Hate Citizen Kane? Think The Godfather is overrated? It's okay, you're among friends

[unadog]

"Most of our intellectual arguments serve only to support ourpreconceived beliefs, perceptions, biases, etc."

That depends on what you're arguing about. If there is no single answer, and it is not a factual discussion, as in the meaning of art, then yes. But you cannot generalize this statement to other areas. That's a "know nothing" argument, itself a preconceived bias that an answer to a question cannot be found, because there are no answers. Can't buy that, sorry. Science is based on the idea that there are answers and you set out to answer them. The scientific method itself is an "intellectual argument" to get at the meaning of facts and evidence.

It was not meant as an epistemological claim (what we can know, or how we know it), more as a comment on the connection between our emotions and our arguments for the things we (already) believe in. As in politics - our emotions usually precede our thought or justification. That has been proven by having believers examine facts/evidence, which still doesn't manage to change their (factually incorrect) opinion.

However, I would argue that you could apply it to most of science (way OT for this thread. And I am a big, big believer in science & evolution, etc.)

For example, it is true that a portion of our right brain does not percieve the air, water, or trees around us as "different" than us. Sort of an like an ants view of the hive - the ant doesn't seem to percieve itself as an "individual.". S

o if you throw out the assumption that we are separate from other living beings and "non-living" objects around us - and assume that the world view of "all beings, one body" is just as valid and literally true as the view that "I am a separate, individual organism" - well, there are a lot of base assumptions that need to be discussed! (I say this quite seriously as a Buddhist.)

Cheers! Not trying to argue. Like I said, I fully support the scientific method as a tool. As final truth? Well ..... :huh:

Michael

 

[tom_wise]

I really wasn't a fan of the Redux. I thought the added scenes undercut alot of what made the original work so well. Primarily Willard's relationship with the other crew members became too friendly. It dissipated the unspoken tension between him and the crew. I thought the original was near perfect. Redux slightly less.

Yeah, I don't know anyone who likes the Redux, so your in large company I'll bet. But I liked it, mostly for the added time of the French scene and the Bunnies out of Fuel. Both just seemed like a bit of reality sprinkled onto the Story.

 

[Chris Messineo]

I think this is a cool thread idea, but honestly, I love "Citizen Kane" and I think you can't rate "The Godfather" high enough.

For me, the film I just don't get is "Chariots of Fire" - it always just makes me sleepy.

 

[iamWZA]

Either way, as I said earlier, never hate a film. What's the point? Where does that get you? What do you gain from that?
I can't see any positive outcome of hating any film at all.

You can't help forming an opinion. The question "what's the point of hating a film?" doesn't really make sense. There isn't a point to it, it just happens.
I should probably point out that the title of the thread isn't supposed to be exclusive. I just used those two films to get my point across. If you love Citizen Kane and think The Godfather is a masterpiece that's fine...tell us all what you don't like!

I'm gonna throw another one into the mix. Some of the sh!ttest films I've ever seen have been made by the Dardennes brothers. Somehow they have got themselves some very prestigious awards over the years

 

[Batutta]

I personally don't understand how someone interested in filmmaking can HATE a movie like Citizen Kane or The Godfather. Hate is a strong word and should be reserved for films you find personally offensive. But a movie like Citizen Kane, even if you don't respond to the film on an emotional level, or engage with the drama, you have to admire the skill with which it was made. Saying it's terrible I think is more a reaction against the film's status more than anything. There are films that bore me, like the original Solaris. I thought it was like watching paint dry. And it was the type of film I typically can enjoy. But I wouldn't say I hate the movie. I just didn't respond to it. But I guess this is the internet, where every opinion has to be phrased with hyperbolic ejaculations of vitriol just to stand out.

 

[Paul F]

'Hate' and 'love' are poor adjectives for film discussion. There are so many more adjectives available to described our views of a film. But many either love or hate a movie and have nothing in-between. Of course, you can't actually love a movie. Hate is probably in-appropriate in most cases. Dislike or great dislike is probably a better description.

I've reacted very differently to films after seeing them at different times. I loved, er, I liked Citizen Kane quite a bit the first time. About ten years later, I didn't like the story at all.

 

[Chris Adler]

Perhaps if we replaced a single word description of our enjoyment of a film with a variety attributes we'd be more honest? You can say I thought the movie BlahBlah had stunning cinematography, wonderful pacing, but the acting was atrocious. A film might be a sum of its parts, but does an entire movie become a pile of crap because we didn't connect with the story, even if we liked everything else about it? Maybe we just struggle with articulating our impressions so "hate" or "love" become an easy cop out.

