[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by RLacey

Actually, I found the King Kong thread fitted with complaints made: it started out as an "is this a good remake" question, turned into an intellectual debate over issues of pacing and overuse of special effects and then descended into the opinion that it was, in actual fact, pretty crap, but we could call it a guilty pleasure (a patronising term) and use that to excuse multiple viewings. The thread then died because the only comments being made were slamming it for its failure to be an intellectual, sophisticated film.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to re-read the whole King Kong thread now, but the "slamming it for its failure to be an intellectual, sophisticated film" part doesn't ring any bell for me, and all the other things you mention seem like rather valid points when discussing an entertainment flick (whether you agree they apply to this particular movie or not) to me. What's wrong with people having watched and disliking the movie? It interested them enough to talk about it for over 100 posts; nobody killed the thread commenting "forget this shallow crap, let's talk Tarkovsky instead". The movie has been hardly "dismissed".

[Once A Villain]

I like the Rotten Tomatoes website approach. You put 150 or so critics in a room (in a sense), average all of their opinions, and the result is usually fairly accurate. There is also an average grade (out of 10) given now, not just a percentage of positive reviews vs. negative like it used to be.

[Lucien21]

Movies are first and foremost entertainment.

If they can engage the brain and be intellectually stimulating then so much the better.

But there is nothing like the fun of watching something dumb that just makes you laugh or is exciting to watch.

I agree that some reviewers get too hung up on the arty farty aspect of filmmaking. The more obscure, old and foreign the better. I'm not putting those films down as some of them are classics.

Personally I think it's all to do with expectations. Go see the latest Star Wars expecting Citezean Kane and your sure to be disappointed. Go see Munich expecting an all out action film of the Schazzenneger brigade then you might walk out.

I think there is a time and a place for either and never the twain shall meet.

People who look down on pure entertainment films are intellectual snobs though.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Movies are first and foremost entertainment.

One could see it that way, certainly the vast majority of films produced are mindless entertainment films. Yet, if I saw films as "first and foremost entertainment" then I highly doubt I would love them as much as I do.

Originally Posted by Lucien21

But there is nothing like the fun of watching something dumb that just makes you laugh or is exciting to watch.

I rarely feel that way, and when I do I leave the theater thinking, "Wow, that was a lot of fun, but...was it a truly good film?" I mean, I love a lot of entertaining movies that wouldn't necessarily make any Top 250 list of mine. Movies like Big, the Back to the Future trilogy, When Harry Met Sally, or hell...even Blade II. I'm not snobby in the sense that I don't enjoy them, but at the same time I'm not going to pretend they are masterpieces.

Originally Posted by Lucien21

I agree that some reviewers get too hung up on the arty farty aspect of filmmaking. The more obscure, old and foreign the better. I'm not putting those films down as some of them are classics.

I don't think this is true. I've seen plenty of old, obscure, and foreign films that are absolutely terrible. If you read enough reviews by critics you'll see that they slam that stuff just as much, if the film isn't good. However, obscure, old, and/or foreign aren't flaws either. I mean, who cares? Film is a universal language. Why is a film less of a film if it's old or shot in another language? Or silent for that matter? As for obscurity, I guess all films should have a $50 million ad campaign to get idiots to rush the theaters.

Anyway, I realize you said you aren't putting down those films, but I just wanted to rant...

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

One could see it that way, certainly the vast majority of films produced are mindless entertainment films. Yet, if I saw films as "first and foremost entertainment" then I highly doubt I would love them as much as I do.

I'm in total agreement with this, and with the rest of your post as well.

[Maquisard]

I felt very cheated by the fact a crap movie like Red Eye got excellent reviews. Sometimes critics give directors an A for effort, doing something different, etc (see Revenge of the Sith).

edit: and by see ROTS, I mean, see how bad it is, but how good they scored it also...

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Ninth

I'm in total agreement with this, and with the rest of your post as well.

