The other side of film dissonance...

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I was going to argue that my school was worse than your's, but then I saw you misspelled "moon".

You win!

HA! Victory is mine!

And to stay almost on topic....I love Akira...probably because its so freaky. Never been able to get into the American Pie movies...or many comedies these days. Something seems to be lost in too much pointless sexual humor. *shrugs*

 

[KChagga]

I humbly submit the movie know as K-PAX. Blech. Critics thought it was good, but I thought it was boring and at the end of the movie whether he was really an alien or not made absolutely no difference. Nothing really happens. At all. In the whole film.

John Chrichton did you like this Kevin Spacey film? Don't get me wrong I didn't hate it. I just don't know why I bothered to watch it when it was over.

 

[John Crichton]

John Chrichton did you like this Kevin Spacey film? Don't get me wrong I didn't hate it. I just don't know why I bothered to watch it when it was over.

Not yet I have to say. It looked pretty good and a friend who has a similar taste dug it but I really can't say. Maybe when it shows up on HBO (Starz, etc) I'll catch it.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Speaking of honesty, put me down against Bowling For Columbine. This "documentary" is the darling of most critics, even though virtually everything in it has been discredited or proven to have been staged by it's director, Michael Moore. Fortunately, there's a documentary being produced called Michael Moore Hates America which disects Bowling, showing exactly what he faked and how.

Put me down for hating Bowling for Columbine as well. When filming this crockumentry, Michael Moore dreamed up his own "facts", fabricated events, and doctored footage to create interviews that never actually happened. Even the Toronto Star and the Wall Street Journal have published articles pointing out the numerous factual errors and flat-out lies in Bowling for Columbine.

I also agree with you that Michael Moore must have some kind of psychological problem, because some of the stuff he comes up with just dosen't sound like it would come from someone entirely sane.

 

[Pants]

I thought it was a robot...

I did too, but then I edumacated myself

 

[John Crichton]

I did too, but then I edumacated myself

Same. Man it was such a relief to find out that it was a place. Actually it is 2 places. I lookeded it up. *thumbs up*

 

[jdavis]

Yeah, I enjoyed every one of those films. Even 6th Sense where the ending was told to me before I saw it. Was still entertaining, the "twist" just was just gravy. Moulin Rouge blew me away. American Beauty was a given because I have loved every movie Kevin Spacy has ever been in. Three Kings shocked me because I didn't expect it to be that good. I enjoyed Traffic as well for not being preachy yet still getting a powerful message across.

I do have a question for everyone: The one movie I have ever encountered that ever single person has loved was Shawshank Redemption. Anyone not like that flick or met anyone who didn't. Just curious...

A lot of like and dislike of movies runs to personal taste in themes. A lot of the movies people have listed I just skipped, I can't say if they were good or not because they didn't appeal to me enough to even give them a chance, ones like American Beauty I was drug into by my better half (twice), it had the fact that I really didn't want to be there going against it right from the start. I also have a tendancy to dislike Tom Hanks movies because I have a tendancy to dislike Tom Hanks, they have a big hurdle to cross for me from the get go.

Shawshank Redemption was good but I would of never watched it if I hadn't of been forced to. I'm sure I miss a lot of good movies but I tend to gravitate away from overly serious and "feel good" movies.

As far as Akira goes I have the video, still in the shrink wrap. It was a gift that I never cared to open. I have seen it a couple of times but it really never did anything for me. Looked good, ended stupid.

 

[John Crichton]

A lot of like and dislike of movies runs to personal taste in themes. A lot of the movies people have listed I just skipped, I can't say if they were good or not because they didn't appeal to me enough to even give them a chance, ones like American Beauty I was drug into by my better half (twice), it had the fact that I really didn't want to be there going against it right from the start. I also have a tendancy to dislike Tom Hanks movies because I have a tendancy to dislike Tom Hanks, they have a big hurdle to cross for me from the get go.

This is true for some folks. I look at movies the same way I look at all other forms of entertainment like music or TV: If it's good I'll give it a chance. Good is good. Entertaining is entertaining. I didn't really want to see American Beauty either but I'm glad that I did because it was a very enjoyable film.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

This is true for some folks. I look at movies the same way I look at all other forms of entertainment like music or TV: If it's good I'll give it a chance. Good is good. Entertaining is entertaining. I didn't really want to see American Beauty either but I'm glad that I did because it was a very enjoyable film.

This is something I harp on a lot. Some people tell me that everything is subjective; you can't say a movie is bad because someone might like it, so you'd be wrong. My problem with this is that it undermines the whole point of criticism. One should be able to hold up anything, be it movie, album, book, or whatever, and objectively determine whether it's good or not. There has to be some kind of objective way to tell that The Godfather is a better film than Jury Duty, a formula that you can apply. An understanding of music theory can do this with music criticism, but it's a little harder with films. Still, one can look at an obviously bad film and know why this is so. Bad script, bad editing, bad acting, bad directing, you can pick a movie apart and tell WHY it failed.

 

[John Crichton]

This is something I harp on a lot. Some people tell me that everything is subjective; you can't say a movie is bad because someone might like it, so you'd be wrong. My problem with this is that it undermines the whole point of criticism. One should be able to hold up anything, be it movie, album, book, or whatever, and objectively determine whether it's good or not. There has to be some kind of objective way to tell that The Godfather is a better film than Jury Duty, a formula that you can apply. An understanding of music theory can do this with music criticism, but it's a little harder with films. Still, one can look at an obviously bad film and know why this is so. Bad script, bad editing, bad acting, bad directing, you can pick a movie apart and tell WHY it failed.

Agreed. There are always personal tastes involved when judging entertainment (and art for the that matter as they intersect) but there are benchmarks in place, even for the uninformed. Actually, my thoughts on "The Thin Red Line" are that it actually was a good film but I didn't like it at all. A movie like UHF is below average but I loved it. Taste does come into play, but objectivity is important to keep if you truly want to enjoy a particular medium. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to watch a movie or listen to a song but it helps before labeling something as crap. Personally, I think that most folks just don't get many of the films they don't like nor do they admit that the film is any good. I'm guilty of it for sure.