Alright, fuck me. I had a long post here and it got deleted. So pardon me if I seem a little more irritated.

Anyway, film is to me the most interesting of art forms. And, as we well know, the majority of people have bad taste in art. It's not their fault, really. Very few people are born with an absolute taste for art and the rest of us (myself included) tend to take little to zero time to study and read up on music, visual art or film. Hence - we don't really know what we're talking about when it comes to art beyond saying what we know we like and dislike.

About 6 years ago I made it my goal to know everything about film. That failed fast. Still, in the 6 years I have studied film and watched pretty much every movie I could find at some point or another that looked decent. I have seen my type of film, the type of film of my 3 friends and the type of film of varied girlfriends (to quote my mom - "see what a girl can do to the movies you see?"). In short I take movies seriously.

Whenever I finish a film I go to yahoo.com and read the user reviews and critic's reviews for my own entertainment (I have a rule that I don't read a review before I see a movie). Over the past year and a half I have collected a good number of my favourite user reviews and I've decided to share some of this with you. So, here goes.....


Vanilla Sky -
- "I loved this movie because it was smart... and most of all, it messes with you psychologically.
Not many movies can do that to me any more, I have become fickle from too much movie watching."
- "this movie made no sense whatsoever. I had no idea what was happening. It was truely the worst movie ever! there was no comedy, laughter, romance, action. the plot was awful, the direction was horrible, the dialoge was made no sense!"

The reviews of this movie were FILLED with two common types of reviewers. 1) The morons who can't figure out a film more complex than Crossroads. 2) The morons who think anything that isn't normal must be brilliant (these idiots also assume anything foreign is amazingly artistic). When I read these reviews I was confused as all fucking hell. For starters, Vanilla Sky was a decent movie with an interesting story, fantastic set design and superbly organized music. What it was not was any brilliant, original, insightful piece of work with a true meaning. It did not dive into the nature of relationships as much as the story line could have allowed it and it was not confusing. Here's a tidbit; the first time I saw this movie I, with two friends, had smoked 2.5 grams 25 minutes earlier --- I was not confused at all. The plot made perfect sense and the minute things happened I understood them. If someone shot all the people who found this movie very confusing I would consider the world a smarter place.


A Clockwork Orange -
- "pointless sex and violence"
- "Very very boring and weird as hell. I hate Kubrick's stuff. He makes the most boring movies."
- "I almost started crying. I was cringing the whole way through. And it made me afraid of the friends that reccommended it to me. So, at first, I would say that this is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. But I can't do that. Because that was the point of the movie. To repulse you. So it really isn't a bad movie. Does that make sense? I don't know, I am confused. So anyway, this movie made me very sad and scared and I hated it"
- "The movie was fantastic (my personal favorite) and the book was even better! It was sadistic, satiric, even satanic - the future world portrayed is frighteningly close at hand"

Again, there are few types of reviews of this film. The 'Crossroads' fans are back in full colour, calling this film "boring, too violent and pointless". In my choice of order I would like to address those issues.
Too Violent - Go back to Texas please. (sorry, I can't bring myself to argue this point because I dobut any sciforums members are against my side of this)
Pointless - Actually, it has a number of points. On the face this movie is about a kid. The underside of it which just about every nut who thinks he knows good film can see is that it's about the Pavlov-esque treatment of Alex in the movie and the nature of change and being good or bad relative to a society. I find this statement too stereotypical to be anything but a driving force in a Kubrick film. To me, the most important point of this movie was the discovery and acceptance/rejection/denial of the violent urges within each of us.
Boring - Here's a simple, calm response. If you found this movie (or any other Kubrick) boring - that's good for you. It doesn't indicate that you're less intelligent than myself. All it shows is that you have the attention span of a 2 year old chimp.


American Beauty -
- "Hollywood is doing its best to bring the rest of the country down to its sleazy self. What's the message of this movie: To feel good, you're going to have to hurt somebody or abandoned all you believe"
- " Kevin Spacey's Lester was just a pathetic moron turned dirty old man. His obsession with his daughters best friend (Mena Suvari) is revolting, and Suvari's character is just a little slut. Asking your friend if she peeks at her dad showering to see his dick??"
- "The only reason people like this movie is because it has all that sex in it . No plot at all , just sex . This movie is for the brainless type , so if you have a brain , then don't see it"

In general, the people who hatted this movie thought it was useless because only middle aged, middle-class white americans could relate to it. If you need to be able to relate to the main character of a movie to make it good you don't deserve to be watching movies, end of debate.


