That's understandable. I think all films should be evaluated separately from their hype, and I also think it's unfortunate how this thread has been turned a certain way by one individual. Unfortunate, but allowable so far. However, I don't believe that the same discussion, which will never be a discussion at all, should be carried on over more than one thread, so maybe it isn't that allowable.

quote:

f "Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted 02 March 2008 09:07 PM

That's understandable. I think all films should be evaluated separately from their hype, and I also think it's unfortunate how this thread has been turned a certain way by one individual. Unfortunate, but allowable so far. However, I don't believe that the same discussion, which will never be a discussion at all, should be carried on over more than one thread, so maybe it isn't that allowable.

If the above comment is in reference to my comments than one could argue that the cross-fertilization of discussion of one movie in comparison to another movie from another thread on this site isn't really a bad thing...it enables people to look at the similiarities and differences between movies as well as the similar or different ways in which one might evaluate a movie - this in my mind expands the discussion not narrows it to a singular, repetitive topic. This discussion appears to me to move the discussion forward not obssessively backwards. It also enables some people who haven't happened onto related topics on other threads to get a chance to become aware of it and perhaps to open new aveues for discussion. It also challenges once again for a call for specific observations to get an opportunity to respond to previous comments for a discussion that stalled and never really went past into a deeper discussion on the merits of a movie. Hopefully, however, I'm not the prepetrator of a website violation here. But if I am I probably need a link to what policy I'm about to violate so I don't get thown off this site.

Have you heard the phrase "Can't see the forest for the trees"? It's impossible to "discuss" something with someone who begins the "discussion" with a list of problems which will never be able to be rebutted because most people do not find them to be problems at all.

I'm gonna have to go on a bit of a rant here...

Any time you don't like someone and everyone else doesn't mean its overrated. It means you don't appreciate it, maybe you even hate it, yet some people still love it. That doesn't mean its overrated it means you have a different appreciation for art then a lot of people. It may be overrated given you're state of mind, its a very subjective thing.

I feel like there's so much arrogance and ignorance (yes both) in because you and maybe some other people you know dislike a movie declaring it overrated and undeserving of everything it received. Is it that hard to accept that two people can have different opinions and both be right.

Personally I wasn't too crazy about No Country for Old Men or Atonement, but I'm not gonna call them out because one Javier Bardem gave the best performance I've probably ever seen and two I'm not perfect or all-knowing. I'm wrong all the time and there are movies that I've hated when I first saw and over time grew to like and vice versa.

I just don't think there's a need to decry a film that a great many people with a good head on their shoulders enjoyed just because you feel differently. Everyone is going to like different things.. just accept that and accept that people will have different opinions (its what makes life interesting) and accept that if you don't like a piece of art a lot of people may or may not disagree with you.

quote:

mark f "Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted 02 March 2008 09:56 PM

Have you heard the phrase "Can't see the forest for the trees"? It's impossible to "discuss" something with someone who begins the "discussion" with a list of problems which will never be able to be rebutted because most people do not find them to be problems at all.

It's possible that it's the reverse. People can't see the problems because they don't look for them. Oftentimes, the public is fooled by slick marketing, subliminal advertising. Sometimes, there comes a wave of acclaim about a great movie and for the purpose of joining majority, it's easy to see the positives while overlooking the negatives. Yet unless the trees themselves are healthy, then entire forest is actually sick and dying. All people can see is the forest which looks good from afar, but on closer look there is something off kilter. Just like movies that are panned when they come out and then on further examination are discovered to have merit (i.e., Blade Runner (1982)), it's just as likely that it can work in reverse, a great movie when it came out is later discovered to have been deemed great by riding on a wave of overwhelming accolades. It's possible that my objections to this movie are such that people can't reply because they have no answer to the reasonable and persuasive objections to this movie. If my objections can't be rebutted, then the presumption of the truth lies with the objections. Q.E.D.

I'm still waiting for a link regarding the policy on this matter.

The whole philosophy that art is entirely subjective, unreachable and therefore ever elusive critically (everyone is right; no-one is wrong) seems to me to have been born of the American psyche, and so it is predictable that tabuno would be scolded on this US-centric site for applying objective criteria to a film.

