Print Page | Close Window

CITIZEN KANE

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: General MOVIE & DVD Discussions
Forum Name: POLL: Is CITIZEN KANE Really The #1 BEST Movie of ALL Time??
Forum Discription: Yes, It's a Staggering Achievement, But...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5365
Printed Date: July 25 2014 at 5:50am


Topic: CITIZEN KANE
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: CITIZEN KANE
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 7:59am


WITH ORSON WELLES' CLASSIC NOW AVAILABLE on BLU-RAY as WELL as DVD (and BEING SHOWN REGULARLY on TCM) WE THOUGHT WE'D ASK a QUESTION FEW (BUT US!) WOULD DARE TO:  

IS CITZEN KANE REALLY the #1 BEST MOVIE of ALL TIME??  

WITH an IMPRESSIVE 9 ACADEMY AWARD® NOMINATIONS (BUT ONLY 1 WIN - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/awards - ), a RARE 100% APPROVAL RATING at ROTTEN TOMATOES ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/citizen_kane/ - ) and PLACEMENT AT or NEAR the TOP of NEARLY EVERY ALL-TIME BEST MOVIE LIST COMPILED for the LAST 30 YEARS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFIs_100_Years...100_Movies - ) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/ -  HAS EARNED a LEVEL of RESPECT ACCORDED BERRY FEW FILMS. 

BUT IT's ACTUALLY NOT YE OLDE HEAD RAZZ-BERRY's #1 of ALL TIME (THAT WOULD BE BILLY WILDER's  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Boulevard_%28film%29 -
IF YOU THINK I'M SPEAKING BLASPHEMY, IF YOU FIND MY CANDOR REFRESHING...or IF YOU'D PREFER WE NOT EVEN BRING UP a 72-YEAR-OLD, BLACK-and-WHITE MOVIE RELIC...FEEL FREE to EXPRESS YOUR OWN THOUGHTS BELOW. 

PLEASE ALSO INCLUDE YOUR OWN PERSONAL CHOICE as BEST MOVIE of ALL TIME in YOUR POST -- AFTER VOTING in OUR POLL, of COURSE! 







-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: davecampbell
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 8:19am
Just because film critics insist Kane is the classic movie of all time, I as a movie-goer needn't feel obligated to concur with them. Yes, it is an impressive achievement for its time, and belongs among the greatest films. But THE greatest??  I voted for "You'd have to convince me." 

By the way, my #1 all-time favorite movie is Singing in the Rain, a movie about the sheer joy of movies...  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/files/2008/09/610_kelly_intro.jpg -


Posted By: Kenjifujima
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 8:26am
Maybe it's because the film is so specifically "American," but I have never been able to fully appreciate KANE -- It leaves me cold and disinterested. My personal favorite American movie is CASABLANCA, and my favorite Japanese movie is SEVEN SAMURAI... 


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003707-casablanca/ - ) I think it also deserves a place among any list of the best ever...  






-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 9:09am
People often disagree if certain movies deserve to be called classics. Many classics were technical achievements in their time, but were also somehow ejoyable.

CITIZEN KANE wowed me for the first 30 minutes because, even though I'm not an expert on how movies were technically back then, I could still tell this one had superior directing and photography. After watching it, I read it also improved on the use of flashbacks and make-up (mainly in having Orson Welles play KANE as an adult and an old man). But the story itself just isn't that interesting. I mean,they tell you an important man died, but it's like in real life when you make a movie about a person that's historically important: it doesn't automatically mean they have a story interesting enough to make a fictional movie about them. This movie should be "homework" for every film class in the world, but it's also the type of "classic" you can't hold against people if they don't like it.

I gave it 6/10.

Also don't worry, HeadRAZZ. People are conditioned to be shocked if someone says they didn't love a classic, even if they have good reasons. Like now,I'm sure at least one person skipped the 1st paragraph, read my rating, and then maybe read this paragraph. If someone doesn't like MEMENTO(which I consider the all time best) I wouldn't hold it against them because it's also a movie that's hard for some people to enjoy. Except of course when people say things like "It's the worst movie ever because it would make more sense if he'd written on a notepad instead"(not kidding, that was in a "review" on IMDB!). And since I trust your judgment,I'll add SUNSET BOULEVARD to my "movies to watch" list. By the way, how come in the poll options there isn't a "No"?  



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 9:41am
Six out of 10 is ridiculously low, but indivdual tastes vary so much that it is probably impossible to hold any one movie up and get anything close to universal support as to it being "the best of all time." Still Citizen Kane is at or near the top of so many critics and avid movie goers lists that it has to be in the discussion, and no, I don't buy the theory that it is sort of a word of mouth consensus. I'd definitely put it in the top 10. The story is fascinating, the performances are superb, Wells' use of lighting and camera angles are so incredible that this is a fascinating film to watch even without sound. I don't think it is necessary for everyone to view it as the best ever. But Kane is a heavyweight, and a groundbreaking film.
 
I'm a huge baseball fan, and part of the appeal of the game is it's ability to generate tons of interesting numbers and valid comparisons between players to participated in different eras. Baseball fans can argue endlessly about the merits of Babe Ruth vs. Hank Aaron or whether Whitey Ford had better command than Roy Halladay. This is the same kind of debate. There might be certain legitimate measures of comparison, but at the end of the day, it's your opinion against mine.
 
As to my own pick for best movie of all time, I have to cop out. I'm not sure how one could say that Gone With the Wind is in some way better than, say, City Lights...they are different films that evoke different emotions, different thoughts. There are a lot of films I like a lot for very different reasons...I'd have a difficult time really pinning down a top 10 let alone one single film


-------------
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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 11:07am
Yes,it's berry hard to compare movies so different,but not impossible.That's one of the reasons why I prefer the 1-10 system.

Don't overthink when you make your Top 10(or it can be Top 3,5 or 20,whatever you prefer).It's not meant to be about the movies that should be the best,it's the movies that you love so much they feel like they're the best,even if you love a movie everybody else hate.

Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/files/2008/09/610_kelly_intro.jpg - Now that's a movie that's clearly well-made and can be enjoyed by most people.Although to be fair,that's the case with most comedies and/or musicals that are considered among the best.
Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003707-casablanca/ - Well,that's a less comprehensible case than KANE,because it has a love triangle most people enjoy with the same twists you see in soap operas,except this was the first to use them.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 11:29am
I would say the movie is within the Top 10 of all time, although which movie would join it in the Top 10 would be a whole other debate. I give it a solid 4 out of 5 stars.
 
Not surprisingly, Vits gave it a middle of the road score, but I've learned to expect that from him and classic movies. If by going by the 10 point scale (which I don't), it shouldn't be less than 8 just because the story is "not interesting" (which it does get dull after a while, but not enough to shave three whole points off).
 
But why is "Sunset Blvd" considered the best movie of all time by the HeadRazz? Just because it mocks Hollywood?


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 12:58pm
And what is your Top 10,SuperTeenTopia?
Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

Not surprisingly, Vits gave it a middle of the road score, but I've learned to expect that from him and classic movies. If by going by the 10 point scale (which I don't), it shouldn't be less than 8 just because the story is "not interesting" (which it does get dull after a while, but not enough to shave three whole points off).
I thought you didn't want to talk about it anymore.But regardless,so far this is the first classic I've given under 4 stars since you joined the forummso why do you expect it?

As for the debate of which is the auteur of the film(director,writer or producer)...I don't know that,but I do know the script is the foundation for me.If the script sucks,the movie can't be good(but it can be saved by other things).I'm not saying KANE has a bad script.It was one ahead of it's time because it used a narrative nobody had used until then.I'm just saying the story isn't interesting,and that's mainly because the character isn't interesting.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 1:39pm
A key point which some of our younger contributors here are probably missing involves the context of this film. With KANE, Welles, in only a slightly veiled fashion, was taking on one of the most powerful and wealthiest men in the United States, William Randolph Hearst. That made a lot of people in Hollywood extremely uncomfortable.  


RESPONSE from head RAZZberry: I love the story of how, while KANE was in production, Welles was deliberately vague about its exact plot and content, and even played the dangerous game of courting Hearst gossip columnist Louella Parsons to promote KANE in Hearst's hundreds of daily newspapers. When the film was finally in rough cut, Welles cattily screened it for Parsons -- who ran from the screening room to the nearest phone on the RKO lot and called Hearst personally to warn him of what was coming...and to protect her own job.  When the film was released, Hearst (understandably) refused to let RKO advertise it in any of his publications or media outlets...     




