Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General MOVIE & DVD Discussions > POLL: Is CITIZEN KANE Really The #1 BEST Movie of ALL Time??
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: CITIZEN KANE
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

CITIZEN KANE

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 8>
Poll Question: Is Welles' 1941 "Masterpiece" The BEST Movie EVER Made??
Vote Poll Choice Poll Statistics
[12.36%]
[61.80%]
[19.10%]
[6.74%]

Author
Message
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: CITIZEN KANE
    Posted: September 11 2011 at 3:44pm
An apology for what? Just because you disagree with me that one has to learn about old films in order to give opinions about movies in general? No, I won't apologize for that. One doesn't have to learn the craft from the very beginning in order to understand it because the craft is passed on into what makes films these days. For example, in a shot-reverse shot, although introduced in old films, are still being used prominently today in order to give a sense of perspective and space. Everything used in the past is still being used today. Green screen, zoom in's/out's, practical effects, color, soundtracks, depth of field, etc. And to top this off, I've already taken film history. I'm in college, majoring in film, remember? This has been explained in the FD5 thread where I first met you and it's also getting redundant. Lastly, I don't claim to be a professional movie critic. Again, this has been stated many, many, many, many, many times before. YOU are making me be that way for some CRAZY reason. I know, I think it's cool that you give my opinion so much thought, but seriously, stop acting like my opinion on a certain film is the saving grace of anything.  

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

However, I find your statement below to be ignorant and insulting, and I kindly ask for an apologly on your behalf. One can not simply jump into any craft with no past knowledge of the subject and expect to excell in that craft, even if you are only giving an opinion. I know nothing about the history of famous paintings, yet I don't go to museums and give half-hearted reviews of priceless works of art that are considered the best ever created and expect my opinions to be accepted by those who know much more about the subject.
 
Your insulting and shallow comment only confirms what I stated before, that you are simply giving ratings to movies for your own amusement and these ratings should not be taken seriously.

It's not shallow. It's true. One doesn't have to learn classical music in order to give their opinion on modern, pop music. Opinions are opinions. Deal with it.

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

It's true -- How can one be a critic if they doesn't fully understand and appreciate the artform that they're judging? I know this forum is only a means to choose which movies are considered the worst of the year, but if one doesn't even know or understand what a good movie is (based on past examples) then what right do they have to say what is needed to give a proper opinion about any movie?
 

I'm not a critic. I'm a kid with a hobby, and it's watching movies. And I suppose Sunset Blvd, 12 Angry Men, and It's a Wonderful Life aren't good movies? Wow. You've really hit it on the nail right there. Stop ignoring what I say and read.
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 4:03pm
Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

I never said I "didn't love KANE," I merely admitted that it might not make my personal Top Ten List, while suggesting it would make my Top 100. Nothing I said about KANE was meant to be disparaging -- I was merely stating that I didn't concur that, for myself, it was the SINGLE Greatest Movie Ever Made. That's hardly comparable to MWG suggesting (albeit in two postings weeks apart) that a formulaic slasher film like FINAL DESTINATION 5 in 3-D is in any way superior to something like CITIZEN KANE. Your attempt to make any comparison between what I said about KANE vs FANTASTIC FOUR to what MWG said about KANE and FD5 3-D is actually rather insulting...

It's not insulting. It's a similar situation and highly comparable. You defending what you're saying is what I'm doing right now. Here's an analogy to get this through people's head:

A 7 year old kid gets a 93 on his math test with problems based on addition and subtraction. A 17 year old kid gets a 72 on his math test with problems based on calculus and trigonometry. You can compare the two scores and say the 7 year old kid got a higher score than the 17 year old kid. However, as you can see by now, comparing these two scores out of context is incredibly stupid, seeing that calculus is soooooo much harder than addition and subtraction. Something to do in order to compare scores of these two kids is to have the 17 year old kid take the same test as the 7 year old kid and/or vice versa. What you guys are doing to me is saying that the 7 year old kid is smarter than the 17 year old kid based solely on the fact that his score was higher than the other.