 

[Batutta]

It's the one thing I'm growing to truly despise about internet discourse...Something is either better than a heroin infused blow job, or worse than aids. People don't have real thought out opinions, just emotional reactions.

 

[TheDingo]

Most of the mega-budget Hollywood blockbusters are B-movies in disguise, often driven by a putrid bouquet of bad-dialog mixed with bad-acting, all hurtling at the screen at a million miles per hour on 100+ million dollar budgets. For me, these are the real cinema abominations that need to die a thousand deaths ASAP.

For the record, I love most of Lynch's films, especially "Eraserhead", which was made for a paltry $40,000. It's one of the best examples of a film that feels like a f*cked-up nightmare, where fear and random terror keeps popping up out of nowhere. ( Not a fan of "Inland Empire", which I came very close to walking out on )

 

[agcohn]

I hate 2001: A Space Odyssey. And it's not because I dislike slow films or anything like that, because I love Terrence Malick's films.

2001 is just a truly unwatchable POS.

 

[kevin baggott]

For a cinematographer to hate the godfather and kane is just hilarious.
I'm having that dread moment of not taking myself serious for having taken this post serious.
What films made in this country are better shot top to bottom then the godfathers?
I've watched a film a night for the last 30 years - I've certainly never seen any.

 

[HorseFilms]

I dislike just about everything that Kubrick has done. The guy knew how to make a partial flick in a decent way, and he ****ed the rest of it up. The Shining was a disaster. 2001 - the HAL sequence was the only decent part. The boot camp part of Full Metal Jacket was great, then the rest of the movie was a pile of crap.

Citizen Kane is unwatchable. Soooooo boring. Not shot well, either. Very generic and lame.

If you disagree with me, you are wrong. :beer:

 

[iamWZA]

Why so serious? It's just a bit of fun.
Don't be offended if someone doesn't like a film that you like. I'm not offended by the fact people like films I don't like. Loosen up!

Although some of Bergman's films are very inspiring, The Seventh Seal is one of the most boring film I've seen.
Two of the best films I've seen in 2012 (although not made in 2012) have both been by Denis Villeneuve: 'Incendies' and 'Polytechnique'. Absolute mastery!

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

You can't help forming an opinion. The question "what's the point of hating a film?" doesn't really make sense. There isn't a point to it, it just happens.
I should probably point out that the title of the thread isn't supposed to be exclusive. I just used those two films to get my point across. If you love Citizen Kane and think The Godfather is a masterpiece that's fine...tell us all what you don't like!

I'm gonna throw another one into the mix. Some of the sh!ttest films I've ever seen have been made by the Dardennes brothers. Somehow they have got themselves some very prestigious awards over the years

This is what I mean:

First off, just the focusing on what you don't like is just negativity. Try to move on, stay positive and examine what you DO like instead of what you don't. You'll have a much better outlook on films, and this goes for everything in life.
You don't have to be a vegan hippie and love everything but focus on what you do and not what you don't. Believe me, your life will be better in every way. See it as a healthy thing to strive for.

Second, as someone pointed out I think, if your cinema appreciation only stretches to awesome vs suck, all those hours you spend watching hundreds of films per year will teach you nothing about filmmaking. Make an effort to look beyond that, and listen to the stories. Not all of them are well told, but that's okay. Just like some films will actually benefit from ugly cinematography (Blair Witch Project, Festen), others will benefit from overacting (300, Kung Pow) or too many lingering shots (2001, Once Upon a Time in the West).

As for "boring", not all films are meant to be enjoyed. Some films are actually made to NOT be enjoyed. A lot of horror sub genres falls under this category. Many people don't like that, and can't appreciate something they don't enjoy, just like many people can't appreciate something they don't understand. That doesn't change the film though, and it's not the fault of the filmmakers. The film is what it is.

Ultimately, the film watching experience of any given film consists of three things:
1) You, the person viewing, and who you are as a person. Your personality, whatever bagage you brought in with you in terms of what you ate, when you ate, when you had coffee, if you didn't have coffee, what mood you're in, how many hours of day you slept, what time of day you're watching the film, if you're a morning or night person, if you're constipated or stressed about that job interview or exam you had two days ago, when you last had sex, how many times (if any) you've seen this film before and what you thought of it then, if you have a slight touch of ADD or Aspberger's (a lot of people do and don't know it), what you thought the film was going to be vs what it actually is (a lot of films fail because of flawed marketing) etc.