-------------
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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 1:50pm
Another good point. There are cases where people don't understand some things when they watch old movies. But is that their fault? It is when it's a case of ignorance, but not when the movie has dated elements. If my grandchildren ever watch any American sitcom and don't laugh because they don't know who George Bush is (they all had made fun of him), I'd be worried. But who today knows who Hearst was without searching first? Remember: A classic is a movie that survives time. This one is still a classic because that dated allusion may be important to get some of the context, but isn't important to get into the story.  

Also, since you insist on looking at me as a foreigner, there are movies that foreigners don't get. But sometimes that's because of isolation. KANE's a good example of the former because it's not an American movie per se. It's about the rise and fall of a businessman turned politician, which is something people from any country can understand. But there are movies like BATTLE L.A. where Yankee pride isn't a theme or context, it's the freaking plot! Oh,and it also as propaganda to get people to join the Marines. Do you expect me to enjoy it? Luckily I try to be as objective as possible, and I hated BATTLE L.A. for its production quality instead!  


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 3:57pm
A few days ago, some of my classmates told me to make a list of my favorite movies. I had this at 19, ahead of LOTR: Return Of The King, behind Gone With The Wind. Interestingly, all the movies mentioned above* are on my list as well. Casablanca is 13, ahead of The Godfather, behind E.T., Singin' In The Rain is 32, ahead of Taxi Driver, behind Halloween**, Memento is 9, ahead of The Wild Bunch, behind Pulp Fiction, Gone With The Wind is behind Once Upon A Time In The West, and Seven Samurai is ahead of The Wizard Of Oz, behind Star Wars.
 
*Except Battle LA (because it sucks), City Lights (the LeMoyne library only has it on VHS and my VHS player is busted), and Sunset Blvd. (the library has NO copy of it.)
**Remember, it's my favorite list and I love horror movies.


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 3:58pm
Why yes Citizen Kane is one of the greatest movie ever made. Though I wouldn't call it the greatest, it's still quite an achievement.  

-------------


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 4:42pm
Yes, I do believe some of us are just looking for entertainment value and nothing more, and are missing the subtext of the movie.  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

A key point which some of our younger contributors here are probably missing involves the context of this film.


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 4:50pm
My Top Ten? In no particular order, "Citizen Kane," "Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid," "Dog Day Afternoon," "The Good Bye Girl," "The French Connection," "12 Angry Men," "Goodfellas," "Pulp Fiction," "Memento" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." Now, I'm not claiming those are the greatest movies of all time, but they are some of the best damn movies that each of those eras and genres have to offer. 

-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 5:45pm
Woo-hoo! You have two of my ten on your list: MEMENTO(!) and 12 ANGRY MEN...wait. We're both talking about the one from the '50s,right?  

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 6:01pm
Yeah, the 1957 one. Question is, what's your complete Top 10?   


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: For those wanting more info, here's an http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/ -



-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 7:27pm
City Lights is available on DVD, although I'm not sure if it is readily available from places like Blockbuster. However, I strongly recommend it...it definitely represents Chaplin at his best. Along with his usual mix of comic and tragic elements, the film also features a remarkably simple but extremely powerful ending.  

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

*Except Battle LA (because it sucks), City Lights (the LeMoyne library only has it on VHS and my VHS player is busted), and Sunset Blvd. (


-------------
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


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 7:35pm
I'm hesitant about buying DVDs of any movies I haven't seen, but since both Modern Times (59) and The Gold Rush (153) are on my favoirte movies list, I may have to break that rule.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 7:38pm
At the point where you become interested enough in movies that you wade into efforts to know the classics of the past, I think it becomes important to go into the venture armed with the research necessary to understand just why any movie was important in its time, and why is it still speaking to people in modern times. Without that sort of preparation, you probably won't be able to fully appreciate the movie. 
 
I was never really able to appreciate opera until, at a point in my life, I found myself dating a talented young soprano. So I started doing my homework and trying to learn about opera. I figured if I was going to be spending time with her, I needed to know at least a little about an important aspect of her life and world. That relationship didn't survive, but my knowledge and appreciation for that particular artform did. I'm glad I had that experience, just for the vista it opened for me.  

Originally posted by Vits

 Another good point. There are cases where people don't understand some things when they watch old movies. But is that their fault? 


-------------
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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 7:44pm
SchumacherH8ter: There is a boxed set of Chaplins movies available on both DVD and VCR tapes...I don't think it's all that expensive, and I think you'd find it a wonderful investment. It is probably available on Amazon. There is also a boxed set of his shorts -- however some of the film's qualities aren't very good, even though the movies are remastered.  

-------------
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


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 08 2011 at 7:48pm
I found a great set of Chaplin's feature films on DVD, available from Amazon.com ( http://www.amazon.com/Chaplin-Collection-Monsieur-Verdoux-Charlie/dp/B00017LVRI/ref=pd_cp_mov_4 - LINK ). It retails for $78...  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: And here's a http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=Charlie+Chaplin&_sacat=11232&_odkw=Chaplin+Collection&_osacat=11232&_trksid=p3286.c0.m270.l1313 -



-------------
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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 09 2011 at 7:35am
I'm not sure I agree with you guys.

You see, after watching several of Chaplin's movies (except MODERN TIMES and THE GREAT DICTADOR...yet) I'd say his best is THE GOLD RUSH(9/10). I didn't know much about that time period or the economic status, but that didn't keep me from enjoying the movie (I saw the '40s re-release version). Yes, he liked to put his political views in his movies, but they were just part of the context. Not to mention that they were often related to historical events people have to know. But, it's not compared to Hearst in KANE
, because he's not really a historical figure. 

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

Question is, what's your complete Top 10?

Click http://www.razzies.com/forum/vitss-best-movies-list_topic5210.html - here .


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 09 2011 at 8:02am
Originally posted by Vits

You see,after watching several of Chaplin's movies(except MODERN TIMES and THE GREAT DICTADOR...yet).
Yeah, those are the two you MUST see.

-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 09 2011 at 8:32am
I'm not sure I get your point, Vits. Are you suggesting that Hearst is not an important historical figure? He owned one of the largest newspaper chains in America, fathered yellow journalism and effectively started the Spanish-American war. I'd say he had a pretty significant impact from those events alone, and the list is a LOT longer.  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I read Vits' post as suggesting it was Chaplin who was not a historical figure, not Hearst... 




-------------
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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 09 2011 at 10:00am
Well,I did see MODERN TIMES and GREAT DICTATOR when I was a lot younger, but don't remember much about them, so I didn't count them. I actually have several of his DVD's. What I didn't like is that I saw a collection of some of his 5 minute films that, for some reason, all have the exact same musical score. Since I watched them back-to-back, it became tedious.  

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

Originally posted by Vits

You see,after watching several of Chaplin's movies(except MODERN TIMES and THE GREAT DICTADOR...yet)...
Yeah, those are the two you MUST see.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 09 2011 at 2:15pm
I was on TVTropes last night, and according to them, the birthday scene was originally in a brothel. Apparantly, it was set there to distract RKO from all the Hearst insults.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 09 2011 at 2:32pm
It was the other way around...  

Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

I read Vits' post as suggesting it was Chaplin who was not a historical figure, not Hearst...



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: September 09 2011 at 3:15pm
Well, I do recall watching North by Northwest and giving it a 10/10.

-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 09 2011 at 5:45pm
So you're calling North by Northwest the greatest movie of all time over "Citizen Kane"??  

And here's a  http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/6-things-the-film-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about.php/all/1 - LINK  to another wholy depressing article about the inner workings of Hollywood.
 
Take very special note of #4!


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 8:15am
Clearly Chaplin and Hearst are BOTH signficant historical figures. There are very interesting ties between the two, involving the death (accidental murder?) of Thomas Ince. A somewhat fictionalized recounting of the story is presented in the 2002 movie, The Cat's Meow. There was a rather complicated love triangle involving Chaplin, Hearst and Marion Davies, with whom Chaplin may or may not have been conducting an affair. However, Davies was Hearst's mistress. During a party on Hearst's yacht, in which all were in attendance, now forgotten silent film mogul Thomas Ince died. The official story was that he died of heart trouble. However, rumors persisted for years that he was actually shot by Hearst, who shot him in a situation of mistaken identity, believing he was  Chaplin.

-------------
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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 8:54am
My top 10 in no particular order: 

Pulp Fiction, Crash (2005), 12 Angry Men, Finding Nemo, Fargo, The Village, Minority Report, Wall-E, It's a Wonderful Life, and Pan's Labyrinth. 