Thanks Ninth.

Originally Posted by Mares

I felt very cheated by the fact a crap movie like Red Eye got excellent reviews. Sometimes critics give directors an A for effort, doing something different, etc (see Revenge of the Sith).

edit: and by see ROTS, I mean, see how bad it is, but how good they scored it also...

Excellent reviews? To me, excellent is over 90% positive reviews. Red Eye got 80% and Revenge of the Sith got 82%. However, one could argue those percentages are too high for those films. If you look at their average scores though when all the reviews are in, Red Eye has a 6.7 out of 10. That's not too bad, but it's far from "excellent". Revenge of the Sith has a 7.3, and I wouldn't call that astounding either. It's a bit high, but then again...the critics were probably stunned by the fact that it was so much better than Episode I and II, both of which are known to be cow shit.

[Maquisard]

That makes sense. But it's dumb how anything over 5/10 gets rated as a positive review.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Mares

That makes sense. But it's dumb how anything over 5/10 gets rated as a positive review.

I agree there. I think recently some "2 1/2 out of 4" or "3 out of 5" scores have been put on the "Rotten" side based on the tone of the review, but overall...I certainly agree there. That's why I go more by the average score lately.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

By contrast, I do feel (slightly) offended by Manhunter's tone, because I feel like I should be ashamed for preferring films that respect my intelligence.

Ah, don't be. I prefer them, myself, and didn't feel offended by his words. I know fine what he's getting at, and as far as I know, you're far from what was criticised... in fact, as are most people. It's just a general phenomenom that crops up here and there, and is terribly irritating when it does happen.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Spoiler:

I loved it...

Tsk, tsk.

AFGNCAAP

Coincidentially, I liked how Red Eye started. The end was kind of pointless, though.

Hm. I get the feeling I split far too many movies in the middle and rate those parts seperately...

[Melanie68]

In the end people watch movies for different reasons. Some people can go in and notice camera angles and lighting, etc and it colors how they view a film. I wouldn't know that if it slapped me in the face. The vast, vast majority of the time, I go to films for escapism. I have enough reality in my life to go looking for it on TV or the movies. I want to escape from that - so entertainment purposes for me. Movie buffs, it seems they can go occasionally for entertainment purposes but they have a tendency to see all the stuff in a movie that your average movie goer could give a rat's ass about.

With critics and movies - I see them split in 3 categories:

1. 99% of the critics love it - guaranteed to be good to both movie buffs and your average movie fan

2. 50-50 split - a love it or hate it. It's either a controversial film that some critics like the risk taking and some hate it or it's a great entertainment flick that some critics can recognize and some can't

3. 99% hate it - it's going to be God-awful. The 1% who did like are either insane, are fake critics or got paid off to give a good review.

[playing_games]

What an interesting thread. I'm glad that I decided to finally register and I can participate in discussions like this!

Pinkgothic, I take it that you loved War of the Worlds. It's interesting somebody brought up Kevin smith on this thread too. Pinkgothic, you might want to read what Kevin Smith had to say about the movies he watched in 2005.

http://silentbobspeaks.com/?m=20060118

I can understand why people are frustrated with how some people do not find "brainless" (hope people do not find this term condescending), entertainment-only movies empty. As someone who doesn't think highly of movies that do not challenge me either intellectually or emotionally, I have to say though movies like Paycheck or Bourne Identity do not leave a lasting impression on me. I do enjoy watching them once in a while but I stop thinking about them as soon as they are over. I caught Paycheck for the first time on cable a few months ago and it was alright. It helped me to kill a couple of hours but you know what I forgot about the movie altogether until I saw it on this thread. In the mean time, I saw Brokeback Mountain as soon as it opened which was I and the movie has stayed with me ever since.

I can go on and on and make such comparisons. In the end it's movies like You Can Lean On Me or Amadeus that stay with me not movies like American Pie or War of the Worlds (sorry Pinkgothic but I didn't;t like the movie a whole lot).

