LordofDance wrote:It really depends on what your definition of "better" is. If you're basing it on the technical skill behind the movie, or if the subject matter is more profound, or some other sort of widely accepted objective criteria that = "better", that's one thing. If you're basing it on what you like to watch, that's another. I base my definition of "better" on what I like to watch the most and get the most positive feeling from. Because the latter is different for everone, there is no way to objectively evaluate it.
Of course, the two definitions can overlap. A person can like movies with great technical skill and get a positive feeling for that reason. I'm more of a style and mood person, and so that's what I look for, among other things.
Sorry man, but at the end of the day you rated Showgirls higher than Citizen Kane.
LordofDance wrote:It really depends on what your definition of "better" is. If you're basing it on the technical skill behind the movie, or if the subject matter is more profound, or some other sort of widely accepted objective criteria that = "better", that's one thing. If you're basing it on what you like to watch, that's another. I base my definition of "better" on what I like to watch the most and get the most positive feeling from. Because the latter is different for everone, there is no way to objectively evaluate it.
Of course, the two definitions can overlap. A person can like movies with great technical skill and get a positive feeling for that reason. I'm more of a style and mood person, and so that's what I look for, among other things.
Sorry man, but at the end of the day you rated Showgirls higher than Citizen Kane.
LordofDance wrote:It really depends on what your definition of "better" is. If you're basing it on the technical skill behind the movie, or if the subject matter is more profound, or some other sort of widely accepted objective criteria that = "better", that's one thing. If you're basing it on what you like to watch, that's another. I base my definition of "better" on what I like to watch the most and get the most positive feeling from. Because the latter is different for everone, there is no way to objectively evaluate it.
Of course, the two definitions can overlap. A person can like movies with great technical skill and get a positive feeling for that reason. I'm more of a style and mood person, and so that's what I look for, among other things.
Sorry man, but at the end of the day you rated Showgirls higher than Citizen Kane.
So? I have Plan 9 rated higher than The Searchers. There is no such thing as objectivity, especially in films. There might be certain merits that can be properly judged and compared against one another (set design, acting), but in the end the better film is the one that you liked more. Trying to rate movies differently just seems like posturing.
LordofDance wrote:It really depends on what your definition of "better" is. If you're basing it on the technical skill behind the movie, or if the subject matter is more profound, or some other sort of widely accepted objective criteria that = "better", that's one thing. If you're basing it on what you like to watch, that's another. I base my definition of "better" on what I like to watch the most and get the most positive feeling from. Because the latter is different for everone, there is no way to objectively evaluate it.
Of course, the two definitions can overlap. A person can like movies with great technical skill and get a positive feeling for that reason. I'm more of a style and mood person, and so that's what I look for, among other things.
Sorry man, but at the end of the day you rated Showgirls higher than Citizen Kane.
I couldn't agree more. Showgirls, lol. Just watch porn. It's more satisfying and the acting is actually better.
LordofDance wrote:It really depends on what your definition of "better" is. If you're basing it on the technical skill behind the movie, or if the subject matter is more profound, or some other sort of widely accepted objective criteria that = "better", that's one thing. If you're basing it on what you like to watch, that's another. I base my definition of "better" on what I like to watch the most and get the most positive feeling from. Because the latter is different for everone, there is no way to objectively evaluate it.
Of course, the two definitions can overlap. A person can like movies with great technical skill and get a positive feeling for that reason. I'm more of a style and mood person, and so that's what I look for, among other things.
Sorry man, but at the end of the day you rated Showgirls higher than Citizen Kane.
I couldn't agree more. Showgirls, lol. Just watch porn. It's more satisfying and the acting is actually better.
#1 I don't like bodily fluids flying around. I'm much more of a European-style softcore guy. #2 Showgirls is hilarious and endearing. #3 If we actually could rate Golden Age of Porn stuff on here, I would consider watching more. At least having the opportunity to post a rating would make me feel like I was doing something more productive than engaging in self-love.
kyle.loomis wrote:So? I have Plan 9 rated higher than The Searchers.
Doesn't count. 'The Searchers' suck.
As for me, I give ratings for the quality of the film technically and my appriciation of it, in comparison to how much I enjoyed it. I think that taking just one criterion wouldn't be fair towards other films. So yes, I enjoyed more Golan's 'Enter the Ninja' (I think I wrote a post about that one, didn't I?) than Welles' 'The Trial'; but even though I nearly fell asleep (or maybe I actually did) through it, 'The Trial' is a very striking film and superbly done, while 'Enter the Ninja' is just mind-fucking retarded insane ninja gore-porn from the money-thrived motherfucker who brought you, ehm... Many, many awful films. That's just an example so you can get an idea of how I categorize my films.
kyle.loomis wrote:So? I have Plan 9 rated higher than The Searchers.
Doesn't count. 'The Searchers' suck.
As for me, I give ratings for the quality of the film technically and my appriciation of it, in comparison to how much I enjoyed it. I think that taking just one criterion wouldn't be fair towards other films. So yes, I enjoyed more Golan's 'Enter the Ninja' (I think I wrote a post about that one, didn't I?) than Welles' 'The Trial'; but even though I nearly fell asleep (or maybe I actually did) through it, 'The Trial' is a very striking film and superbly done, while 'Enter the Ninja' is just mind-fucking retarded insane ninja gore-porn from the money-thrived motherfucker who brought you, ehm... Many, many awful films. That's just an example so you can get an idea of how I categorize my films.
It's technical achievements or how much I "appreciate it" and how much I enjoyed it are not comparable in my opinion; they are all one in the same.
edit - Perhaps I use the word enjoy too lightly, I use it to mean any satisfying experience. Obviously one doesn't "enjoy" watching Shoah or Night and Fog or what have you, but you know what I mean.
"Why do you always watch old stuff?" -As if quality was cumulative.
"They're depressing" -I like downers and find it hard to trust someone who hasn't gotten satisfaction out of downers at some point in their lives.
"It didn't make sense" -Something shouldn't have to make sense to be personally provocative. In fact, I'd expect it to be a detriment in terms of reaching the unconscious. I quite like the quasi-real; you know, when something has the semblance of reality in order to aid manipulation. Film is fantasy, levity. What is sense anyway?
Of course, kyle.loomis, that I meant the same when I applied the word 'enjoy'. I do not seek only entertainment in cinema; I am looking in a film for a satisfaction of any kind, whether it makes me think, laugh, or any emotional reaction. What I was saying is that certain films my leave me numb by the end and I might have not gained anything from them, but still I deeply admire them on a technical level. One example might be Fellini's '8 1/2', a 2-hours long cinematic masturbation that is just too impressive to ignore.