I do not give the same standards when watching an FD film compared to watching Citizen Kane. Let me say this now: As a film, FD5 is not good. The performances are very dodgy and the plot is ridiculous beyond belief. As a Final Destination film, it's one of the best in the series.

If this still doesn't make any sense to you guys, let me reiterate this by giving you a link to Richar Roeper's review for FD5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCA8N535BQw

At the end of the video, Roeper gives the film an A for its disgustingly, effective use of 3D, an F for being stupid, and a C overall as a movie itself. These are 3 different ratings based on 3 different grounds/standards.
Back to Top
SuperTeenTopia View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: August 18 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 304
Post Options Post Options   Quote SuperTeenTopia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 4:57pm
First of all, MWG, I happen to be studying to become a film historian, so when I say a comment about a person learning about the history of the film craft in order to better understand it, I would like some respect and not be told that my opinion is stupid. Secondly, you have indeed proven that are a "kid who watches movies as a hobby" through your reviews over the years on this forum, as you hand out 6s an 7s to movies that should be getting 2s and 3s at best. If you're claiming a movie should get a 7 for being entertaining, but an overall 3, then give it the 3, not the 7 for being entertaining.
 
All you have shown me is that you have no taste in movies and are a member of the lowest common denominator that Hollywood caters to, the kind of audience that champions mindless entertainment value and manpinulated emotional content over quality filmmaking substance. You are far from the "movie wiz" that you claim to be, and you're obviously becoming an annoyance to many people here. You can feel the very frustration in HeadRazz's replies to your posts, and yet you still antagonize him and others with your childish reasoning.
 
As of this moment, I couldn't care less about your opinions, as your reviews do not matter and are nothing but a mockery of the film critiquing process. You may cite Ebert or Roeper, but your level of reviewing is on par with that of Armond White. Please return when you know what makes a good movie beyond that of bells and whistles.
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)
Back to Top
saturnwatcher View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577
Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 6:17pm
Permit me to step in here for a moment and a my 2 cents to what has probably become an excessively heated debate. When I was 20, Citizen Kane probably wouldn't have made my top 20 either. However, the knowledge that I have acquired about film and film history over the...uh, few (ya, that is a good word) decades that have passed since I was 20 have changed my perspectives about a lot of things. My appreciation for Kane began specifically when I took an elective general ed course in college in which that film was the primary focus of study. It not only opened up an apprecation for that specific film, but that lead to a greater interest in all of Welles' work, which in turn lead to a greater interest and appreciation for film history which eventually introduced me to an indepth appeciation for the work of Chaplin, then other silent comedians and stars and on and on. So I think that we might be coming down just a little hard on young master mwg. He does exhibit an unquestionable interest in movies at a young age, and while his tastes my be somewhat questionable now, there is time for him to grow out of his present limited scope, and I am confident he will.
 
Incidentally, understanding the history of an artform, particularly a rich heritage like film, may not be required for appreciation, but it sure helps. I don't think one can fully appreciate any particular film from the past without having some basis of context from which to view it. A superficial understanding of, say, of the causes and motives of the confederacy in the Civil War might lead one to conclude that the generals of the confederacy were nothing but a bunch of ignorant racists. When you dig deeper into their biographies, you come out with a very different picture of things.
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 6:52pm
SuperTeenTopia: I didn't say your opinion is stupid. Stop twisting my words. I'm pointing out that the concept that you think people should study a century's worth of film history in order to finally form opinions about movies they see is stupid. But this is how I rate movies. I rate different movies on different standards. If you're annoyed by that, then you shouldn't be. You're allowed to rate movies any way you want so why are you trying to convince me to rate a certain film on this standard? I wasn't starting an argument. You did. You felt a certain emotion from my opinion on Citizen Kane, but I'm here to tell you that you shouldn't. It's one opinion out of many others who loved the film.