Simone -
- "If you are interested in seeing a movie that makes you think, makes a number of interesting observations about the general public and how they eat up all of the crap that Hollywood feeds them, and is going to bring you a few laughs, then check this movie out."
- "Not since "Network" has a movie so brilliantly and wittily satirized modern mass culture and the cult of celebrity. I suspect mass media critics have been unenthusiastic because their corporate employers are troubled by its subversive message"

Okay, let me say this now - the message of Simone is a comment on the pretentious attitudes of hollywood and the nature of fame. I'm willing to bet someone came up with this comment about 3 days after Hollywood became a movie-making centre. This is as simplistic a movie as they get - it is NOT something brilliant. Though, Pacino is a great actor.



Anyway, I doubt anyone will reply to this as all of this is simply my entertainment. I'll post more if anyone wants. And if anyone wants to see yahoo user reviews of their favourite movie - just ask, I likely have a list!

*laughs* critiquing the critiquers. hmm, there should be a section dedicated to this in the paper after the movie reviews.

but, its no mystery that people dont 'get' good movies 99% of the times. how do you think hollywood survives? every industry has to have a stable consumer base. when something that actually requires the use of a few brain cells comes along, those who shut down all neural receptors, suck on a coke, and munch popcorn during a film, are out of touch with their natural habitat. they complain, whine, moan, and no one goes to see the film. none of the other lemmings, i mean.

Wow, good thread

I hate the people who say they like a film only because everyone else does. People are so shallow.

I also hate people who see action films and only like it because of the action. I know there are films that are JUST action with no plot (take every single Steven Segal film as an example) but there are films that have a deep plot and is very philosphical and people only like it cos some guy got his head blown off.

Saving Private Ryan is the first one I can think of and Platoon being the second.

NOTE: Platoon is my all time favourite film EVER.

Does anyone here understand the hidden moral in Aliens???

I loved that movie. Everything to do with it. I did a science project on film so I know a bit of what some people would call 'mumbo jumbo' but as for the basic and complex ideas and subtle...cultural proclamations I have a long way to go. But even as I assume that buried somewhere in American Beauty are all of those things I can still just watch it, immerse myself in it and love it.

Lord of The Rings

Ahhhh, after I left the icy movie theatre with my friends this was my all time favorite movie--of all time. The camera angles are really what did it for me(i.e Boromir picking the ring up on the snowy mountain, Frodo hearing the Nazgul approaching through the forest next to Maggot's Farm, the insects wriggling around the armor of the Nazgul as he dismounts his horse and sniffs the air above the hobbitsses hiding place, Frodo dropping the ring in the bar-restaraunt and catching it on his finger, at the end, when Sam fall's into the river, watching Frodo's hand stab into the eerie water and grab Sam's hand, then Sam's hand tightening over Frodo's). I've watched this movie a lot and I really enjoy it. At the risk of establishing this brief review as a masterful description of the film, I'd have to say that maybe providing examples to certain points would help get those points across. Plus, the next time ANY of you watch the movie you can look for what I've mentioned (if you haven't noticed it already).

Wow, the only movie I've seen that's been mentioned in this thread so far is LOTR. :bugeye:

I'm not really big on films. I'll watch them if they have a cute actor in, interesting plot/setting, occasionally if they are extremely popular (for example, Bridget Jones I ended up watching cos it stayed at the top of the charts for ages, and all my friends wanted me to go, though that said, I've never seen Shrek), though ultimately I hope for a film that is thought provoking, and will change the way I see life. Very few do, but they're worth it.

As you accurately predicted, Tyler (I think?) I'm not really into art, or behind the scenes movie stuff, for example, if I liked the film, which was originally a book (i.e., BJD) I won't necessarily go read the book (exception that proves the rule: LOTR). Mostly cos I also just look for escapism and entertainment as well.