As for Citizen Kane, well, to be honest, I didn't like it. I thought it was far too slowly paced (even Welles had to insert that random screeching parrot in order to wake people up!) and the story really didn't interest me. One thing I did like was the ending. The first time I saw it, I felt sad. However, I much prefer The Social Network, which to me  is like a modern Citizen Kane. 5/10  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: So you're essentially arguing that FINAL DESTINATION 5 in 3-D (which you rated 7/10) is a superior film to CITIZEN KANE?  Sorry, MWG, but that's just about the most ridiculous (and embarrassing) assessment of any two movies I've ever read!  

Be prepared for another deluge of angry postings demanding your banishment from this Forum -- Demands which I intend, as ever, to ignore, however indefensible (and -- there is no kind way to say this -- ignorant) some of your posting are...  




-------------


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 10:36am
Yeah, MWG,  guess 70 years ago, ALL movies were slow-paced. The ADHD pacing that you know today is the result of the MTV generation and the "4 seconds on a single shot is too long" mentality. Sorry dude, but slow or not, it's a great movie and deserves a better score than what you gave it.
 
As for "Social Network" (good movie though it was), just because it features an anti-social millionaire, that doesn't make it as good as "Citizen Kane"!    

Originally posted by moviewizguy

As for Citizen Kane, well, to be honest, I didn't like it. I thought it was far too slowly paced (even Welles had to insert that random screeching parrot in order to wake people up!) and the story really didn't interest me. One thing I did like was the ending. The first time I saw it, I felt sad. However, I much prefer The Social Network, which to me  is like a modern Citizen Kane. 5/10  


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 10:44am
I was kind of thinking the same thing, but opted to let it go by. There is an entire generation out there weened on Fast & Furious (and whatnot) that seems to have difficulty following a story unless something blows up every 5 seconds.

-------------
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


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 11:23am
And now you are doing it, HeadRAZZ. Like I said before, people are just conditioned that way. He just named 11 movies where most are either classics now (or could be in the future) and said he loved them all but one. And the image you all have of him is that he would've hated KANE, but instead he just found it average. As for the slow pacing...yeah, that's not the best argument, but there are movies where the critics concensus said it was too slow. The slow pacing itself isn't bad, it's how you use it and if it's appropriate to the movie. HeadRAZZ, when people watch a movie they're not thinking about other ones. I'm sure he wasn't thinking of modern horror movies he likes while watching KANE.  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

My top 10 in no particular order: 

Pulp Fiction, Crash (2005), 12 Angry Men, Finding Nemo, Fargo, The Village, Minority Report, Wall-E, It's a Wonderful Life, and Pan's Labyrinth. 

As for Citizen Kane, well, to be honest, I didn't like it. I thought it was far too slowly paced (even Welles had to insert that random screeching parrot in order to wake people up!) and the story really didn't interest me. One thing I did like was the ending. The first time I saw it, I felt sad. However, I much prefer The Social Network, which to me  is like a modern Citizen Kane. 5/10  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: So you're essentially arguing that FINAL DESTINATION 5 in 3-D (which you rated 7/10) is a superior film to CITIZEN KANE?  Sorry, MWG, but that's just about the most ridiculous (and embarrassing) assessment of any two movies I've ever read!  

Be prepared for another deluge of angry postings demanding your banishment from this Forum -- Demands which I intend, as ever, to ignore, however indefensible (and -- there is no kind way to say this -- ignorant) some of your posting are...


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 12:39pm
To say something nice about mwg, eight of the movies on his best ever list* are on my best movies ever list. That's all I have to say about this.
 
*The two that aren't on there are the cookie-cutter Crash and the "great first half, terrible second" The Village.


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 12:46pm
Look, even I will admit that "Kane" moves slowly, but most movies did at that time. But taking 4 or 5 points off its score because of that is TOO much, in my opinion. I only took away 1 point (on the 5 Scale). I can respect MWG's Top 10 for having "Pulp Ficition" and "12 Angry Men" on it (although "The Village"? Really?), but "Final Destination 5" gets a higher score than "Kane"?! That's just disrespectful. Everything else about "Kane", be it the acting, the writing, or the directing is perfect, but you subtract 5 points because of the pacing? Weak excuse, again, in my opinion.
 
"Kane" was never meant to be a roller coaster ride of excitement. It's a work of art from a man who had total creative control and told the story of how the one man who seemed to have everything...actually had nothing.


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 12:59pm
HeadRAZZ: I never brought up FD5, and it has nothing to do with my opinion on Citizen Kane. In fact, I saw Citizen Kane like 3 years before seeing FD5. I don't see how giving one movie a higher rating than another means that I'm comparing the two because, in this case, Citizen Kane and FD5 are incomparable. This reminds me of when someone said I would like Baby Geniuses 2 just because I didn't like The Shining. I don't see what Baby Geniuses 2 has anything to do with my opinion on The Shining. I don't like it when people do that. Obviously, one doesn't come in with the same expectations when watching FD5 compared to watching Citizen Kane. You rate them both on different scales and how successful they are on those scales. Like you don't judge a comedy and a horror movie on the same scale.

I see that people do the same on Roger Ebert's review. They see him give a movie like Salt a 4 star rating while giving Blue Velvet 1 star so they try to discredit him by comparing his ratings on those two films.  

Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

So you're essentially arguing that FINAL DESTINATION 5 in 3-D (which you rated 7/10) is a superior film to CITIZEN KANE?  Sorry, MWG, but that's just about the most ridiculous (and embarrassing) assessment of any two movies I've ever read!  
Be prepared for another deluge of angry postings demanding your banishment from this Forum -- Demands which I intend, as ever, to ignore, however indefensible (and -- there is no kind way to say this -- ignorant) some of your posting are... 


Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

Yeah guess what, 70 years ago, ALL movies were slow paced. The ADHD pacing that you know today is the result of the MTV generation and the "4 seconds on a single scene is too long" mentality. Sorry dude, but slow or not, it's a great movie and deserves a better score than that.
 
As for "Social Network" (good movie though it was), just because it's features an anti-social millionaire, that doesn't make it as good as "Citizen Kane".

Yet didn't I provide a list of movies that are old? 12 Angry Men and It's a Wonderful Life. That's not to say that all old films are slow and all new films are fast because There Will Be Blood is a slow, slow, slow film, yet I liked it. Also, The General (1926) is actually a fairly quick-paced film and let's not forget His Girl Friday (1940) in which the characters say 100 words every second. I'm not saying that I'm bothered by slow pacing. I'm just saying the slow pacing in Citizen Kane didn't work for me. Also, you shouldn't blame me that I prefer faster paced films over slow ones because that's the world I was born in. Like it or not, the world has changed since 70 years ago. It's like saying a person born in a vegetarian family should eat meat because you were born in a family that likes eating meat. This is the information age/era. We're getting information without even having to wait that much. You search something on Google and you find it. Don't blame MTV for everything (I don't even watch it) because the entire world is moving toward this direction.

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

Look, even I will admit that "Kane" moves slowly, but most movies did at that time. But taking 4 or 5 points off its score because of that is TOO much, in my opinion. I only took away 1 point (on the 5 Scale). I can respect MWG's Top 10 for having "Pulp Ficition" and "12 Angry Men" on it (although "The Village"? Really?), but "Final Destination 5" gets a higher score than "Kane"?! That's just disrespectful. Everything else about "Kane", be it the acting, the writing, or the directing is perfect, but you subtract 5 points because of the pacing? Weak excuse, again, in my opinion.
 
"Kane" was never meant to be a roller coaster ride of excitement. It's a work of art from a man who had total creative control and told the story of how the one man who seemed to have everything, actually had nothing.

Another point I have to make: I didn't take off 5 stars just because Citizen Kane was slow. That would be stupid. I merely just provided some examples (not all) on why I didn't find it to be great. And the reason I didn't go "in-depth" on me being indifferent towards the film is because I don't remember much of it. I found all the flashblacks from every character to be exhausting, which made the film boring and uninteresting. I really have nothing else to say about it because I don't think about it that much. 


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: No one is claiming you judged KANE and FD5 as though they were interchangeable. But regardless of how different the two films are, you can't claim you didn't rate FD5 as though it were superior (in God knows what way) to KANE -- You gave KANE only 5 out of 10 points (suggesting it's merely average) and you awarded 7 our of 10 to FD5. Even allowing for your obvious fondness for modern horror films, the two ratings placed side-by-side make you look foolish and shallow.  And I hardly think you're going to find a lot of support in this Forum for such an obviously ill-informed pair of opinions...  