I personally don't agree with tabuno, but he is certainly correct in identifying problems with No Country and then delineating them.

This wimpy, anti-intellectual stance of accepting everyone's opinion and leaving it there...that's rubbish.
It in no way advances the discourses necessary for making art better.

When was the last time you heard someone say Hamlet was poor? You haven't, because Hamlet can be held to objective criteria and defended.
If someone was to say it's bad, over-rated etc. they only show their ignorance.
So please, everybody, grow a spine and argue for why something is good or bad.

This has been a G for General Audience rant.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kulturtrager,

First off these are the Guidelines found here.

Specifically:
5. Make sure you are posting in the most specific forum possible. For example, if you want to discuss Grand Theft Auto Vice City, you would post in the "Grand Theft Auto series" forum (and not in "Playstation 2 Games" or "General Games Discussion").

6. Do not post the same message in multiple threads or forums. Pick the one best forum and thread for your message.

No, you are not in danger of being booted off the site. I just don't understand why you believe that if no one wants to get into a no win situation with you, that you somehow win. This is the reason that people will not discuss these kinds of things with you. You basically come on and say, "I saw a coming attraction for No Country For Old Men. It looks bad." Then you proceed to congratulate yourself over and over again by "proving" you were correct in your "assumption". You did the same thing with King Kong.

Then you talk about how these other movies are so wonderful. Just because nobody wants to contradict you, you seem to take it as some approval of your opinions in a black and white situation. You are always correct. Others are wrong. Why? Because you make a list? Nobody cares about your lists. Ish, do you care about his list? Have you gone through it and addressed them? No. I know you. You don't do that. I don't even care, but when it's harped about over and over, it gets to be a bit much to take.

"Well, go ahead and prove I'm wrong." OK, tabuno, you are wrong. Why? Because you don't know what you are talking about. You can talk about what you feel, but usually it's so nonsensical that people are too embarrassed to "rebut" you. I have no doubt that you have honest emotions and reactions to films, and I say to that, "Good for you." But you seem to have such a narrow vision of perceptions that when people talk to you about films, you respond in really unusual ways, usually completely changing the subject into some other narrow emotion you are feeling at the time.

tabuno, I don't even think that highly of No Country For Old Men, but it's WAY better than that pretentious attempt at an art western, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. And I've watched the Brad Pitt movie three times, so I've examined it in multiple ways. However, I believe that your opinion is correct -- for you. I also have no questions about my opinion being correct. Now, I'm not going to turn this into another Liberal Vs. Conservative political "debate" which has been going on for far too long in our country. The point is that I have no desire to rebut you. Just because you want to rebut me doesn't mean that you are more interested in film. If you were more interested in film, then you'd watch more films, especially older films which you have often denigrated in very offhand ways. (Example- your discussion of how the only good sci-fi films are newer ones because the effects weren't that convincing in older films, even though these older films you have never watched.)

I'm done because, except for the lack of lists, I'm starting to sound like what I'm trying to get away from. Just be happy that you can enjoy The Nanny Diaries and can make some list proving why it's so much better than a film painstakingly adapted from one of the most highly thought of novels of the last ten years. Once again, I thought there were several movies better, but I have no problems with any of your list of "obvious problems". I'm not sure you understand the concepts of fate, irony, social change, or historical perspective, or maybe even the title of the novel/film No Country For Old Men.

Under normal circumstances, I would delete this post, but even though I haven't "proved" anything, I have expressed strong opinions which are worth as much as others' so-called "proofs". I feel no ill will toward anyone and hope this will only bring people closer together through honest sharing.

Hey yeah, that Jesse James thing was awful!!

Mark me down for an overrated right there...

I'm in over my head here...time to swim for shore.
I love it when ya get fired up mark, you red head you...

Currently Watching: Monkey Business (1931)

OK, Ish, you just want to slam Jesse James because the writer/director is a Kiwi. I can read you like an open book.

You haven't stopped talking since I got here. Ya musta been inoculated with a phonograph needle...
...but seriously, once a Kiwi learns to read and write, they are put on the waiting list for Oz, as they remain too advanced for NZ society...
Dominik made one of my favourite psychopathic tattooed Melburnian crime comedies with Chopper...wha' 'appen??

