Movie Tab II

If those are Bergman masterpieces, then what does that make Cries and Whispers, Persona, or Through a Glass Darkly?

All of them are masterpieces even though some of them I rated four stars instead of four and a half, but does it really matter? Bergman is one of the greatest directors ever living. Of course, I was joking, but every time I watch one of his films I have a feeling of watching a masterpiece. That's why it's weird for me when somebody else doesn't feel it, but figures not everybody has such vibes from his films.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

It would be more interesting (for me at least) if you actually told us what's so bad about the film, instead of just saying you've wasted 2 hours of your life. You're saying that this is the worst film you've watched all year and yet you don't give a single reason to back up that outrageous statement...

Why is this film a waste of time? What makes it a film for you?

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

That's because these aren't reviews, they're merely comments. If I explained in that post what I found so terrible about it, in addition to what I already said, it would be one hell of a long comment and I feel that this film simply doesn't deserve it.

But since you asked, I just think it's really silly. From the premise, to the script and dialogue, to the execution, everything. Every line of dialogue has to sound smart and/or darkly humorous, but none of them are. It masquerades as a profound film about life and death, about relationships and social alienation, but it's about none of these things. It's about nothing, nothing whatsoever. It thinks it has quirk and charm, but in reality it's just really weird and with no substance. And it's a chore to sit through. And Harold has such a punchable face.

God would smite me if I rated it any higher than

Well, if you're going to say something instead of just giving your rating, at least say something that's useful.

You're still doing the same thing as before. You're simply saying nothing in this film works and everything is bad about it. That's pretty hollow and doesn't make for a very valuable piece of film criticism.

Why is it really silly? Why is it not smart and darkly humorous? Why is it about nothing, instead of the themes it 'claims' to be about? Why is it just really weird and with no substance? Why is it a chore to sit through?
Those things are not evident for everyone who has seen the film. You're not properly analyzing the film. You're basically just saying that nothing in it worked (for you), without being able to say why.

Most people just seem to rate films from a random gut feeling they get while watching, without ever questioning themselves as a viewer. There's no problem with that, because it's natural. However, when you're actually deciding to state your opinion about a certain film in the open, especially if it's an extremely different opinion than the "standard" seems to be, I think a person shoud explain that point of view in a deeper and more substantive manner.

I don't have any problems with people saying a movie simply "didn't work for them" in a humble manner, but when they are describing a film as "the worst film they've seen all year" and are pretty much making the film appear to be a complete piece of crap in the absolute sense, I think that person should be able to argumentate that statement in a way that at least makes people understand their position.

When a person berates a movie publicly, like it's some kind of dogmatic truth, but then doesn't seem to be able to back up their opinion in a proper way, it's not the film that looks bad, but (to me at least) it's the person that makes a fool of himself.

Now, I don't think you're a fool AT ALL, but sometimes you do act like one (like most people do sometimes, including me). This is one of those moments.

Why do you feel the need for people to say why they don't like the film in such detail? He gave plenty a decent response. He's not going to write a 3 page paper on why it was a bad film to him

People can dislike a film as much as they want without explaining it, but when they actually seem to believe it's a genuinely bad film, not to mention "the worst film they've seen all year", and they're expressing it in a very extreme way, I think that asks for a proper explanation.

"Hollow" is not the same as "decent". Noone can deduce from his writings why he thinks it's the worst film he's seen all year. He basically said that he hates Harold's face and that he thinks everything is bad about it. That sums up to a total of zero valuable arguments that back up his statement. That's not decent.

Also, a proper explanation only takes 10 lines if you actually get to the point and clearly adress the issues you have with a certain film.

You should give him some slack though for your shared love of Body Double and cool being aggressive for the time being. And I've loved Harold and Maude for 40 years. I just write off some opinions as anomalies in everyone's case, We're each allowed a few.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I want you to think of one of your least favorite films Cob and write up why you don't like it.

My least favorite film of all time is Meet the Spartans. I don't need to explain why

Mines is Kazaam i don't have to explain why !!

Shaquille O'Neal

This is what I got out of BlueLion not liking it.

1. The script itself was hollow. It tried to be something that it wasn't.
2. The film itself has no substance. It's not quirky and not as cool as it thinks it is.
3. The characters are annoying and add little to the film itself.