-------------


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 1:36pm
1. Like it or not, when you give different scores to different movies, you're still comparing them. Not by genre or directly against each other, but with your personal taste, and that is what is being questioned, be it MWG or Roger Ebert. That's just the way it is. I totally agree with people who mock Ebert for giving a crappy action movie a higher score than an Oscar calibur drama. It makes no sense why he would do that. Although, on a side note, it's amusing that you chose Ebert out of all the possible professional critics out there, since he has stated MANY times that "Kane" is his favorite movie of all-time and considers it a perfect masterpiece.
2. Again, like it or not, MTV is usually blamed for the ADHD editing we see these days, thanks to the fast paced music videos that the channel spawned. Yes, you have no control over WHEN you are born, but if you are going to give your opinions over an artform that is over a century old (and be taken seriously), you need to know your history, and at one time, movies were slowly paced. That is why the most respected film critics are old, they have spent decades watching movies to know what is good, and don't write them off because of superficial reasons. And frankly, I don't care if we are living in a digital age. A movie is not an Internet search. The motion picture is an artform, and as such, it takes time to get the right emotions, images, and information across to the viewer, and that simply can't be done within the time it takes to blink your eye.
3. Well, I'd rather see the in-depth reasons (even if it's just a "the good, the bad, and the ugly" review, like SchumacherH8ter does), because I find it a shame that you're short-changing one of the best movie ever made just for being "boring" when everything else about it is perfect. You might as well take a dump on the Mona Lisa while you're at it and say it's because the painting is not bright or colorful enough. That being said, I'll just agree to strongly disagree with you.


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 2:14pm
Now that you've mentioned it...yeah. I probably like more movies "post-1970" than pre. But I needn't be ashamed of that. Film, like most things and beings, evolves. It gets better with time. A lot of people look at modern cinema with negative eyes because it's easier to count the bad movies. Why do the Oscars still exist? Because each year we keep getting good movies.

Those who saw MIDNIGHT IN PARIS might understand better. It's like the realization that people today prefer to live in the '20s and the people from the '20s prefered to live in the 1800s. Today, if you ask someone's opinion on movies, they'd say something like "It's all CGI and 3D and adapted scripts. It was better when CITIZEN KANE was made!" Well, someone from the Golden Age might say "We've been getting so many movies about alien invasion and giant bugs". It was better when it was first created in the 1800s.
Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

Like it or not, when you give different scores to different movies, you're still comparing them. Not by genre or directly against each other, but with your personal taste, and that is what is being questioned, be it MWG or Roger Ebert. That's just the way it is.

Yet,you're only insulting him:

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

You might as well take a dump on the Mona Lisa while you're at it.

I don't remember anyone giving HeadRAZZ crap for liking FANTASTIC 4.  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: As I recall, I said my son (who was 9 at the time) had liked FANTASTIC 4, and I found it to be "mindless fun" ( http://www.razzies.com/forum/we-actually-enjoyed-it_topic21.html -
What we're discussing on this specific Forum is a movie that an over-whelming majority of film fans, critics and historians from around the world have called one of the all-time greats. And in the midst of this discussion, we have a teen-ager who says CITIZEN KANE didn't hold his interest (or keep him amused) as well as FINAL DESTINATION 5 3-D did.  How can anyone take a person seriously who expresses an opinion like that? I will defend to the death MWG's right to hold (and express here on this Forum) such opinions, but neither I, nor anyone else here, is obligated to agree that when someone says something that flat-out pudding-headed they shouldn't be called on it... 




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 2:26pm
1. Except that's not an opinion, it's a fact. Everything is now all CGI and 3-D, with unoriginal scripts from adapations, or sequels and remakes. You can't really disagree with people for having a strong opinion about something that is a fact.  
 
I'm not saying everyone should love all pre-1970 movies, but you do have to admit, since 2000, there have been very few gems for the Oscars to celebrate, and many of them are either independent movies or movies from outside of America.  
 
2. Did he give it an overgenerously high grade or score, while giving a classic movie masterpiece a low score for a superficial reason that was commonplace during the era it was made?  

Originally posted by Vits

1. Today,if you ask someone's opinion on movies,they'd say something like "It's all CGI and 3D and adapted scripts.It was better at the time CITIZEN KANE was made".
 
2. I don't remember anyone giving HeadRAZZ crap for liking FANTASTIC 4.




-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 3:01pm
Looking at the poll results so far,it's more proof that it's not the sin of the century if you don't love a classic. 

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

1. Except that's not an opinion, it's a fact. Everything is now all CGI and 3-D, with unoriginal scripts from adapations, or sequels and remakes. You can't really disagree with people for having a strong opinion about something that is a fact.
 
2. Did he give it an overgenerously high grade or score, while giving a classic movie masterpiece a low score for a superficial reason that was commonplace during the era it was made?

1)But not 100%. 

2)He didn't give it a grade that I recall.And anyway,he admitted by making this poll that he didn't love KANE without an exact reason*. And by your standard,those 2 things mean he doesn't know how to review movies.

Anyway,I support that film gets better with time.Anyone else?

*And I'm not asking for it. It's his opinion. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Geez, Vits, you're going way off the reservation here!  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...  




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 8:12pm
No, what I meant was both North by Northwest and Citizen Kane were both mighty damn fine achievements, not by calling it the greatest movie ever (besides, that spot was deserved for those large Smurfs, Avatar).

-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 10 2011 at 9:23pm
1. Okay, it's something like 80-90% true.  

2. HeadRazz didn't say he hated "Kane" either. I don't expect everyone to love "Kane", but at least respect it. This whole thread seems to be just a talking point really.
 
And you're wrong, these are my two standards if someone knows how to review movies: 

A) They have spent decades watching AND breaking down movies to understand them past the part of entertainment value (if HeadRazz created the Razzies, I'm pretty sure he knows how to do that). 

B) They should at least be a professional critic or working in the entertainment industry (you have that base covered with your magazine). MWG is neither of these things. He is simply someone who watches and rates movies online for his own amusement or hobby. With that in mind, there's really no reason for me to be upset about his score for "Kane" after all.  

Originally posted by Vits

1)But not 100%.
2)He didn't give it a grade that I recall.And anyway,he admitted by making this poll that he didn't love KANE without an exact reason*.And by your standar,those 2 things mean he doesn't know how to review movies.



-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 11 2011 at 10:38am
You are taking my ratings out of context. That is the entire point of my problem with you guys comparing them in the first place. If you cannot see that, then it's useless for me to say anything more. 

Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

No one is claiming you judged KANE and FD5 as though they were interchangeable. But regardless of how different the two films are, you can't claim you didn't rate FD5 as though it were superior (in God knows what way) to KANE -- You gave KANE only 5 out of 10 points (suggesting it's merely average) and you awarded 7 our of 10 to FD5. Even allowing for your obvious fondness for modern horror films, the two ratings placed side-by-side make you look foolish and shallow.  And I hardly think you're going to find a lot of support in this Forum for such an obviously ill-informed pair of opinions...


1. Just because it makes "no sense" to you doesn't mean it won't make any sense to another person. For example, I find it illogical that you can compare two vastly different films and manipulate my ratings on those two films by taking their ratings and taking them out of context. Like it or not, that's exactly what you're doing. And if you want to "make sense" of Ebert's opinions on Blue Velvet and Salt, just read his reviews, where they are in context.

This is what you're doing when you take two ratings out of context and comparing them together: 
"This is the best movie ever made." - moviewizguy, quote taken out of context.
"This is such a horrible remake, and the original film is the best movie ever made." - moviewizguy, original quote.

As you can see, sure, I can't deny that I rated FD5 more than Citizen Kane, but it's so illogical and presumptuous to do so. As for your last point, I don't see how him liking Citizen Kane has anything to do with comparing ratings from two different films.
2. Are you honestly saying that one has to "know an artform's history" in order to have credibility to give an opinion on it? That's incredibly stupid. And you mention the most obvious thing: Old movies were slower in their time. No $hit! One doesn't have to learn film history to see that, and I find it oddly amusing that you ignored my examples of old films that were fast paced and new films that are slow paced. They still make slow paced films. Do you cut off yourself off from independently made films? Do you only watch blockbusters? As for me mentioning the digital age, my point with that was to show how this current lifestyle (receiving information at such a short time) is influencing how films are made. A movie is not an Internet search, I agree, but a movie is influenced by how we live today.
3. Let me repeat: I'm indifferent toward the film and you loved it. I don't care if you think that me calling it boring is like taking a dump on the Mona Lisa. Even if I go into an in-depth reasoning of why the film doesn't work for me, it's still all based on personal tastes.

