[Manhunter71]

Don't misunderstand me, I love a good, intelligent movie as much as the next person, but I have to say that I am becoming quite frustrated with the way a lot of people here tend to dismiss recent movies as "shallow", or "cheesy action flicks", or "stereotypical" etc, etc......

As far as I am concerned a good movie is one that keeps me watching from beginning to end.

I've seen a number of posts criticising Ben Affleck, but I 'm not really sure why?

Look at some of the movies he's been in - Chasing Amy, Pearl Harbour, Changing Lanes, Dogma, Daredevil, Paycheck........

While these may not be memorable oscar winners, they are what they are - reasonably good entertainment

Not all films can be emotionally captivating - as far as i am concerned the main aim of watching movies is to take you away to a different world for a few hours!
During that time you can suspend belief, and travel to new and exciting worlds where all may not be as it seems

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Manhunter71

Look at some of the movies he's been in - Chasing Amy, Pearl Harbour, Changing Lanes, Dogma, Daredevil, Paycheck........

While these may not be memorable oscar winners, they are what they are - reasonably good entertainment

Yeah, reasonably good entertainment for people who normally spend their days watching paint dry...

[jjacob]

I get your point, although you do seem to pick the absolute WORST examples of "entertainment" I absolutely hate elitist film crtitcs (especially the ones who use newspapers solely to display their skills in burrying films, usually they're failed disgruntled filmmakers) but most of the films you mention are absolute crap, leaving you with a empty feeling thinking "why did I just waste my time on that" And let's be honest, Ben Affleck has exactly one facial expression at his disposal, perfect for certain scenes, but devastating for others.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by jjacob

I absolutely hate elitist film crtitcs (especially the ones who use newspapers solely to display their skills in burrying films...

I like film critics. They're certainly more trustworthy than any of my friends, who tend to enjoy films that I find horrible ("leave your brain in the lobby" kind of movies). Usually the films critics bury deserve it.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

I like film critics. They're certainly more trustworthy than any of my friends, who tend to enjoy films that I find horrible ("leave your brain in the lobby" kind of movies). Usually the films critics bury deserve it.

My friends are kind of picky like me, but some of these critics can be horrible, they usually tend to bury a film unless it's in black and yellow, filmed upside down, and in reverse chronological order

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by jjacob

My friends are kind of picky like me, but some of these critics can be horrible, they usually tend to bury a film unless it's in black and yellow, filmed upside down, and in reverse chronological order

Ohhhh...come on now.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by jjacob

...some of these critics can be horrible, they usually tend to bury a film unless it's in black and yellow, filmed upside down, and in reverse chronological order

Maybe it's because you usually tend to read mostly those kinds of critics.

Try looking up Jonathan Rosenbaum. He's my favourite.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Manhunter71

As far as I am concerned a good movie is one that keeps me watching from beginning to end.

I can't believe you really meant that. In any case, I never walk out of a movie theater, so I watched all the movies I saw from beginning to end, sometimes to my greatest pain.

Originally Posted by Manhunter71

I've seen a number of posts criticising Ben Affleck, but I 'm not really sure why?

Look at some of the movies he's been in - Chasing Amy, Pearl Harbour, Changing Lanes, Dogma, Daredevil, Paycheck........

While these may not be memorable oscar winners, they are what they are - reasonably good entertainment

Daredevil and Paycheck are completely lame, having not a ounce of originality, interest, beauty, suspens, or quality.
And in these two movies (the only on your list that I've seen), Ben's performance strongly enhances the "lameness", with his dog-like expressions.

Originally Posted by Manhunter71

Not all films can be emotionally captivating - as far as i am concerned the main aim of watching movies is to take you away to a different world for a few hours!
During that time you can suspend belief, and travel to new and exciting worlds where all may not be as it seems

If a movie is lame, then it brings me nowhere. Action movies are lame more often than not, hence leaving me standing in a stupid seat in a stupid movie theater.


Oh, also:

Originally Posted by Manhunter71

Don't misunderstand me, I love a good, intelligent movie as much as the next person, but I have to say that I am becoming quite frustrated with the way a lot of people here tend to dismiss recent movies as "shallow", or "cheesy action flicks", or "stereotypical" etc, etc......

