Eh, I think you’re over reacting just a tad.
I think I'd just say I reacted.
I stated films I found to be so, but I, or others, didn’t think I need to defend those decisions so much as just name a few films I don’t like as much as others.
I'm not saying you're not allowed to do this. I'm talking about what I find empty about the exercise. List away! But when you have a thread that is explicitly about drawing attention to controversial opinions, and how certain movies aren't as good as other people say they are, it should be expected that some people might question these hot takes. Or at least start finding the lack of explanations to be a bit of a provocation in itself.
Even if any of those reasons you suggest are actually applicable (over where head, not meant for them etc) those reasons are probably self evident, but I’d wager that they likely didn’t enjoy them as much as others.
Not enjoying something as much as others is different from calling something overrated. The term overrated has to do with how
others have viewed a film. It implies the person speaking is the one rating it correctly, and the rest of the world is somehow wrong.
They are the ones who overrated it. The issue is supposedly with everyone else. And that's what is gross about the term, particularly so when (as I said) these are films that already have lots of writing about why the people who love them love them and think they are classics. Whereas, in here, we just have a lot of people going 'nope, not good'.
And while I personally don't mind the provocations of knocking sacred cows off their pedestal, even those that I personally think deserve to be there, I feel it should be attached to some kind of rebuttal or explanation that shows there is some understanding as to why they were on the pedestal on the first place.
Now obviously no one has to humor me. But I can still point out what I find flawed or gross about all this. And I think the more actual discourse falls to the wayside, and the more people keep thinking that their ultimate hot take verdicts are what is most important in cultural discussion, the more the value of art diminishes.
I mean, I’ve seen you, as you’ve already pointed out, so much the same with films others clearly enjoy and it while you state your reasons, it never boils down to much more the. the same reasons you’ve pointed out.
At least there is something to boil down.
And it should also be pointed out that most of my negative criticisms towards films I don't particularly like, usually have less to do with the movie itself and more to do with how certain ideas of what a movie is supposed to be have calcified. Have blotted out the value that can be found in different kinds of movies expressing different kinds of things. Even if I'm being negative, it's mostly just to point to alternatives.
Maybe not gross if just simply taken as some people having a laugh and ruffling feathers.
Definitely gross (to me) when I find the overall trend of all cultural discussion to now be little more than this. Not just here, but everywhere.
nor the equivalent of “making far noises with your armpit” (a little condescending don’t you think?)
I didn't mean it to be flattering. But I did consider using "sad trombone noise" instead, if that's to your preference.
as you suggest, but as you say, people perhaps being a little lazy and not offering up their reasons. It is probably more likely they weren’t under the impression they really had to, anyways (I certainly don't think I am).
No one has to. I'm not calling out anyone in particular. I'm calling this out generally. The fact that so many talk on the internet without ever being under the impression that maybe putting some work into what they think or say might actually make it of actual value.
So, yes, lazy is probably the word I was looking for.
However, in the spirit of the discussion I’ll go with:
Silence of the Lambs
I don’t care for this very much because, outside of maybe Hopkins and Buffalo Bill, nothing else was down well for me. Not the suspense. Not Foster, who is only ok for me here. I’ve watched a few times and never could just get into it as much as I had hoped.
The fact that Demme made such a good film from such a trashy novel is in itself enough reason to celebrate it. I don't necessarily think it is some piece of high art, but as a blockbuster horror/thriller that mostly trades in fairly standard narrative conventions at the time, it offers a lot to chew on in regards to the dysfunctional dynamic between Foster and Hopkins. The movie works best as a character study between two people constantly angling to get the psychological upper hand on the other. That to me is what is interesting, and I think is likely where much of it's classic status hinges on.
Again though, I'm not bothered if someone doesn't particularly like the film. Or takes the piss out of it. Or just entirely dismisses it. But when the claim is
overrated, the question I always have to ask is overrated by who? And when all I have in this particular instance is that it is supposedly being properly rated by someone who is putting it beneath Hannibal....errrrrrr....surely you expect that to raise some eyebrows? Especially when that's all there is to go on. Because Hannibal is essentially just the same basic kind of film, just more superficially pretty and with all of the characters emotional complexities scraped clean out of it.
Reply to Topic
. They probably aren't awards worthy, but i'll gladly watch them again. 