Three reasonable reasons not to like the film.

Yeah, on forums I tend to come across a bit more agressive sometimes than I actually want to. I think I made a valid point, though.

It's indeed awesome that he likes Body Double as much as I do, but I already complimented him on that in another thread, I think. BlueLion and I actually have quite a few favorites in common.

Now, Harold and Maude is not particularly one of my absolute favorite movies, but the extreme way in which he denounced the film attracted my attention and I simply didn't want to let him get away with that.

1. You can say that about every film. That doesn't mean anything. Give an example. Adress the issues you have with the script.

2. You can say that about every film. Elaborate a little on it, so people can understand why you have that opinion.

3. Saying one of the characters has a "punchable" face is not a valid criticism. Elaborate.

Look:

Casablanca's script just didn't work. It was hollow and it tried to be something that it wasn't. The film also has no substance at all and it's also not funny or cool (which it thinks it is). Rick Blaine also should get punched in the face and the other characters didn't add to the story.

You see? Every moron can write stuff like that about every film. They're completely missing the point of what criticism is all about. You have to explain the accusations you're making.

That sounds like Minio's review. Maybe he'd add MOAR punching!

If that's how someone feels about the film, it's still an argument as to why they didn't like it. Not detailed by any means, but it's still a reason. Just because you can use the same reasons for any film doesn't mean that broad criticism is invalid

I feel as if you have to get too in depth as to why you don't like a film (especially if you aren't liking it) is to say that you are giving up on the film and looking at it from a negative view rather than a neutral one, IF you are seeing it for the first time.

I, respectfully, disagree.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Since when have wild accusations suddenly become valid arguments?

I couldn't disagree more. Writing in depth about a film makes you actually think about it. After reflecting a little more about a film, you may for instance discover that it actually isn't that bad from a neutral point of view.
Someone who tries to properly explain why he feels a certain way about a film will be much more neutral than someone who simply says it's crap without ever properly saying or even understanding why.

Searching for the fundamental reasons of certain issues you have with a film will ALWAYS make your opinions richer, more objective and therefore more valid and interesting to read.

Ouch, did I just hit a nerve...

I can say whatever I like. Like I said, I'm not writing reviews here because I'm not a reviewer. On another film, the last time I posted here, I simply said "Meh". Is that useful? I don't think so. Do I care? No, I don't. Does it make my feelings toward the film clear, and does it say whether I liked the film or not? Yes, it does! And that's all I care about. I'm assuming that's what people care about too when they read my comment next to my rating. They'll be interested in seeing whether I liked that film or I didn't. Whether I thought it was any good or worth seeing. I'm no Ebert. Or Rosenbaum. Or Pauline Kael. Hold your horses dude.

Again, I am not a film critic. I could write a long review on the film if I really wanted to, and maybe then I could have attempted to properly analyze the film, but I feel as though you're totally missing the point of this thread and how people use it.

Because it's poop.

My reaction to this film wasn't from a random gut feeling. There are so many things and details that I take into consideration when I rate films, and it was the same with this film. I already explained what I didn't like and I don't want to sound repetitive by listing once again all the things I disliked. Here, and in pretty much every other thread in this forum, I try to be as brief as possible, especially when I'm commenting on my ratings. You're confusing comments with reviews. A review would allow me to write an entire paragraph on Harold's character alone for instance. In a review, I would explain why I hated his character, why the film's execution bothered me, and why the whole thing didn't work for me in general.

Look, to me Harold and Maude is an absolute embarrassment. It's not just the worst film I've seen all year, it's one of the worst films I've ever seen period. I'm making the film appear to be a complete piece of crap because that's what it was to me, and my explanation to my rating, followed by my additional comment afterwards, should surely be enough for people to understand my position.

You're seriously overreacting. How am I acting like a fool if I simply didn't like a film, and then explained why I didn't like it? It's normal for another person to absolutely loathe a film you love. You have to move on.

The problem lies in that you say you're not a film critic and can't explain why is a movie good, basically that your ratings are pure subjectivity and objectivity, yet you act and speak as if these are objective facts and are quick to aggressively shoot down a movie you dislike that others don't. Surely if you're rating subjectively on enjoyment and not having any objectivity (otherwise Harold and Maude wouldn't be 0.5) then you can understand when someone rates them higher than you...