What have "recent movies" got to do with this? I absolutely loved "where the truth lies", for example. 80% of the american movies have been "shallow", "cheesy action flicks", or "stereotypical" for at least twenty years. And they are dismissed as these because that's what they are. I could go into details, but I would have to fish out the bad movies I've seen recently, and I don't feel like it. Oh wait, we were talking about the Bourne identity. Stereotypical conspiracy? Check. Shallow? Well, what's deep in it? Check. Cheesy? Erm, that's debatable, because some parts are pretty efficient. But check, for the usual love story, evil bad guys, and immensely skilled hero.

And before anyone jumps on me, most of my favorite movies are also american.

[Dobee]

arg...lame movies is the reason for me having not entered into a cinema for almost whole year, I rather rent them and use the "FWD" magic button at home....

[RLacey]

My dislike of Affleck not withstanding, I'm also not a huge fan of movie critics, but only because the vast majority of "critics" (by which I mean the serious ones, rather than the types that provide those great-sounding taglines for every film, regardless of quality) come across as really conceited and pretentious.

But then, this all brings me back to the whole movies=art equation. And I'm perfectly happy with the possibility that not all movies are designed as works of art. Even the most critically panned Bond or Star Trek film I've found enjoyable. Does this give me a poor taste in film? Possibly, but equally possibly not. After all, by what standards are we judging these movies as being good? I'm perfectly happy to leave my brain at home every now and again, because - believe it or not - I watch films to relax and enjoy the experience. I don't need films to make me question the nature of reality, and I don't need them to make me marvel at the use of colour, camera set-up and lighting, in order to enjoy a film. And I feel that, all too often, the more pretentious critics forget that.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by RLacey

I don't need films to make me question the nature of reality, and I don't need them to make me marvel at the use of colour, camera set-up and lighting, in order to enjoy a film. And I feel that, all too often, the more pretentious critics forget that.

Sure, but on the other hand, the experience provided by the movies where you will marvel at all this is infinetely more intense and breathtaking than the one provided by the movies where you will "just" have fun.

So calling them both good means putting them on the same level, when they're obviously not.

That said, I agree that many critics forget to take the fun factor into account. An uninspired movie can indeed be fun, and as such be worth a sight. That would be King Kong, for example.
Still, in terms of quality, such a movie would be below a deeper movie, in my opinion.

[RLacey]

I'm perfectly happy to agree with you, Ninth. What I object to is the clever=good, dumb fun=bad mentality that these people have. I'm not about to pretend that the dumb fun movies are going to be as good as the best of the clever movies (though I also feel that a lot of films try too hard to be clever), but that doesn't mean that they must be rubbish .

[Phantom]

It's just a matter of looking for a movie critic that sort of matches your opinion. This is mostly a trial & error thing. Some critics may seem to come over as pretentious or elitist, but think of it as this: if you really watch every single movie that comes out for the big screen, will you not eventually become quite picky with which films you consider 'good'? The more you watch movies, the more you notice the deficits in bad films and the more you are annoyed by them. I can know, because I really watch a lot of movies (about 60% of what comes out in theatres over here).
Those guys just give their personal opinion most of the time, and who are we to blame them? It's not like they force you to listen to their advice (yes, it's just advice after all). Of course, there are always pretentious assholes, but you can find guys like that in every branch, everywhere.

[natalia]

It sounds like we're talking about two separate things here. I like cheesy flicks. I liked the Bourne Identity. It kept me entertained and I enjoyed the performances (even though I normally can't stand Matt Damon's smugness). But I totally realize that my enjoyment of that movie is a matter of personal preference. There are definitely plenty of cheesy brain fluffy action flicks that I found super boring (The Italian Job was so so dull to me) that I'm sure other people loved and vice versa.

Regarding movie critics, there are plenty that I enjoy. I don't always agree with them, but I enjoy reading their essays. I like the critics with individual voices that provide entertaining reads. I don't like Roger Ebert, I feel like he's been phoning in his reviews for a while and he sometimes gets factual errors in his reviews, which I can't stand. I loved the vitality and in-your-faceness of Pauline Kael (I especially loved this quote of hers in this Salon story: "I would like to suggest that the educated audience often uses 'art' films in much the same self-indulgent way as the mass audience uses the Hollywood 'product,' finding wish fulfillment in the form of cheap and easy congratulation on their sensitivities and liberalism." http://www.salon.com/bc/1999/02/09bc.html)

I hated Charles Taylor as a reviewer at Salon (although he had a strong following) and I'm only just now starting to like Salon's Stephanie Zacharek, even though she can be a meandering hit or miss sometimes.

