Hollywood Blockbusters Are Masterpieces; Art Is Pretentious

Also have to say it's remarkable how he just dismissed Before Sunrise without having seen it when that is regarded as one of the best art films of the 90s by many people.

Also Dave Kehr is awesome I like Sarris to but honestly i think i like his wife Molly Haskell more. Never heard of the other guy.

Because Before Sunrise was extremely boring. I hated the dialogue, and the cinematography was exceptionally bland. Normally I like Ethan Hawk, but that was the worst movie of his I've seen so far. The acting wasn't impressive at all. And everything about the movie was just mediocre. From the set locations to the wardrobe it was just plaid collard shirt and blue jeans in a train car booth and a cafe table with the most generic things in the background. A part of my soul actually died watching that movie. I've never in my entire life had a harder time sitting through movies than with Blues Brothers and Before Sunrise. Even The Avengers was less painful.

Probably because it's an American romance film with a mainstream lead actor. I'd also like to know how he thinks his opinion is more valid on the likes of Jonathan Rosenbaum and a whole host of other critics when it comes to that.

And yeah I just listed some prominent more "artistic" critics (but ones that like a variety of films and aren't pretentious) that quickly came to mind who I checked like the film. Peter Tscherkassky is an extremely artistic, avant-garde director whose films are largely focused on the relationship between images and editing, editing is the most important aspect of his films, and he studied philosophy, so I figured it would be someone that Zotis would like. Zotis also criticised the editing of TGBU heavily, so I'm interested in hearing what makes his opinion objectively correct as he seems to imply at is.

__________________

Seems like you seem to think cinematography is how visually interesting the film is in terms of colours and uniqueness, I think what makes the Before series great is Linklater's fantastic use of cinematography and camera to film the character's in relation to time and space. How the camera lingers around, follows the characters, and captures moments of real time is one of its biggest strengths. so I am shocked that someone who claims to be as cultured in cinema as you would find is bland. And criticising the clothes? Wow that's a strange one considering it's meant to be based on real life and ordinary people, and the kind of mixture between reality and film is another interesting aspect of Linklater's work. Again I want to know what makes you think you know more about this film than critics like Rosenbaum.

Well, I was criticising people, and I wasn't trying to insult them. I was also making general statements that some people took personally which weren't actually directed at them at all. I want to be involved in a positive way, but I don't want to participate in HoF's and top 100 countdowns.

Why do I have to accept people's way of watching cinema if they are just being lazy and ignorant? And saying that, I know people will react like I'm not allowed to say that. Like there is some rule where I'm not allowed to say anything that other people won't like, and I have to be okay with whatever other people want to do even if I think it's morally wrong. And if I say that I think it's a moral issue, I'm apparently being "holier than thou" and a hypocrite, and a bigot.

Dont dish it out if you cant take it. Dont say it, unless you can handle it being said to you.

Man, you're posting like your wacked on the scooby snacks. You think it's morally wrong of you to like what other people like in cinema? Morally Wrong? Say What? I don't know if you're really this out of touch with reality or if you are just pulling our leg?

I don't think I know more about the film than Rosenbaum. I am completely ignorant of Rosenbaum. I don't know who he is. I am not however, confusing cinematography with how visually interesting the film is in terms of colors and uniqueness, and that is the kind of intelligence insulting comment that irks me. It's just based on real life and ordinary people as if ordinary people always dress in a boring way. It is about the personalities of the characters that he studied. Why make a film about two really boring people doing really boring things? Maybe he himself lacks creativity? My point of disagreement about the quality of the movie is not a point about whether I know more or less about it than whoever Rosenbaum is. I'm sure he must know a lot more about it than me, but that doesn't mean that his conclusion is more right than mine, only that his opinions are more valid. But I have at least articulated my own conclusion from watching the movie, but you seem to be merely regurgitating what others have said and taking for granted their conclusions because they're in line with your own. Do you think there is a film critic out there who knows more about the movie even this Rosenbaum fellow, who dislikes it or gives it a negative review? Or did every reputable film critic unanimously give it a positive review? It sounds like you were just name dropping.

"Use of camera work in relation to time and space." Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean? I think Jodoworsky's use of camera work in realtion to time and space in El Topo was phenominal, but you think the camera work in that movie was bad. So you're confused that I could say negative things about a movie you take for granted about art, and I am confused about how you can say negative things about a movie I take for granted about art. Does Beyond Sunrise have half the reputation that El Topo does in the art film world? Sorry, but Jodoworsky's section sold faster than cancer medication, and Linklater didn't even have his own section at the video store.


Anyway, I know I've been pretty cocky in this thread, but I have been enjoying the discussions. It's kind of been a relief to get some of this stuff off my chest, and these discussions have been meaningful and honest which I appreciate. I'm going to go to bed now cuz I work tonight, but I'll pop on later tonight.

Please Citizen, make more of an effort to understand me. This is the principle: credit where credit is due. So yes, what you appreciate and give credit to does have moral elements. Some people think they can like whatever they want and it doesn't matter, yet they still argue and criticise other people on issues of quality. Doesn't that show that there is a moral issue? When someone says a movie you love is bad and you get upset, doesn't that show that there is something moral going on? Don't you feel like they should at least try to appreciate it? Like they SHOULD? Like they have a moral obligation to? Or do you never criticse anything negative anyone says about movies you think are masterpieces?

Zotis........... youre just trying to instigate. Youre repelling any point or reasoning and just pretending to understand when someone makes a point, yet your stance doesnt waver.

I am listening to the feedback I've been getting. I've appreciated quite a few responses in this thread so far. I think I am getting some perspective and closure, so even though I made this thread as an emotional rant I am quite pleased with what I've been able to glean from it. And I feel like I've actually come to some terms with seanc and mark. I'm not really trying to instigate, but I'm just not holding back. This is really how I feel. And I know that I'm not completely right. I'm wrong about a lot of things and I need to work on it and get sorted out, but at the same time my feelings and perspectives are also valid. I think I'm growing and this is benefiting me. I can't just bottle it up. So a lot of this thread is me venting my frustration. I'm not just repelling everything, and I'm not pretending even if I act like I know a lot more than I actually know. I am trying to be sincere.

P.S. I can't sleep and my ps2 won't play Oharu! Piece of crap ps2, work!

I still like you Zotis...but there's no morality to liking or disliking a movie (not for me, not for most people), if you want to see it in morality terms, OK, that's fine.

No I usually don't. It don't bother me if people criticize films I love, in fact I prefer it that way as it makes me all the more unique. But sure it's fun to discuss/debate and even argue about a films merits, as long as the debate isn't taking as a matter of life or death. Which it ain't.

__________________
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.

You realize, of course, he is talking about moral truth not dutch angles or frame composition.

__________________
Letterboxd

Do I even want in on this?

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I would love to hear your thoughts

I'm not sure what I could say that I haven't already said before.

What the hell is going on here?

Neiba out.

Sigh, whatever happened to people jerking themselves off in private...