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

1. Like it or not, when you give different scores to different movies, you're still comparing them. Not by genre or directly against each other, but with your personal taste, and that is what is being questioned, be it MWG or Roger Ebert. That's just the way it is. I totally agree with people who mock Ebert for giving a crappy action movie a higher score than an Oscar calibur drama. It makes no sense why he would do that. Although, on a side note, it's amusing that you chose Ebert out of all the possible professional critics out there, since he has stated MANY times that "Kane" is his favorite movie of all-time and considers it a perfect masterpiece.
2. Again, like it or not, MTV is usually blamed for the ADHD editing we see these days, thanks to the fast paced music videos that the channel spawned. Yes, you have no control over WHEN you are born, but if you are going to give your opinions over an artform that is over a century old (and be taken seriously), you need to know your history, and at one time, movies were slowly paced. That is why the most respected film critics are old, they have spent decades watching movies to know what is good, and don't write them off because of superficial reasons. And frankly, I don't care if we are living in a digital age. A movie is not an Internet search. The motion picture is an artform, and as such, it takes time to get the right emotions, images, and information across to the viewer, and that simply can't be done within the time it takes to blink your eye.
3. Well, I'd rather see the in-depth reasons (even if it's just a "the good, the bad, and the ugly" review, like SchumacherH8ter does), because I find it a shame that you're short-changing one of the best movie ever made just for being "boring" when everything else about it is perfect. You might as well take a dump on the Mona Lisa while you're at it and say it's because the painting is not bright or colorful enough. That being said, I'll just agree to strongly disagree with you.


Do you ignore things that I say? Stated many times before, I did not give Citizen Kane solely on the reason that it is slow paced. As a whole, the film does not work for me. It felt mechanical to me. It wasn't emotional. Sure, it may have perfect mise-en-scene, directing, lighting, staging, editing, soundtrack, acting, etc, yet, in the end, it all felt very cold to me. The film is like a machine working to produce the best possible film, yet it forgot the emotion, the heart in the story. Sunset Blvd also has slow pacing, but I loved it not only because it was well made, but because the story was engaging. Citizen Kane's story didn't engage me and sometimes this complaint is enough to not like a film.


Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

2. Did he give it an overgenerously high grade or score, while giving a classic movie masterpiece a low score for a superficial reason that was commonplace during the era it was made?




-------------


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 11 2011 at 1:27pm
I accept that you don't care for "Kane" due to what you see as a lack of emotional depth (although that was probably Welles' intention, to also give the cold and empty feeling that Kane had on his deathbed). 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.
 
I suppose you think the likes of Roger Ebert or Peter Travers just showed up at the Chicago Tribute or Rolling Stone magazine one morning and asked for a job as a movie reviewer without any research about the subject of film appreciation or film history? No sir, they studied film as an artform for years to reach the level of professionalism that they have. 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.  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

2. Are you honestly saying that one has to "know an artform's history" in order to have credibility to give an opinion on it? That's incredibly stupid.


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 11 2011 at 1:35pm
HeadRAZZ: I know you never said you "hated" KANE, but SuperTeenTopia doesn't because according to him/her there are conversion charts for this. If you had said you'd place KANE in...I don't know,your Top 200,he/she at least would've demanded an explanation. Am I wrong for assuming that? If so, he/she is too by saying he/she expects me to not appreciate a classic after reading 2 comments on classics, and by talking that way about MWG. We all know he doesn't have very good taste, but that's because we've spent a lot of time here, which seems like he/she is saying someone isn't a real critic unless they've spend a lot of time researching film history.

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...
 

In this case,he's right.Not for his views on both movies.But the fact that he knows better than to compare 2 movies,specially when he saw them years apart.When I make lists for the best or worst movies of the year or all times...then I compare them because I find it necessary.But after watching movies my entire life,I'm not gonna start picking 2 random movies and compare them.

I've seen this before,so I'll better ask now:everytime I comment or review a movie here,is someone gonna ask me "So you think it's better than [a classic]?"?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 11 2011 at 1:44pm
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 know movies need to be entertaining or emotionally driven to a certain degree, but to judge them based on those two aspects above all other aspects of filmmaking is shameful and insulting to the craft as a whole. For example, "Plan 9 From Outer Space" makes me laugh every time I watch it, however, I would never give it a 4/5 or 9/10 based on that alone. Amusing as the movie is, it's still the worst thing ever put on film. Even Peter Travers (a Razzie member) bad mouthed "One Day" for being a tear jerker with nothing else to support it. Film is an artform and tool of expression first and a form of entertainment second, but we have sadly lost that mindset over the years.  

Originally posted by Vits

 We all know MWG doesn't have very good taste,but that's because we've spend a lot of time here,which is like he/she saying someone isn't a real critic unless they've spend a lot of time researching film history.


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 11 2011 at 2:51pm
If you'd read the whole sentence that you quoted, you'd notice I don't disagree with you. My problem is that you've been here less than a month, yet you already act like you know us. MWG has been here 3 years, and in that time he's gone from being a mere IMDB poster to a reviewer with bad taste...which is a progress (I guess). I've been here for a year-and-a-half and...well, I don't know what impression people have of me here, but I would listen to them only if I know they'd been here a reasonable enough amount of time to judge me -- unlike you, who after reading 2 of my comments, think you've figured me out.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date 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 - 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.


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date 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)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date 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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date 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


-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date 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)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date 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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date 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)


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date 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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date 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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date 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."


-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date 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 http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 12 2011 at 9:19am
If one wishes to understand the history of the U.S. in the early years of the 20th century, it is advisable to know about Hearst. He was arguably more powerful than several of the Presidents that served in that era, and his open advocacy of political assassination may well have been indirectly responsible for the assassination of President McKinley.

-------------
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


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 12 2011 at 9:23am

Exactly. SuperTeenTopia acts like just because Citizen Kane is perfectly made when it comes to technicality that it's one of the best films of all time. Any film can be well made yet the story may be lacking. On the other side, a film can have a low budget which makes the film appear shoddy, yet the way it executes its story may be the best thing ever.

Originally posted by Vits

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, asVheid pointed out, that's subjective. But if it has good entertainment factor and technical aspects,which is how it should be, you "liked" it.
 

Originally posted by Vits

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."


I do do a proper analysis. Does anyone actually read my reviews? I've heard no complaints from people who have read my reviews. In fact, some of them pointed out that I make great points in order to support my opinion. Ok. Let me post my review for Drive and tell me if that's written by a 5 year old. I'll not include my rating since people seem to be focusing only on that:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780504/">

DRIVE tells the story of Driver (yes, that is his name), played by the wonderful Ryan Gosling. He's a stuntman and a "driver-for-hire" (think THE TRANSPORTER), but above all, he's good at driving. No, he's the best at driving, or at least that's what we're told, but it doesn't take us long to believe that once the film opens with a car chase that is something that should be experienced. The sequence starts off quietly but builds up in nail-biting suspense with each second. If that wasn't enough, the fantastic soundtrack will suck you in. It's wonderfully shot and cleanly edited, nothing like you'd see in a Hollywood action film these days. And it's clear, DRIVE is nothing like a Hollywood film, defying conventions and deliberate in pace. I'd say it's something like an art-house action flick but on with the story.

Driver meets his beautiful neighbor, Irene, played by Carey Mulligan, whose husband is in jail. The two click instantly with a look. Since Driver isn't the talkative type, they don't speak to each other. In a scene when they get to know each other, they just stare into their eyes, one smiling to the other. It's an endearing scene where the actors' expressions seem more important and effective than dialogue. However, Irene's husband eventually does come home, and that's when bad things start to happen. I will not tell you what happens because you should really just watch it. Don't watch the trailer if you don't want anything to spoil you because it unfortunately gives a lot of plot points away. However, I will say it gets very violent and bloody.

DRIVE wants the audience get to know its characters before starting the action, and it's obvious that this is Ryan Gosling's film. Let me just say that I think Gosling is a terrific actor, from his roles in HALF NELSON to BLUE VALENTINE to LARS AND THE REAL GIRL. This guy can surely act, and this doesn't change with his first action role in DRIVE. Even though his character doesn't talk much, Gosling is able to command the camera with a single look. He brings a large presence throughout the film, only talking when he needs to. Carey Mulligan is also very good, and I should say that she is a terrific actress as well and at such a young age! The two definitely have great chemistry with each other.

Bryan Cranston is Bryan Cranston. What can I say? If you've seen BREAKING BAD, you know how good he is. He's just wonderful in here. The remaining major supporting actors do just as a great job in their roles as everyone else, including Albert Brooks, Oscar Isaac, and Ron Perlman. However, the one flaw in the cast is Christina Hendricks and that's just because she isn't in the film that much. I love her in MAD MEN, so I was quite disappointed when she wasn't going to be in the film longer.

With a tight direction by Nicolas Winding Refn, wonderful performances from a knock-out cast, and tense action scenes, DRIVE is quite something. Even though the story may feel familiar, the art-house style of the film makes it refreshing. I can guarantee that not everyone will like it, but it should be seen.




