I disagree, i think 7.0 or 6.9 Is the perfect way to summarize this movie It's a great thriller but it just doesn't have
-
zombieeducation — 13 years ago(November 16, 2012 10:04 PM)
I feel the rating depends on the attitude of the audience in this case was the movie's wit a 7/10? For me, not really. The movie was, in fact, kind of silly at times. On an enjoyment level, I personally gave it a 6/10. I found it good, not great, the acting was entertaining enough, it had a goofy charm to it, but was a tad predictable and formulaic never really had any powerful emotional hook for me, which is not necessarily a bad thing, it just keeps it from being 'great', which few movies truly are (objectively speaking).
I remember reading somewhere on this board a discussion of how only about four films got a 9/10 (not sure the accuracy of this statement but let's assume it true), and how this must mean that the ratings are extremely picky. I'd say sounds about right people are VERY discerning when it comes to films, and I think it takes an EXTREME amount of quality to truly deserve a 9/10 I'd also flat-out say that a 10/10 is actually an impossibility on these boards, because the simple truth is, no movie is flawless no matter how highly regarded it is, and subjective tastes are rarely EVER universal well-known literary figures can be found calling Shakespeare a hack, and I'd hardly call Disturbia on a level-playing field with the bard in terms of the film's storytelling ability.
Of course, it's also easier to forgive a lack of depth (which I felt this film had) in film-form. Books that lack that emotional punch I referred to earlier can be brutal and boring if they don't have some other charm, and in all honesty, I don't think I'd enjoy the Disturbia paperback if that were to exist.
As a film? Yeah I can see 7/10 as much as I wouldn't vote it that high. It WAS entertaining and all the actors do have a charm of their own enough for me to believe people liked it that much.
And 7/10 doesn't place it in the eyes of the audience as a masterpiece, so even though I'd disagree, I wouldn't be that shocked by audiences grading it thus.
What I AM shocked by is that anyone would say this film was BETTER than Rear Window. More silly? Definitely. And that silliness was a big charm to the film. But Rear Window earned the respect film-fans have of it I'm sorry, but I don't see how this film deserves the same reverence, at least in terms of technique and form. To each his own, great if anyone sincerely had more fun watching Disturbia as opposed to Rear Window, but I do think it's pretty hard to deny that it wasn't heavily influenced by it, and I think the film ITSELF had a severe respect for its inspiration does that mean that something spawned by inspiration cannot be greater than what inspired it? No it can happen. But I don't think they were really even trying for the same tone like I said, this film's charm is its silliness, in the fact that it isn't terribly sophisticated and somewhat formulaic which in this case, isn't really a bad thing, because it made for a story that didn't aspire to greatness, and was just content to entertain, and to me, it did that.
So I guess it depends on whether you feel technique, form, and serious intent can be marked as "better" or "worse" than something that is (albeit entertaining) 'by the numbers' I guess my point is, if something hits the mark and is sincerely entertaining, can it really be compared to something that was a much more disciplined piece, and is that comparison really even fair? It's a bit like comparing America's Funniest Home Videos with, just a random example, a BBC documentary they both obviously have very different goals, and I guess my point with bringing up AFHV is that nobody can fault AFHV for being lighthearted, silly, and without depth I am not using these as insults, as much as they might sound like it. AFHV (and Disturbia) are both, in my mind, extremely high in entertainment factor but low in depth but in neither do I see this lack of depth as a BAD thing AT ALL.
So hmm that actually makes me think not sure I really have the answer, and may have convinced myself that there IS in fact an argument that Disturbia is the "better" film than Rear Window because of its ability to entertain even if it might not have the depth of its inspiration
yeah I don't know what to think on that, now that I've looked at the arguments I hate to simply say that it's subjective hate copping out and I believe there are objective arguments to support even subjective tastes but I just don't know what else to think! -
wyespam-1 — 13 years ago(January 13, 2013 01:54 AM)
4/10
Cheap predictable annoyingly retarded horror.
You know, one of those movies that you constantly get annoyed about how unrealistically stupid every character of the movies acts, with "teen" actors aged 30-40.
The only one who is possible "teen" in this movie is the writer.
Skip this movie. -
Jerique — 12 years ago(April 16, 2013 05:09 AM)
Who are you? You are the end-all, be-all of movie ratings?
You tell me this is worth a 5? You got one post to read. You don't have any credibility. Until you tell us why it's worth a five, and what movies are worth higher with an explanation, no, I don't take you seriously.
"Your punishment must be more severe."
Bane
(TDKR) -
roock98 — 12 years ago(August 11, 2013 05:55 PM)
The world is a joke!
http://expectaculos.net