"Great" Movies that Suck

[J.R. Hudson]

Ohh ohh

I can't wait to chime in on this late breaking development; gotta go swim a mile. Be back soon!

(I love artists who take themselves too seriously!)

 

[setarcos]

Yeah.. that's what I said, idealizing the whole situation and getting politics out of the way. In real life; are the finest film makers that ones that do make the best movies, the ones that ADVERTISE it best (beat the drum loudest) or the ones judging them after years of practicing the craft??
Define the “finest film maker” category for I don't have an answer. Who do you think knows more and could be a fine judge for this craft?

 

[setarcos]

Sorry for the double post, my computer is loosing it (or something else is going on).
I couldn't modify my earlier post. Please disregard the first one.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Ohh ohh

I can't wait to chime in on this late breaking development; gotta go swim a mile. Be back soon!

(I love artists who take themselves too seriously!)

i don't think i take this stuff too seriously, but filmmaking is what i do for a living. there is a lot of other people's money at stake, so there does need to be a certain degree of "seriousness" in watching films because my appreciation continues to inform my work in a number of ways.

put simply, some of what i find entertaining differs from what entertains others. i like plenty of mainstream films too. but i constantly catch hell for my interest in the so-called "high brow, artsy-fartsy" niche. what can i say? watching bruce willis die on an asteroid didn't get to me. watching juliette binoche after losing her husband and daughter in a car crash brought me to tears... because the film is more realistic about the experience of losing a loved one, i find i can relate to it better. why is that pretentious?

 

[Blaine]

Define the “finest film maker” category for I don't have an answer. Who do you think knows more and could be a fine judge for this craft?

In answer to that, I'll say that some voters are certainly some of the finest filmmakers, while others are not.

then you misinterpret me. by "art of entertainment", i refer to the skills, talents, and craft that goes into making films with broad appeal. i make no judgement on their value to our culture. and still, for finding a select few films that touch me in a way most mainstream movies can't, i am pretentious?

Worded that way, no. However, in your post, it certainly sounded condescending.

films that reveal the human experience are very important to me. they give me something i value. i'm not putting down anyone who doesn't seek the same thing

Because everyone looks for and finds their truth in different places.

because everyone's ability to recognize and interpret what's being communicated by a particular film is different. we don't all have the same faculty for understanding cinematic aesthetics in the same way because we all learned to appreciate film differently.

Now that, sounds a bit pretentious. Why not just say that everyone recognizes and interprets what is being communicated differently, rather than blaming it on their ability or their faculty for understanding cinematic aesthetics. That's where your arguement breaks down for me because you seem to be saying you have an ability and faculty for understanding that others don't have.

ask yourself why its so gratifying for you to call me pretentious?

I don't necessarily find it gratifying to call you pretentious. You brought it up in your original post and I was merely trying to give you some insight as to why others may find you so, based on your statements.

 

[setarcos]

i because the film is more realistic about the experience of losing a loved one, i find i can relate to it better

Here here. Let's get real. Or even you have a prediction for the future, make it have a meaning beyond the actual facts or action depicted (2001, Blade runner, I robot). MEANINGS!!!! vs just plain mental jacks. Some movies aim straight at people's pockets (and find no resistance) while others reach for the same but through their minds. The less one knows, the easier it is to convince (to pay for the ticket). Same goes when buying anything else (not only movies)
Look at us on this board. Is getting harder and harder (was it ever easy?) to discuss one one another movie without discussing in fact ourselves. With each opinion voiced out we project what we know (and what we don't) how much we understand and subsequently what we like and..... so on.
IMO, there is no right and wrong neither beautiful nor ugly, etc. Is just ME and my perspective. How I SEE vs how YOU SEE. The more people share a perspective, the higher the chances that perspective becomes rule and is accepted as such. (vox populis vox deis kind-a-thing)

 

[setarcos]

In answer to that, I'll say that some voters are certainly some of the finest filmmakers, while others are not.

I agree, but I also mentioned politics (and money)out of the way. (but that would be utopia would it not?)

 

[Zak Forsman]

Now that, sounds a bit pretentious. Why not just say that everyone recognizes and interprets what is being communicated differently, rather than blaming it on their ability or their faculty for understanding cinematic aesthetics. That's where your arguement breaks down for me because you seem to be saying you have an ability and faculty for understanding that others don't have.

well, i can't help what i "seem" to be saying, only what i am saying. the fact that i stated everyone has developed a faculty for appreciating aesthetics differently, doesn't mean i think i've developed a better ability to do so, it only means what it says: that i have a different ability, one that is more sensitive to the nuances and intent of a specific kind of filmmaking. whereas, i am less sensitive than most to the qualities of more mainstream films. the same could be said if i was talking about any other niche. take horror movies; some people have a level of attentiveness to the gore that i do not. so be it.