-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 12 2011 at 11:07am
A tip? You take the below from your review, and you've got yourself a proper review.  

Originally posted by moviewizguy

However, the one flaw in the cast is Christina Hendricks and that's just because she isn't in the film that much. I love her in MAD MEN, so I was quite disappointed when she wasn't going to be in the film longer.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 12 2011 at 11:52am
While we're on the subject of editing, directing, and such, here's a link on a deep analysis of a famous action sequence in The Dark Knight, which proves to be an editing fiasco, breaking the rules of continuity and the 180 degree axis:      

      http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/09/in_the_cut_part_i_shots_in_the.html - http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/09/in_the_cut_part_i_shots_in_the.html

Now we know why that scene was so confusing and disorienting to watch.


-------------


Posted By: SuperTeenTopia
Date Posted: September 12 2011 at 4:39pm
MWG, for the 4th or 5th time now, there are people who I am willing to talk to here, and there are people I am not willing to talk to. I wish to discuss movies with people who can tell what is a good movie and what is a bad movie based on their knowledge of the subject. People like SchumacherH8ter, who watches past and present Razzies movies, lists what is exactly good or bad about them, and grades them accordingly with Cs, Ds, and Fs. People like saturnwatcher, who understands my stance about classic movies and replied to me like a wise and mature MAN with worldly life experiences. And even Vits, who although I don't agree with most of his reviews of classic movies, he is at least a published critic. You, however, are a little boy who runs around playing critic because it's a fun activity that grown-ups do, as you hand out 6s and 7s to Razzie targeted movies like candy on Halloween, and then after you offended me with your ignorant comment about what is or is not required to judge a movie, you offered me a lame excuse for an apology that featured such comments as "Ebert said this, Roeper said that" and "if this were a classroom and I was 7 and you were 17" ... that is how a little boy replies to an adult's argument, rather than replying like a man as saturnwatcher did. The fact that you don't understand or respect even an ounce of my stance as a film critic and historian proves even more how you're a little boy playing grown-up among real grown-ups, even if you are a college student (it's called being a man-child).
 
Since you like the classroom as an example so much, I will use it as well so that you have a better understanding. I spoke as a college professor with a Masters or Ph D. in Film, discussing what I have learned over the many years of my studying ... only to be mocked by you, the young and immature student who is just out of high school and barely managed to get his GED, and yet didn't learn very much during his one course of Film History, telling me how everything I have learned or taught is wrong and any schmuck off the street can proclaim which movies are good or bad just as well as professional critics do. When I say people need to have a profound knowledge of film, both in its history and its art in order to be a creditable critic and judge of film, I meant it. You, on the hand, spat in my face and told me that ideal was "stupid". What I find stupid, is when a little boy comes to a forum full of older and more knowledgable men, and speaks down to them, and then has no idea why he and his opinions are not being respected when he gives undeserving grades to Razzie movies, which are suppose to be viewed as the worst of the worst. You have proven time and time again, that you have no taste or quality filter whatsoever, and are quite socially awkward when trying to understand why people are offended by what you say (probably due to a lack of real life social experiences outside of the classroom). I have no idea why you think a critic (professional or otherwise) should be taken seriously if he hands out the same high grades (or even higher grades) to Razzie movies as you do classic masterpieces. It screams of ignorance and poor taste, but again, you do not comprehend this, like a little boy.
 
And that is why I call you a little boy, because you spoke to me like a little boy, you use the logic of a little boy, and you make the agruments of a little boy trying to prove his theories true as if he's writing a book report. While you may be 20 or so years in age, you are still behave socially like a 12 year old among grown men. I am seeking a profession as a film historian, where as you are just a "kid who watches and reviews movies as a hobby", and you do a piss poor job at it as well. As such, you have NO RIGHT to tell me what is and is not required to be a good movie critic or judge. But I have probably wasted my time writing these paragraphs, as I'm sure you will glaze over all of them and will still continue to wonder why I don't respect you or accept your weak apology, yet again, like a little boy would. Good day to you.


-------------
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 12 2011 at 5:31pm
I really don't wanna be that guy, but SuperTeenTopia, you didn't say anything to HeadRAZZ for hating (not just not liking) AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS. Not to mention he didn't gave any reason at all. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I didn't give "any reason"?  I called the 1956 80 DAZE "a widescreen travelogue with big name movie stars constantly getting in the way" -- This is not giving "any reason at all"?? 

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

What I find stupid, is when a little boy comes to a forum full of older and more knowledgable men, and speaks down to them (...) You have proven time and time again, that you have no taste or quality filter whatsoever, and are quite socially awkward when trying to understand why people are offended by what you say.
 

What I find stupid is how you thinking that because you've entered the Inner Sanctum you're like us. You're not. Like you keep saying a lot of learning time is required to appreciate movies, you also needed to be on this forum for a certain amount of time to see the evolution MWG has gone through. You keep talking to us as if you know us like HeadRAZZ and the other regulars do. You think I'm wrong? Well, if you had spent real time here you'd know you don't get to decide who leaves and who stays here. I also find upsetting that you moan about him speaking down to others when he did it only to you, and when, in fact, you started it by doing it to both him and me. Also, as someone who has read his posts for a year and a half, he used to not get why his grades were different to the rest of the world,but now he does. 

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

I have no idea why you think a critic (professional or otherwise) should be taken seriously if he hands out the same high grades (or even higher grades) to Razzie movies as you do classic masterpieces. It screams of ignorance and poor taste, but again, you do not comprehend this, like a little boy.

I don't think anyone argues(not even MWG himself)that he has bad taste. However, since you seem to be the kind of person who thinks you've figured out our entire selves,I'd expect you to say that he treats classics the same as bad movies.He doesn't.Particularly this year,his opinions has become closer to the rest of the world.Does he still have bad taste?Well,he won't change the grades he gave before...not that he has to.

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

But I have probably wasted my time writing these paragraphs, as I'm sure you will glaze over all of them and will still continue to wonder why I don't respect you or accept your weak apology, yet again, like a little boy would. Good day to you.

Let's see: Personal insults? Check! Pretending the insulted party started with the personal insults? Check! Desperately trying to end the debate with no subtlety at all knowing the other party wants to continue? Check! All you need is bad spelling, and you could be labeled a troll.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 12 2011 at 5:57pm
Well, what's good and bad is all subjective. If you want the entire world to have one opinion on a certain film, like Citizen Kane, it would be boring. It's more fun to have people that have different opinions. You may find Citizen Kane to be good, but others may not. You may find The Village to be bad, but people, like myself, see it to be a modern classic that will be loved and appreciated in the future just like how The Shining was critically lampooned at the time of its release.

Originally posted by SuperTeenTopia

MWG, for the 4th or 5th time now, there are people who I am willing to talk to here, and there are people I am not willing to talk to. I wish to discuss movies with people who can tell what is a good movie and what is a bad movie based on their knowledge of the subject.
 

Well, actually, you conveniently brought up the fact that you were studying film history in the middle of the conversation. Also, I was simply giving my opinion that one should not have to learn film history to give their opinions on films.

You, however, are a little boy who runs around playing critic because it's a fun activity that grown-ups do, as you hand out 6s and 7s to Razzie targeted movies like candy on Halloween, and then after you offended me with your ignorant comment about what is or is not required to judge a movie, you offered me a lame excuse for an apology that featured such comments as "Ebert said this, Roeper said that" and "if this were a classroom and I was 7 and you were 17" ... that is how a little boy replies to an adult's argument, rather than replying like a man as saturnwatcher did. The fact that you don't understand or respect even an ounce of my stance as a film critic and historian proves even more how you're a little boy playing grown-up among real grown-ups, even if you are a college student (it's called being a man-child)


Any person can proclaim which movies are good and bad like professional critics. Even kids can claim if a movie is good or bad. The difference is how credible the people who's giving their opinions are. Also, I didn't say what you were learned and taught was wrong...I don't see why you have to make things up!  

Since you like the classroom as an example so much, I will use it as well so that you have a better understanding. I spoke as a college professor with a Masters or Ph D. in Film, discussing what I have learned over the many years of my studying ... only to be mocked by you, the young and immature student who is just out of high school and barely managed to get his GED, and yet didn't learn very much during his one course of Film History, telling me how everything I have learned or taught is wrong and any schmuck off the street can proclaim which movies are good or bad just as well as professional critics do.
 

Well, they aren't the worst of the worst. Only a handful of films will be considered the worse. Out of an entire century, films like Troll 2, The Room, Birdemic, Showgirls, Battlefield Earth, etc are remembered as being the worst. Everything else is forgotten. I don't think people would be putting films like Sucker Punch and Lady in the Water in that list in the coming future.

