Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 1565936" data-attributes="member: 812">I have to say I find something slightly... sinister in the whole "Well, it wasn't very good but I'm not going to complain because I had low expectations," approach to art. It smacks of accepting mediocrity.I appreciated Troy for its good qualities. It certainly possessed some. That's why I gave it a 5. That doesn't mean I won't call it down for its flaws. It deserves to be called down for its flaws, like all movies do. Statements like "I can still enjoy it for what it was" don't seem to carry much meaning, and veer dangerously close to, "I'm not going to think that hard about it."Saying that a movie wasn't as good as RotK isn't the same as saying it possesses no redeeming qualities. Saying that a film isn't perfect isn't the same as saying it's worthless. And saying, "Well, it wasn't perfect but I enjoyed it for what it was," feels like dismissing the value of discussing its flaws.I mean, if people don't want to discuss art to that degree, that's cool. If you just don't want to think that hard about it, I can't complain. I know that the truth has always and will always be that most people aren't that interested. I'm still determined to fight for critical analysis and defensible arguments. For tough criticisms and trenchant observations (I'm not 100% sure what "trenchant" means, but I've always wanted to use it). For the little people. The big people. The cats. The blue-footed boobies.What was I talking about? Oh, never mind. I take movies pretty seriously. You probably figured that out, though, right?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification