8.2 ?
-
combatreview — 14 years ago(September 30, 2011 10:22 AM)
so you're saying that i didn't pay attention and didn't try to understand the movie?
No, that would be a rather blunt thing to say and likely to be inaccurate. My point was that, by my standard and reckoning, your dissatisfaction of the narrative of this film suggests to me that you are not acclimated to narratives of this kind - that you lack the ingrained engagement with it that other viewers don't lack.
i regard them as gaps because they skipped trough events.
Okay, but look: I saw the same 'gaps' you did and had absolutely no problem with them whatever. It didn't so much as cause to me to furrow my brow.
Now, do you think this is because I'm stupid and don't understand the film's defects as well as you? You don't strike me as the arrogant type - and I certainly don't think it's because you're stupid and understand the film less well than I do.
But there is a difference - and quite a big one. Nor am I remotely alone in not having the problems with the film you do - there are legions of people with my experience of the film rather than yours.
You assert that the film is deficient because you didn't follow it in certain parts. Being objective, do you HONESTLY think that you're right and everybody else is wrong? Is it not more likely that you've just not fully engaged with the text before you?
as for using my imagination. it's always active when watching movies. i did partly understand or figured things out in the movie. but it was because of inadequate storytelling i was unable to figure out the rest.
I figured it all out, without having to ask anybody or think very hard.
Assuming I'm not lying (and I'm not), you need to ask yourself why I had no problem and you did. You blame the film - but I saw the same film you did.
Stories are not all told in the same way, and the criticisms you make of this film are invalid simply because the wider world of storytelling doesn't blink at the device of a disjointed narrative. I'd say it's more than likely that you've simply never been exposed to enough of this stuff to learn to take it in comfortably and easily - and that wouldn't be surprising, mainstream film is almost never like this though there's nothing especially unique about this film in the devices that you're having problems with. -
Marco8891 — 14 years ago(September 30, 2011 12:43 PM)
you're probably right about me not being used to this kind of narrative. but i never had a problem with the narrative of a movie ever before.
also i am convinced that this movie gets a high rating mostly because of its graphical content, the unsettling up close picture of war atrocities
i have seen numerous users that gave it a high a rating just because of this cruel unsettling portrayal.
i gave it a low rating because of the grade of confusion that resulted from not being used to/liking the narrative but i don't think most of the people give it a high rating because they grasped the narrative and everything was sky-clear to them but because of what i said above.
i don't see there's any way to fully grasp what's going on the entire time when there's inadequate storytelling without having a certain extent of preliminary knowledge on the theme. -
combatreview — 14 years ago(October 01, 2011 06:41 AM)
you're probably right about me not being used to this kind of narrative. but i never had a problem with the narrative of a movie ever before.
There's a first time for everything, clearly - and bear in mind, your saying this does give the impression that you are asserting that you are incapable of having comprehension difficulties with any film, and that any film you cannot immediately comprehend must by definition be deficient. This is an interesting positon but difficult to seriously argue.
also i am convinced that this movie gets a high rating mostly because of its graphical content, the unsettling up close picture of war atrocities
To be fair to these people I think you should recognise that while you may get this impression you presumably have no logical or concrete basis for being 'convinced' of this. It's extremely easy to be convinced that other people disagree with you because they have base or sadistic tastes, but it's also extremely dubious and ought to be worth further consideration precisely because its too easy a conclusion.
Now, certainly there ARE people in this world who solely pursue graphic content in films - check out the board of Human Centipede 2 for further details - but these people would not find very much to entertain their base tastes in Idi i Smotri, for one very simple reason:
It isn't graphic at all.
How many rapes occur on screen? None. How many people do you see burning to death on screen? None. How many peasants do you see shot to death on screen? I can't recall many, it's going to be pretty close to none. Sure, many deaths occur, but there is a startling lack of graphic depictions of the violence - most of it happens in aftermath until late in the film.
Like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, this is an incredibly violent story that feels graphic, because it is a tonal success - but there is in fact very little explicit on-screen gore or physical horror. The horror, of which there is plenty, is psychologically driven, and is not cheaply achieved. Famously the UK censor had difficulty censoring Texas Chainsaw because they simply couldn't find any graphic images to cut from it. Idi i Smotri is like that.
i have seen numerous users that gave it a high a rating just because of this cruel unsettling portrayal.
Did they actually say that? Or did they perhaps say that they rated it because of its verisimilitude or accuracy about the horror of war?
i gave it a low rating because of the grade of confusion that resulted from not being used to/liking the narrative but i don't think most of the people give it a high rating because they grasped the narrative and everything was sky-clear to them but because of what i said above.
