicion.

In the end Dustin, I have no interest in what you are striving for being realized. Some sort of rating system based on a "tangible" basis of technical quality, to me, has absolutely no value. I also profoundly disagree that film is mostly technical with only a minute bit of subjectivity. At one point, you said it was 99% objective and 1% subjective. I could not possibly disagree more.

I don't know how old you are or what experiences you have had, but my experience is that how different people react to the same event or experience can and almost always does vary radically. And that is among people from the same culture. Throw in different cultures and it is even moreso. I just see no benefit of some concrete rating system based on the technical "quality" of a movie. For starters, it would be impossible to determine what "quality" is, since nobody would agree.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

This is not necessarily true at all. Cuts can be used for a whole variety of reasons, and many of those reasons are to stand out and draw the viewers attention to it. For instance, in Touch of Evil, Welles goes through great lengths and overcomes staggering technical obstacles to avoid cutting at the logical places until the explosion, all for the purpose of drawing the audience's attention to the cut and thus the explosion. John Ford loved to break the 180-degree rule to disorient the audience with his cuts. Editting is alchemy at best. You know when it's off but it takes a great deal of instinct to get it right.

 

[Michael Elliott]

So, you think in ten years we could look at Griffith, Ford, Hitchcock, Wells, Kubrick, Spielberg and Scorsese as "bad" directors? Will PLAN 9 take over KANE's slot as the greatest film ever made?