Official Film Discussion and Last Movie You Watched

[brendan]

fool's gold. (2008)
wouldn't recommend it.

 

[ironheart]

Australia...

 

[Line]

I'll expand on this and state that criticism is an ongoing practice in almost every facet of civilized life and is an important check in almost every industry today.

 

[Braaq]

I'll expand on this and state that criticism is an ongoing practice in almost every facet of civilized life and is an important check in almost every industry today.

Thank you, I think it needed expanding rather than a typical facepalm smilie.
True, but anyone can give criticism. Why a profession like movie critics who get paid to do something that no one really listens to? No one cares what critics say. A movie can be hailed by critics and fail miserably at the box office, or can be slammed yet be a success.
My point is that it is easy to criticize, look at all the keyboard bodybuilders that critique the hell out of a physique that is light years beyond anything they can achieve. It holds little weight, yet we persist.
Anyone can find something they don't like about a movie if they, like you, watch it to find what they do not like. I approach every movie with an open mind and like it (most of the time) for what it is, instead of being pessimistic. Much like when I try a new beer

 

[Line]

True, but anyone can give criticism.

Technically yes, but that doesn't mean they're taken seriously.

Why a profession like movie critics who get paid to do something that no one really listens to? No one cares what critics say. A movie can be hailed by critics and fail miserably at the box office, or can be slammed yet be a success.

There's more to film than box office returns. You know, it's an art form and junk. To say no one listens to critics is also silly and misguided. The public will see what they wish, sure, but there's a reason why reviews are the number one traffic-builder at BoxOffice.com and why sites like Rotten Tomatoes - dedicated solely to filmic critique - exist.

My point is that it is easy to criticize, look at all the keyboard bodybuilders that critique the hell out of a physique that is light years beyond anything they can achieve. It holds little weight, yet we persist.

But it's not easy to criticize. Sure, in theory it is but criticism is almost an art in and of itself, especially in the professional realm. The chasm that exists between message board members and paid writers is vast, as is the one between film and bodybuilding critics. You're generalizing to make a point but in the process ignoring major differences that make your comparison an inappropriate one.

Anyone can find something they don't like about a movie if they, like you, watch it to find what they do not like. I approach every movie with an open mind and like it (most of the time) for what it is, instead of being pessimistic. Much like when I try a new beer

I don't understand this at all. First you undermine my capabilities as an educated cinematic critic but then you seemingly extend the olive branch with that quip about beer. You're misunderstanding the approach many, including myself, take when watching a film and filling in the gaps with nothing but broad assumptions.

 

[Braaq]

Technically yes, but that doesn't mean they're taken seriously.

And the general public/ majority take professional critics seriously? I think you would find the contrary.

There's more to film than box office returns. You know, it's an art form and junk. To say no one listens to critics is also silly and misguided. The public will see what they wish, sure, but there's a reason why reviews are the number one traffic-builder at BoxOffice.com and why sites like Rotten Tomatoes - dedicated solely to filmic critique - exist.

Exactly, art and art's beauty/entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. You can say that is a bad or false statement but only those that feel their opinions are above others would say that. Art and movies is what the movie brings to you, how it effects you, not how someone else says it should.

But it's not easy to criticize. Sure, in theory it is but criticism is almost an art in and of itself, especially in the professional realm. The chasm that exists between message board members and paid writers is vast, as is the one between film and bodybuilding critics. You're generalizing to make a point but in the process ignoring major differences that make your comparison an inappropriate one.

If you approach it that way then sure, but I disagree. I think the comparison is very appropriate. And generalizing to make a point, is a rather common way of relating material. I was not talking about the differences between professional critics or message board members, just to clear that up. I am speaking of critics in general, yes I am generalizing again.

I don't understand this at all. First you undermine my capabilities as an educated cinematic critic but then you seemingly extend the olive branch with that quip about beer. You're misunderstanding the approach many, including myself, take when watching a film and filling in the gaps with nothing but broad assumptions.