What is the basis for your thinking that? Is it because you've asked around and most people agreed? Or is it that you have difficulty believing other people could experience this film differently to yourself?
i don't see there's any way to fully grasp what's going on the entire time when there's inadequate storytelling without having a certain extent of preliminary knowledge on the theme.
I managed it - and I am by no means a genius. I see literaly NO inadequate storytelling in this film, and I scratch at my head at your insistence on blaming the film for your failure to understand what everybody else had no difficulty following - even to the extent of insisting that the fact that other viewers had no difficulty with it proves they understood it less than you, as if the only valid response to this film is not to be able to follow it! 'Right' may still be 'right' even in a minority of one, but the same is just as true - and much more likely to be true - of 'wrong'.
You must surely see that the most inadequate thing under discussion on this thread is your criticism itself since it's built on assumptions and groundless assertions that you are, I don't doubt, not in a position to substantiate? -
Marco8891 — 14 years ago(October 01, 2011 12:49 PM)
i am not insinuating that i am incapable of not comprehending. i am saying i never had the problems i had with this movie.
you're saying i regarded the movie as bad because i didn't understand it at times. that's not correct. i regard the movie as bad because it didn't have a good narrative and wasn't adequate enough which you say is just another unique way of writing which i think is exaggerated. its different yes but i don't think it's that different that it can be regarded as completely unique compared to other movies i've seen so far. it mainly lacked story detail for me.
i don't understand why you say that there's isn't anyone experiencing the same difficulties as i do. if you read the negative reviews of this movie on this board you probably find someone that does. it's highly unlikely that i am the only one. that's a better assumption than the one you made.
as for me assuming that it gets a high rating mostly due to the atrocities displayed. you can think of it of being blunt but it's actually a fair assumption considering the amount of praising reviews that only deal with those atrocities and don't go or hardly go into detail on anything else. i can't think of any reason then but that those atrocities were the reason for giving it such a high rating. i also saw users giving it high ratings although they found the first hour to be extremely dull.
i am not saying everyone should observe the way i do. everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. they can only partly understand the movie like i do and still give it a decent rating. i know i wont give it a high rating because of the reasons i already have given 10 times i think. (this will probably be my last post here since i am not getting to anyone anyway)
also my criticism has not been built on assumptions. only the last post contained some assumptions that are fairly conceivable and well perhaps only a little grounded.
and even if they were inadequate it wouldn't have made this movie any less. -
combatreview — 14 years ago(October 02, 2011 01:40 AM)
i am not insinuating that i am incapable of not comprehending. i am saying i never had the problems i had with this movie.
Of course you're not insinuating that - we are unlikely to insinuate something that makes us look foolish, no? Insinuations are generally in our favour.
But - you really need to look at the implications left hanging by your posts on this thread.
you're saying i regarded the movie as bad because i didn't understand it at times. that's not correct.
No, I'm saying that is the sum of what you keep saying.
i regard the movie as bad because it didn't have a good narrative
What are you talking about? How do you know it doesn't have a good narrative? Because it didn't make sense to you, surely.
and wasn't adequate enough
How? In what way? The only basis for this criticism that you have thus far made is that you didn't find the narrative coherent - and since you are pretty much alone in this, it does point to a fairly simple conclusion, that the problems you are finding are subjective not objective.
which you say is just another unique way of writing
Of storytelling. Which it is. And by saying that I mean that this film is PERFECTLY ORDINARY AND CONTAINS ABSOLUTELY NO GRIEVIOUS OMMISSIONS. Which is why I sat and watched it and never had a single question - everything was answered for me by watching the film. I certainly never had any of the basic questions that you put forward in your initial post. I've tried to be nice about this, but your original post is basically just a declaration of your lack of comprehension, not of the film's incomprehensibility. I'll review it in a moment to point this out.
its different yes but i don't think it's that different that it can be regarded as completely unique compared to other movies i've seen so far.
Okay. 'movies i've seen so far'. Are you particularly versed in cinema? What would you say was the most obscure and arty film you've ever seen? I know somebody who flippantly observes that the world is full of people who claim to be cinephiles, but you can't really claim to love or know about film unless you've seen at least one film about a mongolian goatherd (I've not seen any, incidentally). The point he's making is that it's very easy to say 'I've watched a lot of movies', but that means nothing if you've never watched any good movies in your life. Reading a million airport bestsellers doesn't entitle a person to claim that the work of Dostoevsky make no sense simply because it doesn't conform to the poor standards to which they're acclimated.
My point being: are you REALLY that well-versed in cinema? I am actually staggered that you have difficulties with this film, because it really ISN'T that hard to understand. Your response to this is to criticise the film and by implication people like me who found no difficulty with it - and I can't help but find that insulting, because by implication you're cleverer than me and everybody else. I know this is not your intention, but if you stick to the idea that you're right and this film is bad, then people like me are wrong and therefore unintelligent. You really need to consider the implications of your contention - because I promise you, while I'm no genius, I'm certainly no fool either.
it mainly lacked story detail for me.