Speaking of NZ and overrated films, how about the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy? It certainly deserved all of the awards it won for costuming, make-up, and special effects, but I found the way that Peter Jackson used the original work to be quite boring. The second and third movies were wayyyy too long (rivaled only by "Pearl Harbor" in the "will this movie ever end" category). I am sure there are going to be plenty of LOTR fanboys and fangirls that believe this is the greatest film of all time, but is it really any different that Jackson's ridiculous "King Kong" except that he had a better starting work?

I liked "No Country for Old Men" but I also really like Cormac McCarthy and "Fargo" so I might be a little biased in its favor.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
People can't see the problems because they don't look for them.

If you look for little technical mistakes in any film, you'll find them. I don't care what film it is, there's always a little continuity error that didn't get caught or things that really "wouldn't happen in real life". I could probably sit down with a film like Citizen Kane or Chinatown and looking close enough, compile a list that eclipses your NCFOM list of "mistakes".

I don't think nitpicking minor technical details is a very good way to critique a film.

quote:

Originally posted by DrAwesome:
but is it really any different that Jackson's ridiculous "King Kong" except that he had a better starting work?

Uh oh. Um, Mark...

I agree with Dr. Awesome about Peter Jackson's work. I think Jackson's strength is that he makes good use of special effects. But, he's an extremely inefficient storyteller. Return of the King was especially brutal in its outright refusal to end. I can't think of a film where I looked at my watch more.

Most of tabuno's problems are more the way the story is told, rather than little mistakes. Now, Metacritic Books does give the novel a 66, although their scale of ratings is not as varied as the one for films. Apparently, tabuno thinks it's a weak source and that the Coens should have fixed whatever was wrong in the book. However, the Coens decided to use their own quirky style to embrace some of author Cormac McCarthy's own quirks which occur at certain times in the story. In this way, it actually seems like a total fit for the Coens. I give the film a solid B, so maybe I even think it's overrated, but to make drastic comments about it, especially as a reaction to the Academy Awards, seems predictably knee-jerk.

Going on a temporary self-imposed sabbatical. Misunderstood.

quote:

mark f "Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted 03 March 2008 12:02 PM

Most of tabuno's problems are more the way the story is told, rather than little mistakes. Now, Metacritic Books does give the novel a 66, although their scale of ratings is not as varied as the one for films. Apparently, tabuno thinks it's a weak source and that the Coens should have fixed whatever was wrong in the book. However, the Coens decided to use their own quirky style to embrace some of author Cormac McCarthy's own quirks which occur at certain times in the story. In this way, it actually seems like a total fit for the Coens. I give the film a solid B, so maybe I even think it's overrated, but to make drastic comments about it, especially as a reaction to the Academy Awards, seems predictably knee-jerk.

Back from sabbatical. This message didn't get into my e-mail until after I posted my message. Why couldn't the wise sage have prefaced his earlier remarks on any thread so I could have understood his message before my rant and rave? I've been through the mixing blender with Sears already. This last post could explain why my opinion of There Will Be Blood was so much superior even with that movies flaws and why I couldn't overlook flaws in No Country for Old Men.

Though I rated "A History of Violence" rather high, I think the rating says more about the poverty of really good films being made over the last decade. It was a good movie, but it failed to reach the standard of being a great film. I think that over the years "A History of Violence" will be remembered as an overrated film, and thus,its message will be forgotten.

quote:

Rikard Apprentice Guru
Posted 10 March 2008 08:44 AM Though I rated "A History of Violence" rather high, I think the rating says more about the poverty of really good films being made over the last decade. It was a good movie, but it failed to reach the standard of being a great film. I think that over the years "A History of Violence" will be remembered as an overrated film, and thus,its message will be forgotten.

I'm not completely sold that History of Violence will be forgotten or overrated. I still remember pretty clearly what the basic theme of this movie is about and a few scenes, especially Maria Bello's love scenes that were quite raw and natural and feel my present memory as such is long-term. What's fascinating is that on repeated viewing, I moved this movie "down" my favorite movie list after only a couple months. So perhaps, you may have something...it may eventually slide off my best movies list.

I'm going to say Mars Attacks! is probably the most overrated film of all time.