I don't undermine your "ability" as a "educated" cinimatic critic. You are great with words and thus are great at your ability to write a critique for a site. However, I think you approach most movies negatively and watch a movie trying to find what you don't like rather than actually enjoying it. I have rarely seen you like a movie. The quip about beer was not an olive branch but a comparison to how to approach things. I go into every movie, like when I try a new beer, not comparing it to anything else and enjoying it for what it is. Sure there are things I can pick out that I don't like about both, but it is the overall enjoyment that is most important to me.
What about this do you not understand?

 

[Line]

And the general public/ majority take professional critics seriously? I think you would find the contrary.

Why does the majority or general public have to take critics seriously? Are they the ones making films?

Exactly, art and art's beauty/entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. You can say that is a bad or false statement but only those that feel their opinions are above others would say that. Art and movies is what the movie brings to you, how it effects you, not how someone else says it should.

Beauty does not equate art and art does not equate beauty, thus they cannot be interchanged in that idiom. Also, you again miss the point of criticism or the purpose of critics, which aren't explicit "how to" guides on watching or dissecting films. If you miss the point of a movie, by which I mean the artist's actual intent, whose fault is it if it doesn't resonate with you? Is it the director's or yours as the viewer? Are all critics alike or do some focus more on academia, others on craft? These questions and the like (believe me, I could go on but won't) are why your argument doesn't work. Perspectivist gaps exist. Some are more prone to understanding film better than others. All opinions are not equal in value. Et cetera.

You're also oversimplifying art here, which I merely touched on in that note about your phrasing. To think you can sum up a topic as intangible as art in a discussion with me in such a superficial way is also a bit undermining. Hell, everything you get out of a film, even emotional reactions, start with cognition. This is [roughly] why art criticism exists - to intellectually examine the motifs and movements of artists and how they affect the viewer. Many "reviews" are little more than essays that weigh thematic considerations with formal movements, not damning a picture outrightly because of nit-pickery.

You also also skirted what I said regarding the popularity of film reviews online.

If you approach it that way then sure, but I disagree. I think the comparison is very appropriate.

No, it's not. Bodybuilding is a subjectively scored sport, sure, but it's easy to see why the judges make the decisions they do, even if said decisions have political bias. In bodybuilding, everything is out in the open; athletes can't hide their flaws, thus making it very accessible for anyone to string together assumptions dealing with critique and replicating them accordingly. Opinions show through in the way way of favoritism for the individual, but it's rare that true bodybuilding fans are way off base, as everything they need to know is in plain site. Film is more complex than that and in some ways a movie is more alive than a bodybuilder. There are so many more things going on in a film, which delves into far more than the superficial, making it more challenging. The comparison would be apt if we were judging movies purely on a visceral basis, but that's not the case at all.

And generalizing to make a point, is a rather common way of relating material. I was not talking about the differences between professional critics or message board members, just to clear that up. I am speaking of critics in general, yes I am generalizing again.

When talking to someone like me and broadening your argument further, do you really think it's appropriate to generalize? It only wastes words...and time.

I don't undermine your "ability" as a "educated" cinimatic critic. You are great with words and thus are great at your ability to write a critique for a site. However, I think you approach most movies negatively and watch a movie trying to find what you don't like rather than actually enjoying it.

I can only infer so much from your post and I don't think saying you've undermined me in some way is at all a stretch. You're drawing conclusions based on what you've seen from me in the past, and projecting blanketing ideas unto me. However, what's posted on this site represents only a small sample of my cinematic opinions. I talk movies here, sure, but it's not what I'm here to do. The idea that anyone can watch a film intently and understand it on the level the director intended is silly. It's a skill, one that comes with time and practice. If you don't like what a critic writes you stop reading that critic, not all of them, and you certainly don't brush off an entire profession as being something "anyone can do". I mean "almost anyone" can throw a baseball but not anyone can do so on a major league level. Am I generalizing now? Yes, but this comparison, you know, actually works as it parallels your line of thinking, or what of it I can infer from your words.

I have rarely seen you like a movie.

You got it. There's nothing I like more than hating a movie, which is why I spend so much time watching them. This makes sense.

The quip about beer was not an olive branch but a comparison to how to approach things. I go into every movie, like when I try a new beer, not comparing it to anything else and enjoying it for what it is.