Where am I going with this? Not a clue. :rolleyes: :p

Pi -
- "i agree this film is highly original, but it was not good at all. Really, can anyone who liked it tell me what the point to the movie was? he is on this crusade to find some secret to the stock market which he never solves. that whole story about the 216 digit number being the name of God was total bullshit. him giving up at the end and accepting nature as a mystery is one of the most half-assed attempts to end a film in movie history."
- "This movie is really unbelievably stupid. The beginning is interesting but it then starts to move too slow. I mean why is he having these motherfucking attacks and shit. Second of all, the ending is so fucking dumb. Why the fuck is he drilling his head and why does he keep talking about looking up at the sun and shit. Aronofsky is a good director but he writes the film so that only a math wiz can undersatand it and not a regular person. He should also think about using COLOR in this film as wel;"
- "Dude, awful! Nothing is ever explained...we know nothing about the characters... and the soundtrack is like nails on the blackboard. It's annoying, and everyone I've talked to agrees"

This is one of my favourites to read reviews on. I think movies like this should come with a warning label - If You Don't Have An Educated(!!!) Insight Into Film, Do Not Watch This Movie. The problem is so many people consider themselves educated on film because they've seen three Kubrick's and an Aronofsky.


Eyes Wide Shut -
- "If you did not understood this movie you should probably go back to see Dawson's Creek or some other pussy ass shit that y'all can understand. I know some people say "Hey I understand complicated plots like the one from Fight Club or Seven" well you don't know jack. Fight Club and Seven are both great movies, but is the typical hollywood things you see every fucking time. Bad guy against good guy, I mean come on, it's so cliche"
- "This movie seperates the intelligent, sophisticated thinkers from the simple minded who instead of just admitting they don't understand the movie decide to hate it. Lets put it this way, there's a reason some might not like this movie, and if it's you, well just look at your life and figure it out for yourself."
- "Let me ask you this...If you are too stupid to understand meaning, symbolism, foreshadowing, and/or film structure, WHAT ARE YOU DOING SEEING THIS MOVIE? Ya know, i'm sorry Stanley Kubrick made this movie.there are so few people who will ever understand or apprecieate it. I'm sorry that it was advertised the way it was. I'm sorry that horny losers went to the movie to see nicole kidman naked...i'm sorry everything worked out like that becuase it is a truely brilliant film."

I only put those reviews because, to me, they are the interesting ones. There was only two kinds of reviews for this movie (except for one post) on yahoo. (A) This movie is shit! It's boring and stupid and just about fucking and stupid shit with no point!. (B) Everyone who says this movie is shit is obviously not very smart at all and should go see a stupid movie. So there!

The fact is, only ONE person who enjoyed this movie wrote up on WHY it was good. Everyone else just said "Kubrick is brilliant and you are all idiots!". That angers me as much as the people who think it's about fucking. Here's the one post that explained it nicely if you wish to read. While not a thurough explination of the film, it does it's job;


The movie was a Freudian parable about the marriage of the conscious and unconscious mind, of the ego and id and the conflict between them. Alice was all id: smoking, drinking, paradoxical, horny, spending her time sleeping and dreaming. Dr. Bill was all Ego: rational, self assured, proper, and repressed. The dope smoking scene and the final scene laid it all out. (The super ego was the kid.)

Thus, the film is a sort of waking dream, one in which the protagonist can make choices, but is ultimately not in control. Judging simply from the title, a large portion of the film is going to be about a sort of convergence between fantasy and reality. At the beginning, Bill denies extra-marital sexual impulses, especially regarding his wife. While she seems to be in tune with sexual impulses, and keeps a watchful eye on Bill, he doesn't even notice that she is drunkenly flirting with the Hungarian. When confronted, he once again denies his sexual impulses, while Alice deconstructs his limiting expectations of a woman's mind by telling him her sexual fantasy. This admission shocks him into exploring the recesses of his own mind, and he begins to earnestly assess his sexual feelings. While elements of the surreal had been apparent early on in the film (for example, the two models at the party who invite Bill to go “under the rainbow” in a premonition of the costume shop), it is really when Bill goes to console the daughter of a deceased patient that fantasy merges with reality. Sometimes this results in situations that seem patently absurd, but perhaps that is the point. Sex is associated with violence and death in several instances, such as the affection his deceased patient's daughter seems intent to share with him in front of the corpse, during the orgy, where an element of danger is always present, and in his encounter with Domino, the HIV-stricken prostitute (the implication of her name being that if Bill had strayed further, he would have suffered deeply). The events of the film mirror the conflicted state of the protagonist as he reevaluates his sexual appetites.