What I find stupid, is when a little boy comes to a forum full of older and more knowledgable men, and speaks down to them, and then has no idea why he and his opinions are not being respected when he gives undeserving grades to Razzie movies, which are suppose to be viewed as the worst of the worst.


 So SuperTeenTopia isn't implying that you're a teen?  

And that is why I call you a little boy, because you spoke to me like a little boy, you use the logic of a little boy, and you make the agruments of a little boy trying to prove his theories true as if he's writing a book report. While you may be 20 or so years in age, you are still behave socially like a 12 year old among grown men. I am seeking a profession as a film historian, where as you are just a "kid who watches and reviews movies as a hobby", and you do a piss poor job at it as well. As such, you have NO RIGHT to tell me what is and is not required to be a good movie critic or judge. But I have probably wasted my time writing these paragraphs, as I'm sure you will glaze over all of them and will still continue to wonder why I don't respect you or accept your weak apology, yet again, like a little boy would. Good day to you.




-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 13 2011 at 9:29am
According to his/her rules, apparently SuperTeenTopia thinks it's "no reason." But I'm not saying it's wrong.  

Originally posted by Head RAZZberry

I didn't give "any reason"?  I called the 1956 80 DAZE "a widescreen travelogue with big name movie stars constantly getting in the way" -- This is not giving "any reason at all"??


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 13 2011 at 9:39am
"What's good and bad is all subjective" ???  MWG, that's just not true. What an individual likes and dislikes is subjective. But in every art form, there are works that stand above others for a variety of reasons: The inherent talents of the artists, the ability of the work to evoke certain emotions in large numbers of people and other less tangible qualities. To suggest that all levels of individual appreciation are subjective is a huge cop-out. It provides everyone with the excuse to claim that if they like a particular work that is generally not considered very good, they can offer themselves the excuse that they are right and everyone else is wrong. To even suggest that all appreciation of art is purely subjective would imply that Mozart stands on the same level of artistic achievement as, say, Benny Goodman. The former has produced work that people have loved for centuries, and will probably still be appreciated 2 centuries from now. The latter was extremely popular 50 years ago, but how many people listen to him now?


-------------
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


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: September 13 2011 at 11:05am
I don't see how Citizen Kane is better than Gone With the Wind (1939), Casablanca (1942), West Side Story (1961), The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1964), or just about any pre-1970 all-time-classic super-film that's this well-remembered today.
 
But looking at my Retro Best of 197X, I can understand how most classics from the 1970's would stand out... barely.


-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: September 13 2011 at 2:13pm
Have Not Seen Citizen Kane myself so can not comment on the movie itself. However, one thing I know is that usually the Blu-Ray process tends to bring out a movie of that era it's faults, and clearer images of out-dated props tend to undermine the "fantasy" of the picture.
 
This happened to me when I brought the Blu-Ray of the "Wizard of OZ" last year. The Blu-Ray Process did the job but it showed very clearly the movies tremondous faults by todays standards.
 
As with when Ted Turner was trying to take his "Crayons" to all the black and white classics back in the 1980's, The Movie Companies are now doing similar with Blu-Ray Technology with "super-imposed" the original classics. 
 
Bottom Line, Like with Ted "Colorizing" our classics, there are some movies that should not be "Super-imposed" with the Blu-Ray process.
 
Not Related to the subject at hand but.....it looks like SuperTeenTopia has hit her fill of MovieWizGuy (Shocking to know one!Wacko) and that Saturnwacher and Vits have been elevated to the rank of Supreme subject matter overlords in the world of movie critism, Lets give them a handClap.


-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 13 2011 at 2:31pm
Oh,my! I don't know what to say -- It's all so sudden.I think I'm gonna cry! This has been my dream ever since I grew up in the South, and my momma told me "Don't worry, you is gonna be the strongest black woman in history!"

...hang on. Something's wrong about what I just said. What is it? Oh, right! That's my speech for when I win a Razzie after winning an Oscar! LOL    


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am unclear what it is you think you are "riffing" on here (GONE WITH THE WIND? Halle Berry??) but I do think you may need to give the above some context since, as it is, it appears to be coming out of the blue and could be perceived as being tinged with racial insensitivity...  






-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: September 13 2011 at 2:50pm
As you know, this could actually happened! Now if you can top off winning a Razzie AND a Oscar for the same calander year, or better yet the same day of the calendar year (will have to talk to John about moving Razzie Night back to the same day as the Oscars) it could just work.Approve
 
Thanks Vits for keeping it real!Cool
 
(By the way, Are you Really a Black Woman from Chile?Wink)


-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 13 2011 at 6:51pm
Yes, yes, Vits is "Really a Black Woman from Chile" -- And I have proof!


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 6:43pm
When it comes to “greatest movies of all time”, it’s really, really based upon the viewer’s personal tastes, as well as how the film reacted to the same viewer’s emotional appeal.

I first saw Citizen Kane around 1972 when I was a “pre-teenager” (now called a “tweener”). I didn’t see the flick on TV, but at a screening held on a college campus. A family friend suggested that I go along with her and a sibling on mine to see the film. I knew of Orson Wells as some fat guy who appeared quite a bit on The Tonight Show as well as many comedy/variety shows, usually playing some sort of genus turned buffoon, Many people at the screening were in their 20’s. (Grad students?) Anyway, I found the movie to be just another old 1940’s feature with the same creakiness and hokeyness as many of the other movies from this era I would see on TV. I didn’t see this flick again until five years ago on a pre-recorded VHS cassette when the flick was distributed from The Nostalgia Merchant in the early 80’s. This flick itself was amusing, told a good story, but I found it far from great and wouldn't be a movie I would want to see again right away, if at all!

Again, one’s “best movie(s) of all time” is based upon the viewer’s emotional appeal to the film, including in what environment the movie was first seen (in a theater full of people, from a tired looking 16 mm print airing on TV with too many commercial breaks, etc.), as well as how the film holds up over the test of one’s time. When I was less than ten years old, I found The Wizard of Oz to be the greatest film of all time. As I got older, the greatness started to fizzle out. When I saw The Godfather for the first time, it was when NBC first aired this flick in 1974--edited of course! When Frank Coppola introduced the film, he gave a slight disclaimer on how it portrayed Italians and one should not find it as offending. (“Not every person of Italian decent is connected to the mob” is what he was attempting to say!) I saw the same film many years later, and it was much better than I remembered!

My favorite film of all time? It all depends on my mood! One of my personal faves is a nearly forgotten British film called Summer Holiday, a 1963 release starring Cliff Richard. It has a silly plot, appealing musical numbers, an amusing cast, and that’s about it! It plays like a 1950’s MGM musical where everyone sings and dances out from nowhere and has a happy ending! It this movie the greatest? Hardly! But it still has a place in my “gotta see it again” movie pile!

As to blaming MTV for short attention spans? Go back a few more years linking it to another show: Sesame Street! Although it was one of the better show ever produced in the 1969-70 TV season, a number of “experts” noted that the show’s pacing was fast--perhaps a little to fast where kids could be exposed to such hyper activity that may affect them later in their developing lives! Then again, the only competition that Sesame Street faced for very young kids was Captain Kangaroo. That show was rather slow paced and the only energy it had is when it featured a Lariat Sam or Tom Terrific cartoon! Captain Kangaroo is long gone, but Sesame Street has been around since the time Citizen Kane was pushing 30 years!

-Bah!


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 7:51pm
Blaming Sesame Street for short attention spans is a bit unfair. Most toddlers don't have long attention spans to start with. The SS people managed to get them to focus on a show for an hour. Not a bad accomplishment, that.


-------------
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


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: September 14 2011 at 8:42pm
Here, Here!! Clown

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 15 2011 at 8:36am
I'm riffing on every cheesy awards speech. But is it really racist? I learn jokes from watching American shows and movies.

Originally posted by Vits

Oh,my! I don't know what to say -- It's all so sudden.I think I'm gonna cry! This has been my dream ever since I grew up in the South, and my momma told me "Don't worry, you is gonna be the strongest black woman in history!"

...hang on. Something's wrong about what I just said. What is it? Oh, right! That's my speech for when I win a Razzie after winning an Oscar! LOL    


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am unclear what it is you think you are "riffing" on here (GONE WITH THE WIND? Halle Berry??) but I do think you may need to give the above some context since, as it is, it appears to be coming out of the blue and could be perceived as being tinged with racial insensitivity...
 