I don't necessarily find it gratifying to call you pretentious. You brought it up in your original post and I was merely trying to give you some insight as to why others may find you so, based on your statements.

well, i think this serves as an example of how quickly people will come down hard on those who value this kind of film, moreso than they would on fans of any other niche. for no other reason than they presume that person is a pretentious elitist because he or she sees something of value in unpopular movies.

take one of my favorite movies like Béla Tarr's "Werckmeister Harmonies". that movie opens with an eleven minute shot set in a bar in a Hungarian village. a man orchestrates an example of the solar system during a lunar eclipse using the drunks as stand-ins for the earth, moon and sun. as the drunks revolve around each other, it turns into this awkwardly poetic dance. the scene is as beautiful as it is silly and i love it. for some reason, people assume i'm an asshole because of the meaning that scene holds for me. sometimes, i really don't know what to say to that.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I suppose I can elaborate some drawn out reply to the many posts that have been presented here; but it would be easier i I just said 'No, you don't.'

You do not have any special abilties nor any special faculty to understand anything more than anyone else because of the kind of films you watch.

Maybe we should define mainstream films ? Are we talking White Chicks ? Munich? What.

-

I think there is a huge difference between being serious and focused on a project and taking it too serious.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I suppose I can elaborate some drawn out reply to the many posts that have been presented here; but it would be easier i I just said 'No, you don't.'

You do not have any special abilties nor any special faculty to understand anything more than anyone else because of the kind of films you watch.

you don't think a horror fan, a film professor, a twelve year old schoolgirl, a fellow filmmaker, and a lonely housewife all have developed different sensitivities during their life to the wildly varying offerings of cinema? the schoolgirl will see something in her that Britney Spears movie that i don't have the ability to appreciate. the film professor and the lonely housewife could both appreciate a Jane Austin movie for entirely different reasons. when i watch a horror film, i usually don't get much out of it. because i am not in tune with the filmmaker's intention. the aesthetics of gore and terror don't speak to me the way they might speak to someone who has learned an appreciation for them. on the other hand, someone like Kieslowski speaks on a frequency that i am in tune with. he deals in a humanism and transcendental moments that touch me, often profoundly. a combination of life experience and cinema experience has informed my sensitivity to these films and filmmakers. i don't think its so strange to think there is an uneven balance between people when it comes to our faculties for film appreciation.

Maybe we should define mainstream films ? Are we talking White Chicks ? Munich? What.

both. i would offer that mainstream is anything intended for mass appeal. generally speaking, it is intended to carry with it the conventions of form and content that most people identify with to maximize the potential audience; whether or not it is successful is subjective and therefore irrelevent. simply, if your typical gray-haired old grandmother has heard of it, its mainstream.[/QUOTE]

I think there is a huge difference between being serious and focused on a project and taking it too serious.

how far would too serious be? i am serious and focused on film and filmmaking because it provides tremendous rewards for me. i include the films i watch and learn from as part of that world . is that too serious? what line has to be crossed?

 

[Aaron Koolen]

Me to on the 2001 trip. That movie is touted as a classic but it is the most boring, meaningless and ununderstandable film I think I've ever seen....

 

[Blaine]

Me to on the 2001 trip. That movie is touted as a classic but it is the most boring, meaningless and ununderstandable film I think I've ever seen....

It's Kubrick. The only two movies of his that I really liked were The Killing and The Shining.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

you don't think a horror fan, a film professor, a fellow filmmaker, a lonely housewife and joe sixpack all have developed different sensitivities during their life to the wildly varying offerings of cinema? when i watch a horror film, i usually don't get much out of it. because i am not in tune with the filmmaker's intention. the aesthetics of gore and terror don't speak to me the way they might speak to someone who has learned an appreciation for them. on the other hand, someone like Kieslowski speaks on a frequency that i am in tune with. he deals in a humanism and transcendental moments that touch me, often profoundly. a combination of life experience and cinema experience has informed my sensitivity to these films and filmmakers. i don't think its so strange to think there is an uneven balance between people when it comes to film appreciation.

Well that goes without saying. That's assumed isn't it ?

both. i would offer that mainstream is anything intended for mass appeal. generally speaking, it is intended to carry with it the conventions of form and content that most people identify with to maximize the potential audience; whether or not it is successful is subjective and therefore irrelevent. simply, if your typical gray-haired old grandmother has heard of it, its mainstream.
You're starting to fall apart on me here.

No way. I disagree 100% that one can put White Chicks in the same category as a Munich; a Scary Movie into the same breath as a Sideways.

The reality is that Avante Garde cinema or Spirtualist or Existential or experimental or metaphysical is simply just that. It is a genre and style that unfotunately falls into the niche market. No one watches it sans a few (in comaprison to other genres of film) loyal fans. Does'nt make any less or any more.

how far would too serious be? i am serious and focused on film and filmmaking because it provides tremendous rewards for me. i include the films i watch and learn from as part of that world . is that too serious? what line has to be crossed?

I think any good filmmaker needs to know when to turn it on but I don't think one can quantify the line.

I suppose when an artist starts thinking their work is above other's ? When an artists starts thinking they are above others or that their tastes transcend others ? That their work is of a higher purpose or meaning ?

I think that'd be approaching the line of prentencious self loving bullshit.