By the end of the film Bill is willing to admit his desire, but it is his admission of desire that brings him closer to Alice, just as her frankness regarding her sexual desires set her apart before. The final line, that it is necessary for them to 'fuck' to finally be together, both sums up the film and creates a very human statement. As a 'vulgar' word, it beautifully summarizes the message of the film, that we all have 'base' or 'animal' impulses, and that to act upon them is only natural, but that to use reason and emotion when employing these impulses is the most human action.



uber
"every industry has to have a stable consumer base. when something that actually requires the use of a few brain cells comes along, those who shut down all neural receptors, suck on a coke, and munch popcorn during a film, are out of touch with their natural habitat. they complain, whine, moan, and no one goes to see the film. none of the other lemmings, i mean."

Of all the art forms we have available it seems film is suffering the most from this next to music. Sad, really.


Pollux
"I did a science project on film so I know a bit of what some people would call 'mumbo jumbo' but as for the basic and complex ideas and subtle...cultural proclamations I have a long way to go. But even as I assume that buried somewhere in American Beauty are all of those things I can still just watch it, immerse myself in it and love it."

If you want to learn more about film there are a number of books I can recommend as learning tools. The most important aspect in my opinion is to NEVER read a review before you see a movie. You go into the movie with expectations and will find things in the review in the film. Watch a movie, come up with your own thoughts on it, then read reviews.


"Ahhhh, after I left the icy movie theatre with my friends this was my all time favorite movie--of all time. The camera angles are really what did it for me"

LOTR is probably a great fantasy movie. I just have little patience for fantasy and haven't since I was a younger kid. The cinematography in LOTR was quite excellent, I just am incapable of truly loosing myself in a fantasy film without any true philosophical/political/social message to be delivered.


Firefly
"Wow, the only movie I've seen that's been mentioned in this thread so far is LOTR."

I can honestly say that every film I've mentioned besides Simone was a truly great film. If you're interested, give them a try.


"I'm not really big on films. I'll watch them if they have a cute actor in, interesting plot/setting, occasionally if they are extremely popular (for example, Bridget Jones I ended up watching cos it stayed at the top of the charts for ages, and all my friends wanted me to go, though that said, I've never seen Shrek), though ultimately I hope for a film that is thought provoking, and will change the way I see life."

Add one more characteristic to you and you'd be the epitomy of what I hate in relation to film. You have basically said (correct me if I'm wrong) that you know almost zip about film and it's history. That's fine by me. However, many people who know absolutely nothing about film (three-kubricks-and-an-aronofsky, as I call them) consider themselves more than insightful enough to critique and understand every little bit of a movie.


"As you accurately predicted, Tyler (I think?) I'm not really into art, or behind the scenes movie stuff, for example, if I liked the film, which was originally a book (i.e., BJD) I won't necessarily go read the book (exception that proves the rule: LOTR)."

It's true. At least 99% of the population knows very, very little to nothing about a specific art form. Yet more than 50% consider themselves more than insightful enough to give an accurate, indepth and valuable opinion on a work of art. It'd be like me trying to break-down Monet with only two books on visual art under my belt. Disturbing, really.

I can honestly say that every film I've mentioned besides Simone was a truly great film. If you're interested, give them a try.
Thing is, as shallow as it may be, I'm only interested in the movie as a movie. Maybe if I was a different person, had different interests, obtectives in life, I would become interested in the arts and skills of directing, producing etc etc a movie. But atm, I just go to watch a film. Production means very little to me, though if pointed out to me, etc, I can appreciate it (or understand how it might be appreciated :p). So I think most of the merits of the listed films would be lost on me.

You have basically said (correct me if I'm wrong) that you know almost zip about film and it's history... However, many people who know absolutely nothing about film (three-kubricks-and-an-aronofsky, as I call them) consider themselves more than insightful enough to critique and understand every little bit of a movie.
That's true, I don't know anything about film (or very very little). However, that doesn't mean I shoudn't give my opinion of the film as freely as the next person. For example, if a filming technique impressed me, it would perhaps be all the better for me, an uncultured person, to notice it, if you get what I mean. I can comment on the filming/production techniques that I noticed in the film, I don't have to have a degree to talk about it. Though I won't claim to know any more than I do, and that said, all I usually comment on is the plot, maybe the acting.