-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Lord Naseby
Date Posted: September 15 2011 at 1:30pm
We dissected Citizen Kane in great detail in my film class. It is without a doubt one of the greatest films ever made and Orson Welles easily deserved the Oscar as Best Actor for one of the best performances I have ever seen. But since Hearst lobbied against it, it lost almost everything. Ironically, the fate that befell Kane in the film befell Welles himself off-screen. 

As for my personal #1 favorite film, the first two Godfather films take my top spot. I just can't decide between the two. Kane is a spectacular film, but the best ever made? No...but it's certainly near the very very top.


-------------
Lord Naseby read my reviews!

http://lordnasebyblog.blogspot.com/


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 16 2011 at 12:55pm
Good news everybody! It turns out the Le Moyne library does have a copy of Sunset Blvd... on DVD! It was just checked out everytime I went looking for it. It's currently sits on my counters alongside Cabaret, The Caine Mutiny, Chariots Of Fire*, Cimarron*, Coming Home, Dead Poets Society, The Defiant Ones, The Diary Of Anne Frank, and Double Indemnity!
 
*I choose these two because a lot of people dispute their Best Picture wins and I wonder if they'll be less than good, like Around The World In 80 Days and Crash, or "good, but not Best Picture good" like Forrest Gump and My Fair Lady.  


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 16 2011 at 2:20pm
Not only did I give CHARIOTS OF FIRE 3/10,it's the only classic where I don't get why someone else would like it.Meanwhile,I gave FORREST GUMP a 9 and CRASH a 10.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: September 16 2011 at 2:28pm
I'll give you "Chariots of FIre", other than the awsome theme song the rest of the movie had me doing battle with the SandmanSleepy!

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: Lord Naseby
Date Posted: September 16 2011 at 2:38pm
Well I don't think it was all that bad but did it deserve Best Picture? Not with On Golden Pond in the mix. 

-------------
Lord Naseby read my reviews!

http://lordnasebyblog.blogspot.com/


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 16 2011 at 3:17pm
Don't forget that Raiders Of The Lost Ark (my favorite movie) was up for Best Picture the same year as Chariots Of Fire.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: September 16 2011 at 3:21pm
On Golden Pond Should have picked up Best Picture that Year, I'm glad at least that Henry Fonda won for Best Actor.

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: Lord Naseby
Date Posted: September 16 2011 at 5:52pm
I totally agree. Hepburn and Fonda were pretty spectacular in their roles (as per usual)

-------------
Lord Naseby read my reviews!

http://lordnasebyblog.blogspot.com/


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 16 2011 at 9:08pm
Just finished Chariots Of Fire and it was boring. The only Best Picture contender that I've seen from 81' was, obviously, Raiders, but any of them would be better than this! Also, saw Caberat and The Caine Mutiny. They were both enjoyable movies, although I'm not sure about Joel Grey's Best Supporting Actor win. He didn't seem to do much in it. Robert Duvall from The Godfather would have been a better choice.* 
 
*A lot of people think that because James Caan and Al Pacino were nominated as well, they split the vote between the three, much like people think Judy Holliday's win for Born Yesterday over Anne Baxter and Bette Davis for All About Eve was due to this.** 

**I haven't seen Born Yesterday, so it could be a great, legitimate performance. I just know that a lot of people think this.   


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Since it is my #1 Favorite Movie of All Time, you will probably not be surprised to hear that I have always thought the Best Actress Oscar for 1950 should have gone not to Davis, Baxter or Holliday, but to Gloria Swanson for SUNSET BLVD. Given the sentimental overtones of finally awarding one of the original movie idols (and the Academy's tendency to always go for the sentimental choice) it's kind of surprising they didn't give it to Gloria. Then again, Academy voters often let their feelings about the overall film color their opinions about individual performances in them -- and most of Hollywood though writer/director Billy Wilder had viciously stabbed them in the back by even making SUNSET BLVD...  




-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Lord Naseby
Date Posted: September 17 2011 at 12:03am
You're probably right. Anyone from The Godfather was leaps and bounds ahead of Joel Grey. No contest really.  


RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Gotta disagree with you on Joel Grey's Oscar win for CABARET -- The M.C. character is the driving force of the film, and though most of what he did was "musical" rather than "dramatic," I consider his one of the great performances in all of movie musical history. It is also an interesting footnote to any discussion of CABARET that it holds the dubious distinction of being the film that won the most Oscars without winning Best Picture -- CABARET got 8 (including Best Director for Bob Fosse -  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068327/awards -



-------------
Lord Naseby read my reviews!

http://lordnasebyblog.blogspot.com/


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 17 2011 at 9:36am
I would have to side with HeadRazz on the Joel Grey debate. His onscreen time was not extensive, but he gave the film its atmosphere and power. The impact this movie had really sets it in a different class than the typical Hollywood musical.

-------------
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


Posted By: Lord Naseby
Date Posted: September 17 2011 at 11:14am
Oh I'm not saying he was bad by ay means. He was a great character to watch. And I know all about the Oscar history between the two films that year. But just because a film wins a lot of Oscars doesn't mean they deserve them *Cough cough* SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE *cough cough*. One could argue that any one of the actors nominated in The Godfather did a lot to drive the show. They had a lot of excellent character development and emotional depth. Were they overshadowed by Brando? well that's just an inevitability. You gotta agree that The Godfather deserved Best Picture though.


-------------
Lord Naseby read my reviews!

http://lordnasebyblog.blogspot.com/


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 17 2011 at 11:50am
I just thought of something: a lot of people think that Pacino over-acts in his movies because he won his Oscar for an over-the-top performance. If he won for The Godfather, would he still be giving quiet, quality performances?
 
Also, I just rented On Golden Pond from the Le Moyne library. I don't think I'll like it as much as Raiders, but I'm 1000% sure that it'll be better than Chariots Of Fire! (And that third zero was intentional!)


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Winter's Tale


Posted By: Lord Naseby
Date Posted: September 17 2011 at 2:11pm
For Pacino, that's the joke for sure. He lost for so many masterpiece roles to people who hadn't won before so 'it was their time.' Ironically he won for the same reason. 

-------------
Lord Naseby read my reviews!

http://lordnasebyblog.blogspot.com/


Posted By: Lord Naseby
Date Posted: September 17 2011 at 2:12pm
Also, On Golden Pond and Raiders of the Lost Ark are vastly different movies, so it would be hard to compare the two. 

-------------
Lord Naseby read my reviews!

http://lordnasebyblog.blogspot.com/


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: September 18 2011 at 2:31am
I found some time to visit the forum, school is busy but I am enjoying myself (I love art so many times more then film to be honoust)...

I have to admit that I didn't read the entire discussion (because it's seven pages long), but I wanted to throw in two arguments that I hope havn't been said yet... Mainly because I want to hear your thoughts on the subjects...

1. I've noticed that a lot of "BEST FILM EVER"-lists not only list Citizan Kane, Casablanca and The Godfather near the top... They also seem to exlude any non-American (or foreign language) film... Shouldn't a REAL best film also include films like La Strada, The Bicycle Thieves, Rashomon, Der Himmel Über Berlin, any Sergei Eisenstein-film and many others (a lot of which I probably never saw)? It's one of the reasons why I never trust those lists... I always had an idea that there is a cultural bias in favor of American films (not only in America)... Image if Citizen Kane was made in the Czechoslovakia instead of the States... Would people still put it in their top 10 or 100 if this were the case....

2. I believe that Hearst wasn't the only factor why the film did so badly at the box office... It was simply the right movie made in the wrong time period.... I heard somewere that Kane, while being succesfull in the big cities, attracted little visitors in the more rural areas.... and who can blame them... My grandfather (at age 90 now) was still living in poverty caused by the great depression around that time (of course it didn't help that Holland was recently invaded by Germany)
... and I asume that a lot of Americans also were slowly recovering from it... I might be wrong but I don't think these people would have wanted to see a movie about the rich and privileged around that time (no matter how good the movie was)..... Any disagreements?


Posted By: Lord Naseby
Date Posted: September 18 2011 at 7:24am
Well there are lists with films like that. The main list with Kane at the top is the American Film Institute list which deals only with American films. 

-------------
Lord Naseby read my reviews!

http://lordnasebyblog.blogspot.com/


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: September 18 2011 at 11:40am
I wouldn't disagree that The Godfather was deserving of Best Picture that year. In any one of many other years, Cabaret probably would have won. I've always thought that giving out a Best Picture every year might be a mistake. Perhaps the Oscars should only be held once every 5 years, and they could honor the 5 Best movies, performances etc etc for that time period. There are years when there truly are more than one really worthy movie followed by periods of 2 or 3 years where nothing is deserving. That is one good thing about the Razzies...we always have at least one truly deserving movie every year. LOL

-------------
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



Print Page | Close Window