The other side of film dissonance...

[Villano]

There has to be some kind of objective way to tell that The Godfather is a better film than Jury Duty

And how many weeks was Kangaroo Jack the #1 movie in America?

On the other hand, sometimes people surprise you. Madonna's last movie made $54.23. I think the only people who went to see it were people she paid to.

But, seriously, it's art. It's kind of hard to determine what's "good" with such things. Critics hate a movie the public loves and vice versa.

It's all a rich tapestry.

Then again, I liked Dude, Where's My Car?, so what do I know?

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.

The problem is that, well, anyone can be a critic, especially in this day and age of the internet. So, if anyone can be a critic, what weight does criticism carry?

Honestly, I've read some things written by so-called critics that were mindnumbing. I once read a review of Bride Of Frankenstein that took a detour into the bizarre. The character of Dr. Pretorius has often been accused of being gay due to the fact that the actor who protrayed him was. Well, this writer claimed that he wasn't gay...but was a necrophiliac serial killer!

No joke! It all stems from a line in the film in which Pretorius says he was kicked out of the university for "knowing too much". The writer claimed that "knowing" mean knowing in the biblical sense (sex), so that obviously means he had sex with dead bodies.

And people thought the guy who thought X-Men was all about homosexuality was a weirdo.

Anyway, would you trust those two critics to judge what makes a movie good? Personally, I wouldn't trust them to use a toilet properly.

 

[John Crichton]

Anyway, would you trust those two critics to judge what makes a movie good? Personally, I wouldn't trust them to use a toilet properly.

Nope. Those two folks hardly qualify. Good, solid, objective critics are hard to find. They are out there but the problem is you have to look for them.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Nope. Those two folks hardly qualify. Good, solid, objective critics are hard to find. They are out there but the problem is you have to look for them.

I usually just look at the general consensus at RottenTomatoes.com when I'm not sure if I want to see a movie or not. I don't really listen much to individual critics because they often pan movies I thought were great, and praise movies I thought were bad.

 

[John Crichton]

I usually just look at the general consensus at RottenTomatoes.com when I'm not sure if I want to see a movie or not. I don't really listen much to individual critics because they often pan movies I thought were great, and praise movies I thought were bad.

Honestly, that is not a bad way to go. I've never used that site as a gauge for a movie but it's not a bad last-resort for a general view of quality. The problem is that they'll have just about anyone counted. Many of those critics are completely clueless. And even worse is that a chunk of those reviews are only a few paragraphs long which is just sad. We all write more informed, thought-provoking posts on these very forums.

I'm lucky that I've found a few reviewers that I tend to side with on various entertainment outlets (movies, TV and videogames to be specific). I don't depend on them but I do use them in a pinch if I am on the fence.

 

[Kai Lord]

Which leads me to Matrix: Reloaded.[SIZE]

I agree. The first one was an instant classic. The second just missed the mark in too many areas, which is all the more bewildering considering how great "The Animatrix" is. WHY ON EARTH didn't the Wachowski Brothers open Matrix Reloaded with a live action version of Final Flight of the Osiris????

Awesomely sets the tone right out and would have given much more tension to the finale when the squiddies bear down on Neo and the others. And the recap of the final battle against the machines from "Second Rennaisance" would have made a perfect prologue, LOTR style, which they could have included in place of some of the more ludicrous scenes from later in the film (the rave, exploding cake nonsense)....oh well. Hopefully Revolutions will pick up the ball.

I don't know why so many people are mentioning Moulin Rouge. That film was hardly universally praised. It polarized critics and moviegoers right down the middle. For the record, its one of my favorite films of all time.

To answer the original question, I'd say American Beauty. Fully expected this to be a great film, it turned out to be one of the few films I've seen in a theater that literally offended me.

 

[jdavis]

And how many weeks was Kangaroo Jack the #1 movie in America?

Remember, just about every movie is somebodies favorite movie. And there is no accounting for the taste of the masses.

I'd never think a movie was bad in general just because I didn't like it, but some movies are obviously poorly made or of limited quality. (like many of the movies being discussed in the Druids thread).

 

[Wayside]

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*

I like the American Pie flicks, but probably only because I've been to band camp

 

[Wayside]

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.

The theory is there, same as for Literature in general, although from what I know film schools have taken (maybe still do take) a position for some reason centered on Lacan.

That, and I suppose the nature of Hollywood, has led to a decided vacany in film criticism of figures like Harold Bloom, Judith Butler, Helen Vendler (however much I dislike them).

In general though, criticism is a response to great works. When movies have a Homer, movie critics will have an Aristotle. Maybe one person will be both, a T. S. Eliot of film. That would at least speed things up.

Most people however are content to lump quality with preference. But, as I'm fond of saying, most of the movies I like and the music I listen to are crap.

 

[Robbert Raets]

To answer the original question, I'd say American Beauty. Fully expected this to be a great film, it turned out to be one of the few films I've seen in a theater that literally offended me.

What offended you, if I may ask?

I like the American Pie flicks, but probably only because I've been to band camp

.....I'm not touching this.....

 

[WayneLigon]

grr. Double post.