[stuboy]

I only go to the cinema for

MAAAAATTTT DAAAAMONNN!!!!!!

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by playing_games

What an interesting thread. I'm glad that I decided to finally register and I can participate in discussions like this!

Welcome to the forum, playing_games.

Originally Posted by playing_games

Pinkgothic, I take it that you loved War of the Worlds.

Understatement.

Originally Posted by playing_games

http://silentbobspeaks.com/?m=20060118

Teehee, going to have to agree with the "**** you, I dug it." Very nice way of making a point. Whilst I would strongly disagree with his Part 2 (can't comment on Part 3, didn't see it), I can understand how someone would like it, so he has my respect for standing up to his opinion about it, at least. It's not like he said "OMGWTF, it's such a good plot!"

Originally Posted by playing_games

(sorry Pinkgothic but I didn't like the movie a whole lot).

S'okay. It's your opinion As long as you don't discredit it as being overall shite (and you haven't), I'm happy. I try to avoid doing the same with other movies... they may have aspects that piss me off, but a movie is, for example, not just plot, or not just camera.

I think the only movie I ever tore entirely to tatters was Revenge of the Sith... didn't like the plot, didn't like the CG (was expecting more), didn't like the camera, didn't like the acting. Not sure if that leaves anything...

...

Oh, oh!

I talk too much.

[Rayvielle]

Firstly, I agree that people shouldn't be easily disuaded by movie criticism. Not every mainstream critic is going to give the "flavour of the month" film the thumbs up, and vice versa. Perhaps read several reviews, or better yet, check out a synopsis of what the film is supposed to be about. If that entices you, gets your juices flowing and your heart pounding, head to the theatre or rent the dvd. That's kind of forgone nowadays, it seems. .

However, while I feel some critics are harsh, I also feel that on some accounts, they make a good point. A lot of movies we see today fall into the category of sequal, remake or formulaic. Of course, there are those that break the mould, try something new, and generally clean up at the oscars. It's quite clear though, that some film makers are following other peoples leads and are trying to be...'the next' Quentin Tarrantino, Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson.

Is that really going to spark creativity? Probably not.

With that being said, it is quite clear that the Independant Film Associations ARE breaking through a lot more. While I'm not suggesting these films are instantly layered with inspiration, they tend to produce a 'breath of fresh air'.

I'm quite easily entertained by a great number of films. Of course, there are those that I watch, and those that I remember. I can watch a film, snigger at it's jokes, follow it's storyline, make it to the end. Or I can become entangled in a film, feel engaged by it's characters and moved by it's story. I remember how it made me feel, how it stole my heart, how it captured my imagination, how it stopped and made me think.

I'll only know that when I'm sitting and watching it myself.

That, is how I gauge a good film, from a great film.

[nikoniko]

Wait... is this an annoying rant about movie critics or a rant about annoying movie critics? I popped in expecting to be annoyed by the ranting going on, but it somehow fails to annoy me.

[Rayvielle]

*annoyed, because he can't figure it out*

[Manhunter71]

The point I was trying to make was that a lot of people have a very snobby attitude toward movies.

I personally don't see anything wrong with watching action movies or Hollywood blockbusters - granted, most of these movies don't have a deep storyline or memorable characters that you can relate to, but they do what they were made to do, which is entertain us for a couple of hours.

Consider the following - Independence Day, Armageddon, Die Hard, Underworld, Troy, Minority Report, any Arnie or Van Damme movie and there are a host of others. They don't have a deep or intelligent story - they are just action entertainment and I don't see anything wrong with that

I know it all comes down to personal opinions in the end but I don't see any difference between these kinds of movies and films like Donnie Darko, Memento, The Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction etc...

For me it all depends on what kind of mood I am in - there are some days when a mindless action flick is so much more suitable than a film that you need to concentrate on

Man, I love rants.

[squarejawhero]

I love lamp.