If you feel that the films I've been giving 6's and 7's should be 2's and 3's (and honestly, very few films deserve that low of ratings in the first place), then it's your opinion. Why do you care that I give them above average ratings? Also, you obviously haven't been reading my reviews if you think I give movies certain ratings just based solely on the fact that they're entertaining.
 
All you have shown me is that you have no taste in movies and are a member of the lowest common denominator that Hollywood caters to, the kind of audience that champions mindless entertainment value and manpinulated emotional content over quality filmmaking substance. You are far from the "movie wiz" that you claim to be, and you're obviously becoming an annoyance to many people here. You can feel the very frustration in HeadRazz's replies to your posts, and yet you still antagonize him and others with your childish reasoning

Again, why are you ignoring my posts. Let me repost these three films again because it doesn't seem to stick to your head: Sunset Blvd, It's a Wonderful Life, and 12 Angry Men. Even you said yourself that from my top 10, 8 of them are on your top list so you're kinda contradicting yourself now if you say I have no taste in movies. And I find it offensive that you think I'm in the LCD. You know what you're doing? You're perpetuating a stereotype that all teens have ADHD and can't focus on a film with slow pacing. How would you feel if I said old people are just cynical about modern films because they are stuck in the past? And exactly what films are you referring to when you make that claim? Additionally, I do not claim myself to be a movie wiz. It's a username. It's nothing more, so please don't try to argue by saying, "Why did you name yourself moviewizguy in the first place?" Just don't.

Also, my reasoning isn't childish since you haven't even bothered to oppose against them. My analogy on the 7 year old kid and 17 year old teen scoring different scores on two different tests was more than a sufficient analogy to show what you guys are trying to tell me. Can you argue against that? Do you have anything to say about that analogy? No, of course you don't because it's a great argument. You're like BHB and Michaels. When I back you guys up into a corner, you get offensive and go to an entirely different topic and start criticizing my taste in movies, which had nothing to do with the original topic in the first place, instead of doing the right thing: Which is admitting that I'm reasonable in what I say. It's a really shady move to do.

And here are a list of ratings on certain films that I didn't like: Transformers 3 (4/10), Saw 3D (2/10), AVPR (2/10), Ultraviolet (2/10), Jason X, Norbit, One Missed Call (all 2/10), Black Christmas (2006), Red Riding Hood, The Final Destination, Skyline, My soul to Take, 10000 BC, Catwoman, Doom, Failure to Launch, Halloween 2 (2009), Southland Tales (all 3/10).
 
As of this moment, I couldn't care less about your opinions, as your reviews do not matter and are nothing but a mockery of the film critiquing process. You may cite Ebert or Roeper, but your level of reviewing is on par with that of Armond White. Please return when you know what makes a good movie beyond that of bells and whistles.

Ummm...from the start of this discussion, you seemed to care a lot about my opinion, but whatever, you know I'm correct in saying that you can't compare two different films together when they are judged on different standards. The  fact that you resort to calling me names and ignoring my previous posts just shows me that I'm wasting my time trying to "reason" with you.  