I love to read reviews from critics. They teach me a lot about the mechanics of movie making, and when they are good writers as well, I get a kick out of the writing too. I don't go to them to tell me how to feel about a movie (which is why I especially hate those reviewers who puff up a movie before it comes out only to say when it comes out on DVD that they've revised their review and say "see I really knew all along it was crap." Right.)

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Manhunter71

Don't misunderstand me, I love a good, intelligent movie as much as the next person, but I have to say that I am becoming quite frustrated with the way a lot of people here tend to dismiss recent movies as "shallow", or "cheesy action flicks", or "stereotypical" etc, etc......

Eh? Aren't you confusing us with another forum? It's even hard to disprove such a statement, peculiar as it may be, when it's so general.

As far as I am concerned a good movie is one that keeps me watching from beginning to end.

Oh, so we should ask you of your opinion before dismissing a movie? But, seriously, that's a very forgiving standard to judge films.

I've seen a number of posts criticising Ben Affleck, but I 'm not really sure why?

Look at some of the movies he's been in - Chasing Amy, Pearl Harbour, Changing Lanes, Dogma, Daredevil, Paycheck........

While these may not be memorable oscar winners, they are what they are - reasonably good entertainment

If we stick to your criterion, than I happily admit that I actually fell asleep during Pearl Harbor. I'm not joking. Can I criticise it now?

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Eh? Aren't you confusing us with another forum?

I don't think so. Sometimes - though it's been very select occasions I've been very effective in forgetting, so no biggie at all - I do get the feeling that movies need to fulfill some sort of artsyness to pass as good hereabouts.

So, whilst I cannot give you a specific example off-hand, that atmosphere has definitely imposed itself on me before. To describe what I mean, consider the War of the Worlds discussion, and instead of making it a debate about whether or not it is and should have been faithful to the book (and the implications of that), turn it into a debate on artsyness... that's the atmosphere I mean. I told you I don't have an example off-hand, this is the best I could do to clarify what I mean...

Of course, a great counter example is that The Constant Gardner seems to be generally not-so-well received hereabouts, even though it tries really hard to live up to being 'artsy'.

Hm.

Ah well.

[squarejawhero]

Christ knows how you guys could mention Matt Damon and Ben Affleck and not mention Good Will Hunting, a great American movie written by the both of them and directed by Gus Van Sant... it might not be to everyones taste, but is has a strong script and some brilliant performances - particularly from Robin Williams. The scene where Damon pushes him over the edge is taut... plus Damon and Afflecks interplay is very well done. Bens speech to him about why the hell he wants to stick around his hometown when he could be actually living is a well acted and written scene.

Affleck never really lived up to his perfomance in that film since, except maybe his take on a Dante style character in Chasing Amy (a brilliantly adroit character movie, to me KS's best above Clerks). I respect his ability to completely take the piss out of himself too, as he and Damon are game to do for Kevin Smiths sick pleasure.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Christ knows how you guys could mention Matt Damon and Ben Affleck and not mention Good Will Hunting, a great American movie written by the both of them and directed by Gus Van Sant... it might not be to everyones taste, but is has a strong script and some brilliant performances.

I've only ever seen the first half hour. In French.

As for that particular film, it's one of those things that gives me an irrational hatred of film studios. Take a look at the DVD case for anything starring Matt Damon and it's likely to describe him as an "Oscar winner". Which, while being true, has precisely zip to do with his acting talents.

[/random aside rant]

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

I don't think so. Sometimes - though it's been very select occasions I've been very effective in forgetting, so no biggie at all - I do get the feeling that movies need to fulfill some sort of artsyness to pass as good hereabouts.

*shrug* I don't think I've noticed it. Are Serenity and King Kong trying to be artsy (both having their own long-running threads)? Anyway, I'm pretty sure this tendency, even if present, doesn't take form of imposing anyone's views onto others and that's all that matters, IMO. 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.

Of course, a great counter example is that The Constant Gardner seems to be generally not-so-well received hereabouts, even though it tries really hard to live up to being 'artsy'.

Spoiler:

I loved it...

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Are Serenity and King Kong trying to be artsy (both having their own long-running threads)?

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.