2) The circumstances of watching the film, ie the size of the room, the amount of people in it, if they're talking, the quality of the copy, the quality of the theater's audio setup or your home theater setup or your laptop on the train and the speakers you're using.

3) The actual film.

1 and 2 change Every Single Time you watch that one film.
3 never changes at all. It's always the same for every single person on the planet.

So what I'm saying is, when you're watching a film, and you judge what's known as "the quality" of it, the "was it good or bad?" or if you hated it or loved it, you're not really judging the film because the film is constant but you and the presentation change every time.

Because of this, you should never hate a movie, and focus on what parts of it you do enjoy.

Who cares anyway if 2001 is boring? It's a freaking masterpiece any way you look at it! So is The Godfather and Citizen Kane!
I don't think you can really honestly debate if The Godfather part 1 or part 2 is "better", because they're different films. So are The Terminator and T2. The Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2.
The Evil Dead is a low budget straight horror. Evil Dead 2 is a slightly higher budget remake with lots of slapstick comedy thrown in. Is The Evil Dead "better" for being a straight genre, or is Evil Dead 2 better for being funnier?
It kind of becomes a moot point when you think about Sam Raimi not actually making any sort of effort trying to make The Evil Dead funny. They made an effort with Evil Dead 2, but that was a different film and they had a different M.O.

You gotta look at a filmmaker's intentions. What did they set out to accomplish? Did they succeed? Why? What didn't work? Why not?

These should always be interesting questions for a filmmaker. If you examine and analyze film, you can't hate it as well.

 

[iamWZA]

Jawa - what you say is true about the film never changing. But allow me to retort, non-argumentatively:

When I watch a film for the first time (9 times out of 10 it'll be in my room, alone watching in highest quality possible on my 42" monitor with headphones) I am watching to be entertained or to be moved or to be provoked in some way. I am just taking it in. I'm not a film student sitting down and pausing every few minutes to take notes. When I've finished I will go back and look at specific scenes again, ones I particularly liked, and if I can I'll try to learn something from it to apply to my own filmmaking. I'll even do that with films I didn't enjoy. Plenty of films I've seen and haven't liked have got redeeming qualities in them. There's nearly always something worth watching in a film. But it probably won't change my opinion. If I don't like a film, I don't like it, and I've got no problem expressing it (hence the thread).

Everybody has seen a film and disliked it. Even you, sir. We form opinions like our bodies digest food. You can't fight it. Nowt wrong with a bit of negativity.

 

[iamWZA]

Going from what films you didn't like to finding out whether or not you're on the autistic spectrum...

 

[Paul F]

Why so serious? It's just a bit of fun.
Don't be offended if someone doesn't like a film that you like. I'm not offended by the fact people like films I don't like. Loosen up!
!

I agree, but some people take it very seriously. I was having lunch daily with the producer of Godfather III while he was doing post. We had pleasant discussions about film. Then one day, I said I didn't like the ending of Terms of Endearment. That was it. He said he thought he and I were getting along just fine. But now, he couldn't talk to me. He had no respect for me. He was visibly upset with me. I thought maybe he produced it, and I put my foot in my mouth. But no, he just really was offended by my opinion. Our lunches ended.

So go figure.

 

[Batutta]

I'm not offended by a differing opinion...I'm offended by the hyperbole with which some people state their opinions. It's either rabid hate, or blind love. I wish people would put more consideration into their thoughts. There is a wide spectrum of quality and lumping everything into one category or the other shows you aren't really examining a film seriously. And if you aren't examining films seriously then why are you a filmmaker?...This is a filmmaking forum after all, and expecting people here to think more deeply about the movies they watch than joe blow moviegoer is entirely appropriate....You don't have to like Citizen Kane. But to say it sucks without any real criticism does nobody any good, and doesn't make me respect your opinion.

 

[Blade Borge]

Me and my family watched UP, when it was over, we turned it off and never thought about it again. My tastes? Once Upon a Time in the West, Pulp Fiction, Dark Knight....

 

[iamWZA]

The reason people are saying they hate certain films is that that's what the thread is about!! The thread isn't "Give me a critique of a film you enjoyed but have a few minor issues with".