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

First of all, MWG, I happen to be studying to become a film historian, so when I say a comment about a person learning about the history of the film craft in order to better understand it, I would like some respect and not be told that my opinion is stupid. Secondly, you have indeed proven that are a "kid who watches movies as a hobby" through your reviews over the years on this forum, as you hand out 6s an 7s to movies that should be getting 2s and 3s at best. If you're claiming a movie should get a 7 for being entertaining, but an overall 3, then give it the 3, not the 7 for being entertaining
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 7:21pm
Saturnwatcher: Let me say that I've liked the films I've seen made by Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. And I agree that it does help if you learn history. I'm just saying it's not necessary. For example, you don't tell kids that they shouldn't say they love this animated picture because they haven't learned the history of film yet. That would be far too mean to do so. Like everyone, people constantly change and evolve in what they do or do not like. As another example, the first time I saw The Usual Suspects, I downright hated it because the twist ending negates the last 90 minutes of the film, which made me feel like I watched the film for nothing. However, upon rewatching it, I appreciated the film a lot more in its way to surprise the audience. But thank you for sticking up for me, yet again. Star  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Permit me to step in here for a moment and a my 2 cents to what has probably become an excessively heated debate. When I was 20, Citizen Kane probably wouldn't have made my top 20 either. However, the knowledge that I have acquired about film and film history over the...uh, few (ya, that is a good word) decades that have passed since I was 20 have changed my perspectives about a lot of things. My appreciation for Kane began specifically when I took an elective general ed course in college in which that film was the primary focus of study. It not only opened up an apprecation for that specific film, but that lead to a greater interest in all of Welles' work, which in turn lead to a greater interest and appreciation for film history which eventually introduced me to an indepth appeciation for the work of Chaplin, then other silent comedians and stars and on and on. So I think that we might be coming down just a little hard on young master mwg. He does exhibit an unquestionable interest in movies at a young age, and while his tastes my be somewhat questionable now, there is time for him to grow out of his present limited scope, and I am confident he will.
 
Incidentally, understanding the history of an artform, particularly a rich heritage like film, may not be required for appreciation, but it sure helps. I don't think one can fully appreciate any particular film from the past without having some basis of context from which to view it. A superficial understanding of, say, of the causes and motives of the confederacy in the Civil War might lead one to conclude that the generals of the confederacy were nothing but a bunch of ignorant racists. When you dig deeper into their biographies, you come out with a very different picture of things.
Back to Top
SuperTeenTopia View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: August 18 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 304
Post Options Post Options   Quote SuperTeenTopia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 7:24pm
Thank you, saturnwatcher, you are the kind of person I will gladly discuss and debate movies with. This forum is lucky to have you as a member.
 
I however, have no intentions in discussing movies with a little boy who runs around online forums, playing film critic (and does a horrendous job at it), and then cites famous film critics as if he's doing a book report, or using his experiences in the classroom as support for his reasoning, because he has no real life experiences to speak of. Sure, when he becomes as knowledgable as saturnwatcher, he is more then welcome to give his two cents, but as of right now, he's nothing more than a wannabe that still has alot to learn.  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Permit me to step in here for a moment and a my 2 cents to what has probably become an excessively heated debate. When I was 20, Citizen Kane probably wouldn't have made my top 20 either. However, the knowledge that I have acquired about film and film history over the...uh, few (ya, that is a good word) decades that have passed since I was 20 have changed my perspectives about a lot of things. My appreciation for Kane began specifically when I took an elective general ed course in college in which that film was the primary focus of study. It not only opened up an apprecation for that specific film, but that lead to a greater interest in all of Welles' work, which in turn lead to a greater interest and appreciation for film history which eventually introduced me to an indepth appeciation for the work of Chaplin, then other silent comedians and stars and on and on. So I think that we might be coming down just a little hard on young master mwg. He does exhibit an unquestionable interest in movies at a young age, and while his tastes my be somewhat questionable now, there is time for him to grow out of his present limited scope, and I am confident he will.
 
Incidentally, understanding the history of an artform, particularly a rich heritage like film, may not be required for appreciation, but it sure helps. I don't think one can fully appreciate any particular film from the past without having some basis of context from which to view it. A superficial understanding of, say, of the causes and motives of the confederacy in the Civil War might lead one to conclude that the generals of the confederacy were nothing but a bunch of ignorant racists. When you dig deeper into their biographies, you come out with a very different picture of things.
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 7:30pm
SuperTeenTopia: I tried to be as reasonable with you as possible. I don't see why you're acting like this. I provided my opinion that got met with outrage. Whose fault was that? And I'm sorry if you think you shouldn't be wasting your time talking to me because I did with you. I gave you my full, undivided attention and you ignored my post, which I find to be disrespectful. If you were reasonable in any way, I implore you to read what I wrote and talk to me about it because the last thing I want is for us to be enemies when we weren't before this thread.  