-

 

[krestofre]

I think any good filmmaker needs to know when to turn it on but I don't think one can quantify the line.

I suppose when an artist starts thinking their work is above other's ? When an artists starts thinking they are above others or that their tastes transcend others ? That their work is of a higher purpose or meaning ?

I think that'd be approaching the line of prentencious self loving bullshi*.

That reminds me of something that Speilberg said about Raiders of the Lost Ark. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that as a director you have to believe in the film, and believe that what you're showing the audience is true, otherwise you're not respecting the audience.

The premise of Indiana Jones is something that could easily be a farce, but treated with the right level of seriousness, it becomes a great thing. Treated with too much seriousness and it becomes laughable .... that applies somehow.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Well that goes without saying. That's assumed isn't it ?

oh. well, yes. didn't you originally take exception to it? something about no one has a special faculty to understand a film differently than anyone else?

No way. I disagree 100% that one can put White Chicks in the same category as a Munich; a Scary Movie into the same breath as a Sideways.

The reality is that Avante Garde cinema or Spirtualist or Existential or experimental or metaphysical is simply just that. It is a genre and style that unfotunately falls into the niche market. No one watches it sans a few (in comaprison to other genres of film) loyal fans. Does'nt make any less or any more.

to my mind, mainstream encapsulates a huge spectrum of films. some suck, others rock. but being mainstream doesn't denote an inferiority. it denotes a level of availability in the market and accessibility to the viewer in both form and content.

I think any good filmmaker needs to know when to turn it on but I don't think one can quantify the line.

I suppose when an artist starts thinking their work is above other's ? When an artists starts thinking they are above others or that their tastes transcend others ? That their work is of a higher purpose or meaning ?

I think that'd be approaching the line of prentencious self loving bullshi*. -

that's true. very true. i wish this idea was also held to the critics of so-called "art" films. dismissing something as artsy-fartsy or high-brow comes from the same elitist attitude as the one they would purport to be railing against.

 

[Blaine]

oh. well, yes. didn't you originally take exception to it? something about no one has a special faculty to understand a film differently than anyone else?

to my mind, mainstream encapsulates a huge spectrum of films. some suck, others rock. but being mainstream doesn't denote an inferiority. it denotes a level of availability in the market and accessibility to the viewer in both form and content.

that's true. very true. i wish this idea was also held to the critics of so-called "art" films. dismissing something as artsy-fartsy or high-brow comes from the same elitist attitude as the one they would purport to be railing against.

Now I can agree with you. :thumbsup:

 

[J.R. Hudson]

That reminds me of something that Speilberg said about Raiders of the Lost Ark. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that as a director you have to believe in the film, and believe that what you're showing the audience is true, otherwise you're not respecting the audience.

The premise of Indiana Jones is something that could easily be a farce, but treated with the right level of seriousness, it becomes a great thing. Treated with too much seriousness and it becomes laughable .... that applies somehow.

Interesting point and one I always make. Raiders of the Lost Ark was nominated for best film and director; the last 2 have been 'Eh...'. A case of not taking it seriously enough ?

Think Oceans 12 and Julia pretending to be Julia ? I lost massive respect for all of the ass clowns after that. It was an insult to cinema.

I read recently a quote from Kathleen Kennedy on Janusz and Steven and how they worked so well together because they liked to have fun while making films but knew when to 'turn it on' (So to speak) and when to 'turn it off' . When they are focused, they are focused. (See latest ASC mag with Munich on Cover)

oh. well, yes. didn't you originally take exception to it?

No no no. I believe it was the way it was orginal presented; but your clarification and diplomacy has soothed things :love4:

to my mind, mainstream encapsulates a huge spectrum of films. some suck, others rock. but being mainstream doesn't denote an inferiority. it denotes a level of availability in the market and accessibility to the viewer in both form and content.

At one time; all of the films in the 'Avante Garde' (For lack of a better word) were released into the mainstream. The mainstrema may have been Poland or Russia at the time, but nevertheless, it was released to an audience.

that's true. very true. i wish this idea was also held to the critics of so-called "art" films. dismissing something as artsy-fartsy or high-brow comes from the same elitist attitude as the one they would purport to be railing against.

I honestly do not think it is the Art films that get's the brunt; but the artsy bastards that snub their noses up that do !

I have a theory about music that applies to film:

If it is good; it's good. Does not matter who made it or what genre it is.

In a single week I can go from junkying on The Return of the Living Dead to Gladiator to Kung Fu Hustle to We Are Soldiers to Schindlers List to The Devil's Reject's to Reservoir Dog's and then topped off with a dash of The Deer Hunter



-

 

[Tlalconetl]

AI was a great movie that sucked. Spielberg ruined it. Eyes Wide Shut was another great movie that sucked, but then again I might conisder it a classic in ten years.

 

[Zak Forsman]

No no no. I believe it was the way it was orginal presented; but your clarification and diplomacy has soothed things :love4:

you had me at 'White Chicks'. you complete me, John.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I loove you maaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnn!

-

Eyes Wide Shut was painful too watch.

A.I. was really enjoyable until the 3rd act.