It'd be like me trying to break-down Monet with only two books on visual art under my belt. Disturbing, really.
I can give my opinion on what I've seen. Don't be too cutting in your judgement, it's like saying you can't comment on church stained glass window unless you're a priest. I think also that I am free to comment on the plot whether a well educated film critic or not. Well, actually, I figure I'm free to comment on what the hell I want, it's up to everyone else to not take me seriously. :p

"Thing is, as shallow as it may be, I'm only interested in the movie as a movie."

If you can admitt that you're fine by me. Like I said, it's the people who consider themselves art critics that bug the hell out of me.


"However, that doesn't mean I shoudn't give my opinion of the film as freely as the next person. For example, if a filming technique impressed me, it would perhaps be all the better for me, an uncultured person, to notice it, if you get what I mean. I can comment on the filming/production techniques that I noticed in the film, I don't have to have a degree to talk about it."

Of course. I mention what I find interesting or detrimental in visual art when I'm with someone more educated than myself (which is usually how it goes, as most of the galleries I've been to have been with my mom) on the subject mostly because I'm interested in finding out if I saw something real, valuable, common or whatnot. Comment on what you see as much as you wish - just don't claim yourself to have some brilliant insight like so many do.


"Though I won't claim to know any more than I do, and that said, all I usually comment on is the plot, maybe the acting."

Comments on acting are some of the most interesting you can find. One person said in Eyes Wide Shut that Cruise never changed his facial expression. Watch the movie closely and you can understand the emotions that he's showing through the supposedly unchanging expression. Another common movie example would be something like As Good As It Gets. Most people will watch it and say Nicholson plays a great asshole (which he does!) and does the part naturally. If you truly study his acting you will come to enjoy and marvel at how he can control every muscle in his face to get exactly the emotion he wants. And that's difficult because his character in that film spends a good amount of time trying to hide a few emotions with another, more stoic and asshole-esque emotion. Nicholson is able to pull off this attempt at hiding true emotion wonderfully.


"I can give my opinion on what I've seen. Don't be too cutting in your judgement, it's like saying you can't comment on church stained glass window unless you're a priest"

I'm extremely cutting in my judgement. When uneducated people make arrogant (and that's all they are. everyone of those reviews I posted was arrogant) comments about a genre of art they know little to nothing about and consider themselves insightful I consider their body a waste of mass. When an uneducated person makes an attempt at an educated comment on a film, I get slightly annoyed. In the past I would usually tell them straight out that they're wrong and why they're wrong (and they were always wrong. They might have the right conclusion in some form but they never knew how to arrive at that conclusion or had any reasoning behind their belief that was true). I still do that, just much more calmly and slightly neurotically.


Oh, and I wouldn't comment on stain-glass windows unless I knew enough about stain-glass windows to say something beyond "That's beautiful".

I... think I agree. :bugeye:

I can understand your point, but, well, people will go pronouncing their judgement on anything, qualified or not. :rolleyes:

Mabey im wrong here but isn't art based 100% on the taste of the individual? And mabey just because sombody has a different taste in moivies than you that dosen' necessarilly make them stupid?

Read the reviews Neutrino. These people either say a movie is brilliant and only fit for intelligent people but they have no idea what makes a movie intelligent. Or they say it's meaningless because they aren't able (trained) enough to disect a movie. Or they find a movie such as Simone to have a very deep, intelligent message when it's message is about as ordinary as they come.

True. But all you're doing is saying they must be stupid because they had a different opinion than your own.
it's the people who consider themselves art critics that bug the hell out of me.
I guess im missing the subtle difference beetween people like that and you.

"True. But all you're doing is saying they must be stupid because they had a different opinion than your own."

No, the thing I absolutely despise is people with no training or education in film (or at least general media arts) who talk like they do. After that, I despise the people who say things like "You have to be smart to like this movie!" and then don't know what the intelligence involved in the film is.


"I guess im missing the subtle difference beetween people like that and you"

Actually, it's quite interesting no one's brought that up yet. I have both formal and personal study into film. I've been reading film studies for about 6 years and have attended film classes and seminars in Edmonton and (where I live) Toronto.