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

I however, have no intentions in discussing movies with a little boy who runs around online forums, playing film critic (and does a horrendous job at it), and then cites famous film critics as if he's doing a book report, or using his experiences in the classroom as support for his reasoning, because he has no real life experiences to speak of. Sure, when he becomes as knowledgable as saturnwatcher, he is more then welcome to give his two cents, but as of right now, he's nothing more than a wannabe that still has alot to learn.
Back to Top
saturnwatcher View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577
Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 7:34pm
With all due respect, MWG, I think there is a significant difference between sitting a 5 year-old down to watch Bambi, and expecting a 25 year-old to really appreciate the original The Day the Earth Stood Still without a real knowledge of the sort of xenophobia that was rampant in the United States in the early 50's.  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

For example, you don't tell kids that they shouldn't say they love this animated picture because they haven't learned the history of film yet.
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 7:38pm
OK, That's true. I was making a point that you can't expect people to learn about the context of an old film that they watch until you tell them things like there was a state of xenophobia when TDTESS was released. This also brings up an interesting point in which if learning the context of certain films are really necessary to know in the first place. Does not knowing about xenophobia in the 1950s make TDTESS any worse?  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

With all due respect, I think there is a significant difference between sitting a 5 year-old down to watch Bambi, and expecting a 25 year-old to really appreciate the original The Day the Earth Stood Still without a real knowledge of the sort of xenophobia that was rampant in the United States in the early 50's.
Back to Top
SuperTeenTopia View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: August 18 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 304
Post Options Post Options   Quote SuperTeenTopia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 7:48pm
MWG: Because I am learning about film as an artform and would like to discuss it as such with people who also view it that way and can tell the good from the bad. I have no reason to discuss that subject with a little boy who insulted that intention when he said it was stupid for me to expect people who write reviews for movies should have a profound knowledge and respect for the craft and its history, especially when that little boy goes around defending every movie targeted by the Razzies. In other words, you took on dump on my lifestyle, where as you yourself are far from perfect at it.
 
saturnwatcher perfectly understands my stance on the subject, you do not, and as such, I have no desire to further our conversation. Again, if you want to discuss movies with me, come back when you have a degree on the subject or are working in the filmmaking business, and know what you're talking about, rather than hiding behind critic quotes, the small handful of good movies you have watched, the small handful of bad movies you gave bad reviews to, and school examples.  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I tried to be as reasonable with you as possible. I don't see why you're acting like this. I provided my opinion that got met with outrage. Whose fault was that?
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)
Back to Top
saturnwatcher View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577
Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 7:49pm
The world we live in here in 2011 isn't the world people lived in back in 1951. I've heard any number of people in your age group who have watched the original TDTESS come away and say things like, "That sucked" "boring" "no action" "lousy special effects" and what not. The ones that actually end up liking it are the ones who have the curiousity to start asking questions like, "gee, what was that about?" "What motivated Julian Blaustein to tell this particular story?" Interestingly enough, some of the same remarks have been made about Kane in this thread. There was even a question as to the legitimacy of William Randolph Hearst as an important historical figure. That question can be forgiven, because it came from someone who lives on distant shores and might not be well versed in American history in the early 20th century. Perhaps providing the context of Hearst's influences on shaping this nation in the early decades of the previous century might inspire him to learn more about Hearst, and view the film from an entirely different perspective.  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

This also brings up an interesting point in which if learning the context of certain films are really necessary to know in the first place. Does not knowing about xenophobia in the 1950s make TDTESS any worse?
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 8:20pm
Let me restate: I find it unreasonable that you expect people to do their research in order to give their proper opinion on a certain film. Let's say someone watches the original The Day the Earth Stood Still without the knowledge of the context of why it was made, and they found it to be boring. They decide to look up the film and found out people were scared of foreigners when the film was released which made the film relatable during that time. Now that they have the context, it's still very possible that they still won't like the film. Like they can say, "Gee, that's an interesting fact, but I still find the movie quite boring and uninteresting to watch."