The complexities of film slightly outweigh that of beer, which makes approaching them or enjoying them two different tasks. How do you enjoy beer that tastes like ass? Because it gets you drunk? That's fine, but what's the cinematic equivalent to this - a bad action movie with lots of explosions and tits? That's fine, but beer doesn't exploit violence or feminine sexuality in order to get you drunk. Even if you enjoy such a film purely on a visceral level, are you really going to say it was a good movie? Likewise, are you going to call that bad beer that gets you drunk good? Then there are good beers that are of complex taste and aroma that are too thick to drink heavily. Do they lose points, as they did not adhere to getting you drunk, or does it rank higher due to its being more flavorful? These are the kind of concerns one has to deal with when writing film criticism. Still, beer doesn't hold a candle to cinema comparatively, as the former is generally addressed by rating five attributes then tallying the score. This doesn't work in movies. They're not qualitative. Because movies are so wonderfully different (or at times gratingly similar), it's difficult to not become repetitive and to adequately address your thoughts within a confined amount of text. In this, many reviews become an approximation of opinion, but this doesn't mean they're without worth. Wiki the impact of Pauline Kael, a critic so influential that director David Lean (Lawrence of Arabia) wanted to give up making films. Now ask yourself, who are criticisms intended for and what issues do they address? Then dissect a few reviews of long-time critics and try to figure out why they decide to dwell on the aspects they do and shirk others.

Sure there are things I can pick out that I don't like about both, but it is the overall enjoyment that is most important to me.
What about this do you not understand?

I understand this fine. What you don't understand is you are speaking as an individual against an establishment and I am representing said establishment. You're looking how films are critiqued and label it as easy and meaningless, which is ridiculous. Critics don't personally attack people for their opinions. In fact, they rarely respond to anything after posting their review, as it's deemed unprofessional. So here you are, lambasting individuals that see a film before it's screened for the public because you think they look for faults. No, they look for what a film is, what it truly is both on and below the surface, and try their damndest to report on that. Our initial discussion of Twilight was between friends, which is why I offered my opinion, but our conversation seems to have grown in scope. Hence, my transition to the "critic" standpoint, which you misunderstand. It's not like critics go unchecked either, yet the general public does in their accusations of critical ineptitude.

 

[Line]

From Andrei Tarkovsky:

"In recent years I have met more and more young people who go to film school to prepare themselves to do "what they have to do" (as they say in Russia) or "to make a living" (as they say in Europe and America). This is tragic. Learning to use the equipment and edit a movie is child's play; anyone can learn that without half-trying. But learning how to think independently, learning how to be an individual, is entirely different from learning "how to do" something. Learning how to say something unique and different is a skill that no one can force you to master. And to go down that path is to shoulder a burden that is not merely difficult, but at times impossible to bear. But there is no other way to become an artist. You have to go for broke. You must risk everything in your quest to express a personal truth. It must be all or nothing.

"The man who has stolen in order never to thieve again is forever a thief. Nobody who has once betrayed his principles can have a pure relationship with life ever again. When a filmmaker says he will try to please people - relatives, friends, teachers, or reviewers -- this time in order to get a degree or earn the money to make the film of his dreams the next time, he is lying to you, or even worse, lying to himself. Once he heads down the path of deceit he will never be capable of making a real film."

 

[Ryeland]

I will agree with Line that cinema and even critiquing are complex art forms with many subtleties that only certain audiences will find appealing.

However when arguing the validity of critics in the art world it is necessary to keep in mind why they exist. Critics exist because art does. Art exists because humans are always attempting to express themselves. Film was born out of the failings of the written word, the spoken word and the still image. The essence of art is to convey a message, whether the medium be writing, music or film. The message can be deeply moving and complex or it can be something simple and funny. The critic arose as a method of explaining and further enjoying a piece of art and its themes by analyzing it and attempting to convey it to others. Dissecting and analyzing even bad art can be a fun pass time and a good intellectual exercise that can yield a gain in personal knowledge and awareness.

Though one can never be sure to agree with a critic over how good a movie is, it is generally of interest to study their viewpoints. Providing an entertaining, informative and intelligent analysis of a film is very much an art in and of itself. Some people are opposed to in depth analysis of an art form and let themselves simply react to it to enjoy the emotional stimulus. Others enjoy a deeper analysis (myself being one of them).

