yes. because a good movie is a movie you enjoy watching
while citizen kane is boring garbage

Yes… Personally, I never noticed/cared about any technical ****.
https://www.patreon.com/LoyalOpposition

This message has been deleted.

I'm not by any means a critic, or an art-house snob, but it seems to me that most movie goers simply aren't equipped with the proper tools to evaluate movies like this.
It's yet more evidence of the decline of civilization. Art from the past is far superior to art from the present. People today need to be spoon-fed. When a movie pays its audience some respect, and challenges it, if it's not panned by critics first, it's mocked by the idiotic public.
Check my block list because you're probably on it.

Oddly enough I did not think it was thaaat dated, but the incoherent portrayal of a male powerful narc left so much to be desired, she let the blonde go away too easily, almost as if he loved her, the most incoherent character I have seen, it seem like Orson Welles was playing the part of a woman.
There are examples of films that are dated and I find to be great, directors like Yasujiro Ozu, movies like
J'accuse!, M, it happened one night, among many many others. This film on the other hand lacked knowledge about the characters it was trying to portray, it tried too hard and fell flat, the film is offensive because it sucks. If you are gonna talk about something, it should be something you know about, and I dont mean that for you but to Welles, he made a pretty movie sure, but it sucks.

I'd say yes. It's not like it's a particularly hard movie to get. Since it has influenced so much, it works and feels very similarly to recent movies.
They won't be able to really assess its influence and innovation, but those things shouldn't be factors when it comes to how good a movie is.

i love what you wrote movies should induce a gut reaction not an academic one. bc if you went by the academic way of watching a movie so evaluating its quality as you watched it you wouldn't be able to enjoy it.
by the way when you watch a movie, just bc you understand a movie that is great and understand why its great doesn't mean you will like it.
also just bc you are used to a certain era of movies like '40s doesn't mean you will like this movie.
lukejbarnett

you captured something that i have been claiming is true for a long time. it is that great films and other great things are objectivly, provably great.
i know they are bc critics like ebert have their jobs, careers bc they went to film school or film studies appreciation school and got degrees in film study. then they use their artistic rules on what films are great to decide what films are great.
so they are authorities on films' worth. bc if they weren't authorities on films qualities then why do they have their position, prestige and why do people care so much about what film critics say when it comes to deciding on if they watch a movie?
the only thing that makes this objectvity hard to prove is that some critics disagree about how great a film is.
lukejbarnett

theoretically anyone could come up with it, and then would have to be able to make a strong enough case for it that everyone (and I mean everyone) could agree that a movie that fits it is better than a movie that doesn't fit it, even if it might not be more appealing to them
But agreeing on what the objective standards should be is just as subjective as anything else. Do you seriously think it would be possible to have everyone agree ? People are different, so any discussion on matters of aesthetics is inevitably going to have divergences of opinion.
Also, the big thing is, why would people want to agree that something is better if it's not more appealing ? I mean what would be the point ? Let's say people manage to agree that movies that use the color red are defined as "better" than movies that use blue. What do we gain from that ? Absolutely nothing. Everyone still will have their own preferences as to which movies they like, and this "better" label will just be an abstract construct which doesn't actually mean anything.
I mean, can anyone truly argue (and I don't mean if someone could do this rethorically, I mean if there's actually someone out there who would) that a 2 hour recording of a dot in the wall is a better movie than "The Conversation"?
Well, someone who hated The Conversation and/or is into experimental stuff could.
Also, it seems like you're unclear on the meaning of "subjective". The word means that the quality of the movie is relative to the person watching it. Even if everybody in the world agreed that a movie is good, that still wouldn't make it an objective fact, since at the end of the day it was a subjective reaction that people had in front of the movie.

Yeah, we all, consciously or most likely subconsciously, have a standard (or twelve) by which we judge movies. Some are more structured, some are more vague, and sometimes a movie comes along that you enjoy despite being completely against your standard, so you set a new one. I just mean that, if everyone can agree that "Terminator 2" is a better movie than the dot-on-the-wall film, then doesn't that mean it might be objective? And if it is, then doesn't that mean there just might be an objective standard, and we just haven't found it?

Umall of this is being done already. It's just that it's impossible to get absolutely everyone to agree on the finalized list.

Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen
=

[pretentious]
I have no idea. Since it's an "objective standard", theoretically anyone could come up with it, and then would have to be able to make a strong enough case for it that everyone (and I mean everyone) could agree that a movie that fits it is better than a movie that doesn't fit it, even if it might not be more appealing to them (this would be the first highly questionable idea here: that "better" is different from "more appealing"). It would also have to establish what is the most important thing in a movie: plot? Visuals? Themes, characters and character development, performances, influence or innovation? And then would have to establish in what order of priority these things are.
Sounds more and more ridiculous the more I go on, but the "it's all subjective" argument taken to its logical extremes just sounds more ridiculous to me. I mean, can anyone truly argue (and I don't mean if someone could do this rethorically, I mean if there's actually someone out there who
would
) that a 2 hour recording of a dot in the wall is a better movie than "The Conversation"?
One idea I've been thinking about would be to assess a movie first by how it develops its ideas, without assessing the value of the ideas themselves, and then contrasting it with your own preferences and biases. The first part would be a somewhat "objective" appreciation (because it is possible to argue about the logic and methods used to communicate and develop an idea) and the second one would fully embrace subjectivity.
[/pretentious]

There must be some sort of objective standard with which one could judge art, even if after a point subjectivity starts taking precedence.
And who is responsible for coming up with this "objective standard"?

Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen
=

Saying TMNT is better is not the same as saying it's more significant. The importance of a movie is objective to an extent. For example, it's a fact that a movie like Citizen Kane is important. But how good it is can only be subjective.
The point of art is to provoke a personal reaction in the viewer. If you don't get a reaction that makes you think a movie is good, then you are in no position to call it good, that would just be lying to yourself.
I want people to give their honest feelings on a movie, I don't want them in their reviews to just repeat things that supposedly make a classic good but that actually didn't work for them. They're writing a review to express their opinion, not that of others.
With all the objective rules we have theorized about the art of filmmaking, you will find movies that succesfully break them. That's because those rules are not actually objective, they are just devices that over the years have been proven to work well in general, but it's not an universal truth.

Yeah. I mean, TMNT isn't really my thing but if somebody else dug it, then I'm happy for them. Just don't expect me to like it, too!
That goes for pretty much anything.
I loved CK, but I don't expect everyone else to feel the same; I'm only interested in whether or not they can explain If they can't, that's cool too. It's only annoying when people expect you to agree with them, if they haven't given you anything to work with!
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

That's something I can agree with, that entertainment is completely subjective while evaluations of art should have a bit more "objectivity" to them. And of course, I don't mean that people must be forbidden from enjoying TMNT (I mean, I went to the theater to see it).

I didn't say anything about 'artistic significance'; I meant that it's just as valid to enjoy TMNT as to enjoy Citizen Kane Of course there are objective standards for judging art, but the average moviegoer isn't required to judge - simply to feel. One can judge for pleasure - and indeed, I do, because I love all of cinema - but most people who watch movies are only looking for a diversion, and there's nothing wrong with that
If somebody is claiming to 'evaluate', then they'd better be prepared to build an argument, but if all they're doing is watching, it's enough to say that they liked or didn't like it.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

The thing that always bugs me about the "it's all subjective" argument is that it means claims that, say, that awful TMNT movie or similar tripe are just as artistically significant as all the Bycicle Thieves, Tokyo Stories and Days of Wrath of the world; or that whatever Jason Derulo has done recently is as valid as Bach's Goldberg Variations, Bob Dylan's Blonde on Blonde or even Public Enemy's It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back, can be correct. I just can't bring myself to accept that, and I suspect even their fans won't claim they are as good, just that they were entertained more by them. There must be some sort of objective standard with which one could judge art, even if after a point subjectivity starts taking precedence.
On another note, Howlin' Wolf is awesome. The best blues performer I've ever heard, capable of elevating almost any song through sheer force of emotion.

There's no such thing as 'proper evaluation' - you either like it or you don't and if somebody doesn't, that's their opinion, and they're entitled to it. (I do like it)
Movies should induce a gut reaction, not an academic one. If you like it, and you can offer substantial reasons why, then great - but don't expect your explanations to make other people like it any better Affinity with film is a personal thing. The joy of art is that it means something different to every person, and I for one would certainly not want free expression to be clamped down upon. You can be 'informed' and still arrive at an opinion that's different from the prevailing one.
Stop being so elitist. If people don't like this, it doesn't necessarily make them morons, and if we do, it doesn't make us sophisticated.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

In my experience, the people closest to me refuse to watch Citizen Kane on the basis that the main character is an a$$hole. I think that's a sad and limiting way to approach movies. They're jumping on a bandwagon and judging this masterpiece far too quick. There is far more to appreciate in Citizen Kane than its characters and awesome screenplay. The craft alone is worth watching Citizen Kane for. But is that a reflection of peoples' intelligence or is that a reflection of the laziness in other, more modern films?? Since Blair Witch, filmmakers have been throwing out any heart and soul, any artistic merit for the cheapest thrills. As a result, I just think that modern audiences have lost a lot of respect and appreciation for film as an art. Why would you experience any piece of art - whether that's film, painting or music, and not simply enjoy how that piece of art makes you feel? It's a big part of the human experience - to feel.
Or they just don't care enough and all they do want are those cheap thrills.
Then again, sophistication in a movie may bore them because it goes over their heads.
Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin.

I disagree. I'm not the average film goer obviously, but if you have to go back to 1941 to appreciate it maybe it wasn't that good in the first place. I seriously doubt anyone, no matter how ignorant, would be bored by Double Indemnity for instance, or be bored by Carrie.

No, most modern movie goers certainly can not. (Not all ofcourse)
If you want proof of this, watch the recent video CinemaSins (a very, very popular youtube channel with a lot of modern movie goers as followers) made on youtube, where they made a video called Everything Wrong with Citizen Kane, and look at the thousands of comments calling this movie boring, pretentious and overrated. It is shocking
Favorite films of all time list
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls031708001

i refuse to accept that the avengers is a great movie nor considered to be by any serious critic , it may be fun it may be entertaining it may even be ok to good, but great no never and having said that you are just a pretensious wanker, writng like you have not so much in defence of the movie but in support of your own brilliance bravo little boy bravo

i refuse to accept that the avengers is a great movie nor considered to be by any serious critic , it may be fun it may be entertaining it may even be ok to good, but great no never