And why do you keep calling me "little boy"? I'm not even a teenager. I'm a mature young adult whose gone to a great college. Tongue

Also, as stated before, I've already taken film history. I know of the Lumiere Brothers and their fascination for moving pictures. I know how film evolved. Citizen Kane was a required viewing for the class, so I think I know what I'm talking about. And I'd rather live my life knowing that I liked more films that I watched than hating them.  

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

Because I am learning about film as an artform and would like to discuss it as such with people who also view it that way and can tell the good from the bad. I have no reason to discuss that subject with a little boy who insulted that intention when he said it was stupid for me to expect people who write reviews for movies should have a profound knowledge and respect for the craft and its history, especially when that little boy goes around defending every movie targeted by the Razzies. In other words, you took on dump on my lifestyle, where as you yourself are far from perfect at it.
 
saturnwatcher perfectly understands my stance on the subject, you do not, and as such, I have no desire to further our conversation. Again, if you want to discuss movies with me, come back when you have a degree on the subject or are working in the filmmaking business, and know what you're talking about, rather than hiding behind critic quotes, the small handful of good movies you have watched, the small handful of bad movies you gave bad reviews to, and school examples.
Back to Top
saturnwatcher View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577
Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 8:28pm
Understanding context doesn't guarantee that one will change an opinion of a particular film, but if one understands the context going in, the chances of appreciating it rise significantly or at least make it more likely one will view the film from a different and less superficial perspective on a subsequent viewing. And for the record, I have never once called you a "little boy."
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2011 at 8:31pm
I was quoting SuperTeenTopia.  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Understanding context doesn't guarantee that one will change an opinion of a particular film, but if one understands the context going in, the chances of appreciating it rise significantly or at least make it more likely one will view the film from a different and less superficial perspective on a subsequent viewing. And for the record, I have never once called you a "little boy."
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6871
Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 12 2011 at 8:12am
Oh,boy! I'll try to reply to everything: 

1)In order for this discussion to continue, I think we need to use clearer words. If a movie has good entertainment value, you "enjoyed" it. If it has good technical aspects, you "appreciated" it. If it has good art qualities...well, as Vheid pointed out, that's subjective. But if it has good entertainment factor and technical aspects,which is how it should be, you "liked" it. I know most of you won't care about this, and I didn't even want to bring it up so early, but it's necessary to make my point: This year's Vits Awards will have new categories. Aside from Best Movie and Worst Movie, I'll award the Best Bad Movie and the Worst Good Movie. Those are the very,very,very rare cases where I just enjoyed or just appriciated a movie instead of liking it. 

2)MWG,you're right that one isn't obligated to know those things...in general. But you like to review movies (it doesn't matter if it's as a hobby or a profession). Readers expect you to do a proper analysis, unlike a "random 5 year old."

3)Being a historical figure isn't about how many people know that person, it's how many people should know of them. I'm not saying Hearst wasn't an important person, I'm just saying you can't get mad at anyone (regardless of their nationality)if they don't know who he was*.

4)When it comes to knowing facts about a movie...it depends. After you mentioned Hearst I looked him up as to what elements of his life appear in KANE. And it didn't change my opinion of the movie at all. It's not a biopic of Hearst. It's not like...say...Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN. The ending may not seem ideal but then I researched and found out that the movie is set during major political and economical time periods, and it makes sense.

5)Seriously, enough about me being a foreigner*! Yeah, we all know that it affects my judgement sometimes, so why do you keep pointing it out?! The fact you keep doing it makes me feel as if that's all you see when you read my reviews!

*I can name 15 of your presidents without research, and I could provide facts about some of them.

You can follow me @Vits_Chile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 8>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down