Do you not see what a death-sentence this is for your entire argument?
There is an entire universe of narrative, of which you are apparently unaware, where this sort of thing is not only standard, but at the simple end of things.
You know, there are people in this world who complain that a film like 'Highlander' makes no sense or is confusing, simply because they're not good with flashbacks. How sympathetic would you be to an opinion like that? Wouldn't it be obvious to you that a viewer was criticising the film because they didn't get it? If so, why do you discount the possibility that you might be just as fallible as everybody else, given that you are standing quite alone in your critique of this film.
i don't understand why you say that there's isn't anyone experiencing the same difficulties as i do. if you read the negative reviews of this movie on this board you probably find someone that does.
PROBABLY!
Find them, quote them to me. Now, there may indeed be somebody as you say - but you can't just say they're PROBABLY there if you want to be taken seriously, you have to show me they're there. Go on, have a look. If you can refer me to them, then your point is sustained - if you can't, your point is empty. At present you're just saying things without substantiating them, and that has no value whatever.
it's highly unlikely that i am the only one. that's a better assumption than the one you made.
That would actually be true - except I didn't make that 'assumption'. I was talking about the message board, which I've followed for about five years. Plenty of people have similar questions to yours - but I've only ever seen YOU decid -
fatpie42 — 11 years ago(June 30, 2014 12:53 PM)
I didn't feel this film contained any narrative gaps for an audience that were paying attention
How about realistic characters? I couldn't relate to anybody after he is picked up by the partisans. The female character is a pixie dream girl. -
Razzbar — 11 years ago(June 23, 2014 05:08 PM)
If you didn't like it, nobody can argue with it. You know what you like and don't like. However, your liking the movie has nothing to do with other people liking it.
The fact that you didn't understand the significance of the "Hitler doll" indicates that you have very little understanding or empathy with the people in the movie.
The confusion was intentional. That's what war is like! I thought it was brilliant how all the chaos was depicted, and the way the village was being raped by the Nazis, and then somehow, at some point, it falls into partisan hands.
There WAS a story.
I didn't like everything about it. The beginning was sluggish and some of the acting was forced. But the last 10 minutes (20 minutes? Hour?) was just mind blowing to me, with the chaos and insanity getting more and more intense until
And that photograph of the woman holding the baby Oh, my God. FYI, that was Hitler and his mother in that photograph. I still don't know what that's supposed to mean, but in a lot of art, "what does it mean" is entirely up to the viewer, and included possibly to help the writer himself try and understand. -
Elder_Yautija — 14 years ago(November 12, 2011 03:34 PM)
Sorry, I didn't know that a movie isn't allowed to be confusing otherwise it's a bad one. Also, if you got confused, then you should stick to Hollywood productions. "2001 - A Space Odyssey", now THAT'S CONFUSING. Wanna tell me it's a bad movie too? I heard there's a new Harry Potter movie coming out, I suggest you watch that and drop the russians.
-
cozzix — 12 years ago(June 16, 2013 09:14 PM)
I think an 8.2 is a little absurd as well, but mainly due to the directing. though the reason why they never show the germans being captured is fairly obvious, because the story is revolving around the events of one boy; there's no second character they follow. If the boy wasn't there to see it, they can't show it, or else it will break the direction of how the film is suppose to progress.
Also, the dude never said you can only appreciate Hollywood movies, he just said the way movies are made in Russia go on a completely different level than the mainstream we are usually exposed to. How you came to that conclusion is on you -
fatpie42 — 11 years ago(June 30, 2014 12:52 PM)
The movie already has a story. It's just not very well told.
It's like saying "why does a car need wheels". Chances are that if the car is moving, it probably already has wheels. If it's moving erratically that's most likely because it has poor wheels or poor tyres, rather than because it's moving in a unique artistic way. -
krisdas1 — 13 years ago(January 08, 2013 11:01 AM)
Most stupidest WW2 movie i have ever seen. i give it a 2. Russia has lost more men than any other country and have won most imp battles in the ww2 and yet they depict themselves in a amateurish way in this movie.
Very poor performances by the lead characters.. -
caaalebbb — 14 years ago(January 07, 2012 08:28 AM)
The chaotic, disjointed, and nonsensical chain of events is far more representative to the realism of the way a young boy (and even people in general) experience war. A boy's plunge into the horrors of war makes no sense, is chaotic, cruel, confusing, and so on, and that should translate onto any great work of realism trying to portray that. To derive an organized and simple-to-understand, and to adapt a traditional format of a plot would be dishonest to the film's overwhelming sense of realism.