 

[Ryeland]

If furtherance to my previous post the role of critics in the evaluation of film in particular has an important aspect I seem to have missed.

Critics create a language which we can all share when we are debating the values of films. Without a common language it makes it impossible to intelligently and effectively weigh the merits of one film next to another. We need some common ground on which to base our comparison, due to the very nature of comparing things. However this is somewhat paradoxical, since we are in essence forcing movies into terms that we can apply and compare. This obviously applies bias. Art by definition is about being creative, expressive and somewhat inventive, which makes objective comparison a challenge.

However critics have certainly enabled us to speak a common language and notice certain things, camera styles, lighting, acting, story arc's etc that enable us to more effectively discuss a film.

It is still my opinion that while analysis and dissection of a film can be very stimulating, the emotions a film evokes are a more important consequence. Ideas with emotional attachment are fantastically valuable to human understanding and memory.

 

[Braaq]

It is still my opinion that while analysis and dissection of a film can be very stimulating, the emotions a film evokes are a more important consequence. Ideas with emotional attachment are fantastically valuable to human understanding and memory.

Basically what I was trying to say but much more eloquently put.


Don't get me wrong Line, you are very talented at what you do. And I can't even begin to compare with your knowledge on cinema.
And I do think professional critics are pretty useless, but I do understand your point about the skill and point of critiquing. It is clear we watch movies for different reasons and get different things out of them. So I will not argue your points below and will refrain from discussions on film.

 

[Ryeland]

So I will not argue your points below and will refrain from discussions on film.

That's not especially productive. The beauty of art is as, you stated earlier, "in the eye of the beholder". You and Line may subscribe to different schools of film reviewing, however that does not make your insights any less valid or valuable. In fact not supplying your opinion takes away something from film discussion. Films are not made just for those who put them under the mircoscope, those who have a very finely tuned film palette, they are made for everyone.

If a movie speaks to you on an emotional level and if it has great significance to you, you may call it great. Greatness is not achieved in art through technical skill. Shakespeare's writings are not famous simply because he employed Iambic Pentameter in his writing, they are great because of what he used words to tell, and the connection that makes with people and their lives hundreds of years later. Personally I find Shakespeare very over rated, but that's just me, I find there are other authors who better speak to me.

Some of us may choose to talk about film in a very objective fashion discussing cinematography, lighting, musical score, pacing, plot, etc however some may choose to simply enjoy the experience on film more than discussing it and dissecting it.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with either approach to enjoying film.

 

[skindnef]

I have rarely seen you like a movie

Line will like this one, I think.

Gomorrah ~ 7.5

 

[Line]

Line will like this one, I think.

Gomorrah ~ 7.5

4/10

 

[skindnef]

4/10

That's just not right. Watch it again. I find it hard to take this seriously.
IMO it's a good movie, not great. Better than a 4! It was constructed to well, with too many great shots to be a 4 movie. A 4 IMO is failure, and I don't feel this movie failed.
Please enlighten me to your thought process.

What did you give Tarkovsky's Mirror? Or Stalker? Or Antonioni's the passenger?

 

[Line]

That's just not right. Watch it again. I find it hard to take this seriously.
IMO it's a good movie, not great. Better than a 4! It was constructed to well, with too many great shots to be a 4 movie. A 4 IMO is failure, and I don't feel this movie failed.
Please enlighten me to your thought process.

What did you give Tarkovsky's Mirror? Or Stalker? Or Antonioni's the passenger?

 

[skindnef]

 

[Line]

I can't believe you stated that the film was well shot. It was a faux-documentary film that reveled in its own artifice.

 

[Skeptic]

Sweeney Todd - 8.5/10 - I really enjoy the movie. My rating is based a lot more around the score though rather than the other movie components.

 

[tim290280]

^^ I found Sweeney Todd to be pretty average.

Felt that it was all just a bit too predictable, not a great deal of dramatic tension, and the humour was trying to be too black (and as a result was a bit too un-funny).

Don't get me wrong though, still better than most of the films going around.