Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Site Polls' started by Ash28M, Sep 1, 2007.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Sure, but you fail to realize that 95% of mainstream reviewers (i.e. the kind you're likely to find on Rotten Tomatoes, that kind of stuff) review specifically by personal enjoyment. Therefore by default, if that is what you are constantly exposed to, then it's natural to think that personal feelings are just a part of the process.
Look, I'm not saying those types of reviews are bad or anything. There's a place for them. I review plenty of movies like that at deadlantern.com. Why? Because that's just the way most people's minds operate and that's how people like to interact with movie reviews. And sometimes you just don't want to delve that far into a movie, y'know?
All I'm saying is that there is another level of reviewing and understanding film that has nothing to do with personal enjoyment as a factor. Film scholars do this all the time. They aren't "mainstream" critics that you'll find in your local newspaper, but these people disect films and write in depth about how they operate.
For example, I hate musicals. Despise them actually. I had to write a long essay about Mary Poppins for a class. I had to watch the film multiple times and I didn't get any enjoyment out of it. It pained me to have to do that. But I can divorce myself from my own personal feelings of dislike for the movie itself and the entire genre as a whole to understand that it is a brilliant musical and an incredibly well made film. Believe me, it's not something that is easy to do. But it can be done. I hate the film, but I recognize it as an excellent piece of cinema and a shining example of how musicals can be constructed.
I think your main disagreement is that you just don't think it is possible to divorce oneself from personal enjoyment completely. And you may have a point there. That's more of a philosophical debate, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you can get as close to the edge of separation as possible. Let's make it easy and put it on a 10 point scale with 1 being someone as close to objective distance as possible without getting to 0, and 10 being someone who uses full personal enjoyment as the basis for movies.
What I am saying is that it is possible to get to 1. It entails changing the way you think about movies. It takes practice and active engagement with all aspects of the film. It takes study, filmic breakdowns, and scholarly reading. So now, let's imagine a scenario where you ask two friends for an opinion on a film. Friend A has studied how film operates while Friend B bases his entire judgement on other films he's seen. Now, which Friend would you say has the most experience and knowledge to make a qualified decision? You would naturally choose Friend A because they have far more knowledge and expertise in the given area. This is no different than any other type of field. I'd much rather get the answer to a Physics problem from someone who is a Physics Major rather than someone who is an English major. I'd much rather get help with a computer programming problem from someone who knows a lot about programming than someone who doesn't. Someone who is trained for this sort of thing is obviously going to be better qualified and more reliable, right?
But if you like that type of reviewing style, then more power to you! That's perfectly fine if it's your preference. For me, though, I just take those types of opinions with a grain of salt. People know a lot about what they like and dislike, but very few actually know what makes film work in the first place.
Like you said, there are films you don't enjoy at all, but can recognize that they are excellent examples of good filmmaking. Why is that? Get past the superficial "this sucks/this is great" personal emotional reactions and feelings and dig below the surface and you'll find something more. The fact that you didn't like the film yet still realized it was a good piece of film making is testament to its craft and aesthetic.
Carrie, The Blair Witch Project, Cannibal Holocaust, Don't Look Now, Last House on the Left, etc. etc.
I don't like any of these movies, yet I recognize that they are excellent examples of what the genre can do and what talented filmmakers can accomplish. I'll never watch The Blair Witch Project ever again, but that doesn't mean that the aesthetic isn't valid because I don't like it.
This is a great debate though, and I'm glad you've engaged.
I will put the construction of Halloween 2007 up against that of Last House on the Left any day of the week. Hell, off the top of my head, I can't think of a horror film that is put together in a more ridiculous fashion than Last House on the Left. I am (thankfully) not a film student, but I can assert that easily. Lots of different things come together to make a movie good, and I didn't see a one in that movie.
The laws of physics and whether or not a movie is enjoyable to someone are totally different things. Please don't drag physics into this. It wants no part of it and thinks we are all a bunch of nerds.
You are absolutely right about this. Construction is only one part, though it is a big one. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the "formula" includes many things, such as cinematography, script, editing, power, effect, etc.
You hate Don't Look Now????
I don't care about Carrie, but Don't Look Now??
And you think we are not to be taken seriously?
It's not a bad movie by any means. In fact, I'd argue that Don't Look Now is one of the most effective films of its time.
But on personal enjoyment level, I just don't care for it. It's not something I'd pop in my dvd player just because.
But like I said, it's not a bad movie at all. I just don't like it.
I'm kind of late to the party here, but I got to see the workprint/director's cut/whatever DVD last night. I liked it. I guess I could say "Nothing can compare to the original" but I liked how it delved into the years in the asylum.
Personally (and this is just personally) but I never liked the "Supernatural" aspects of the Halloween series, how he could sense Laurie was his sister. I kind of wished Zombie could have dropped that angle completely (hell, even make Laurie and Michael not related whatsoever, which didn't come up until Part Two anyway).
I did enjoy all the cameos, plus I thought Malcolm McDowell was a good choice to play Dr. Loomis. Plus there were some hot girls.
I thought some of the action/killing scenes were filmed too choppily and too dark. It was hard to tell what was going on. Carpenter used dark cinematography in the original, but it was more arty and yet also easier to tell what was going on.
Overall, not a bad job. I liked it better than the Texas Chainsaw remake a few years ago.
As of today it's the top grossing Halloween film ever. Not counting for inflation which is just a bullshit excuse to say some old movie made more anyway.
Are you retarded, or are you just being "slow"? Look man, it isn't bullshit. Inflation counts quite a bit. Monetary gross doesn't matter in the long run. What counts is the number of tickets sold.
And Halloween 2007 sold a shit load. Top grossing Halloween movie ever you know.
I am finally going to see this movie this weekend- seems to be mixed feelings on it on here -
Saw the work print first...voted good. Saw the theatrical version at the drive-in last night....want to change my vote to great. The escape was better, the ending kicked ass, and the cameo's were great. The story closed up loose end the work print didn't and the film was much better with the soundtrack completely in place. :evil:
You guys are making me want to watch the workprint all over again.
It didn't do a shit load. It did about average. Sorry but you really do have to adjust for inflation. $47 million circa 1978 was way more money then $55 million today. It's a lot easier for movies to break box office records today when tickets are $8-$10 than it was 30 years ago when they were only $2.
And people who like to adjust for inflation don't take into mind that the internet and DVD didn't exist back then so box office was more inflated.
Halloween made triple it's budget so far, that's a lot better than average.
And the original movie's domestic gross was $47 million. It production budget was $325,000. Do the math. That's 144 TIMES the budget. There's simply no comparison. Even if there was no such thing as DVD or the internet it's extremely unlikely that Zombie's film would have the longevity needed to pull those kind of figures.
Using the inflation calculator I found online:
Zombie's movie has a ways to go yet. Sorry dude, but reality check. You HAVE to account for inflation! If you don't, you're believing a falsehood and buying into corporate spin.
And maybrick Wins!
Oh yeah but The Blair Witch Project had an estimated $60,000 budget (some say lower)
and had a domestic gross of $140,530,114.
That's 2342 times the budget so take that! Blair Witch wins again!
Yeah, Blair Witch's success to this day still boggles the mind!
You know you secretly love it.
It wasn't a secret. I just meant that it's monetary success was phenomenal no matter what your personal opinion regarding the movie may be.