"Why does every movie have to be a classic?"

[swbsam]

Interesting read:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/eber...7/i_am_a_brainiac.html

Another common line of attack was disturbing. It came from people who said I was out of touch with the tastes of the audience. That the movie's detractors (lumped together as "the critics") like only obscure movies that nobody else does--art films, documentaries, foreign films, indies, movies made 50 years ago--even, God forbid, "classics." One poster argued that "Transformers" was better than that boring old movie "Casablanca." I was informed I didn't "get" Michael Bay. I was too old, "of the wrong generation," or an elitist or a liberal--although not, I was relieved to find, a "liberal elitist." It seems to me "Transformers" also qualifies for conservative scorn. It is obliviously nonpartisan. Yet one commented said I hated the movie because it was an attack on President Obama. I was afraid to say I hadn't noticed that, because then I would be told I hadn't even seen the movie. It is possible to miss many of the plot points, strange in a movie with so few of them. Veiled in-jokes about politicians and famous people, popular in animation and mass market movies, come with the territory. I enjoy them. The apparent reference to Obama was no big deal, although a reader from Germany told me the actual name "Obama" was used in the German dub. That possibly didn't happen without Bay hearing about it.

It's true that many Americans have an active suspicion and dislike of the "educated." They ask, "what makes you an expert?" when they're really asking, "what gives you the right to disagree with me?" The term "college graduate" has become in some circles a negative. Hostility is especially focused on the "Eastern Elite," to the chagrin of we Midwestern Elitists. To describe someone as a "Harvard student" is to dismiss them as beneath consideration. You can often hear the words "so-called" in front of words like scientist, educator, philosopher. I don't believe this is intended to imply that the person involved is not a scientist, etc., but to suggest that no one calling himself such a thing is to be trusted--because he is no doubt many other undesirable things.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I haven't even seen Transformers and feel fairly confident in saying that there is no way it is better than Casablanca.

 

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I haven't even seen Transformers and feel fairly confident in saying that there is no way it is better than Casablanca.

I just find it interesting that a lot of people, even on ATOT, are using that argument to justify crappy movies. "Why does it have to be *good*, it was entertaining - that's all that matters!" What I don't get is that a movie can and should be both, yet our expectations continue to fall..

 

[Nik]

It wasn't entertaining to me at all. I tried to watch it twice and fell asleep twice. I still don't know how the first one ends and I'm not giving that retarded hack Michael Bay any more of my money by watching the 2nd film.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I haven't even seen Transformers and feel fairly confident in saying that there is no way it is better than Casablanca.

I just find it interesting that a lot of people, even on ATOT, are using that argument to justify crappy movies. "Why does it have to be *good*, it was entertaining - that's all that matters!" What I don't get is that a movie can and should be both, yet our expectations continue to fall..

:thumbsup:

I'm never entertained when it is painfully obvious that the director and producers expect me (the audience), to be nothing more than a mindless, twitching, ganglion.

Ebert has always been great, and extremely diverse and fair when it comes to reviews. Anyone who tries to label him as elitist has obviously never read his reviews.

 

[Ns1]

There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact

brilliant

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I haven't even seen Transformers and feel fairly confident in saying that there is no way it is better than Casablanca.

"Casablanca" entertains through story, acting, cinematography and directing. Haven't seen transformers but it looks like just another special effects vehicle, not much more. I hope high schools have film classes where kids can watch movies like "Casablanca", "high noon", "Flight oh the phoenix" and such. It's saddening to think that today's youth might consider "Harold and Kumar" as some form of art...

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I haven't even seen Transformers and feel fairly confident in saying that there is no way it is better than Casablanca.

I just find it interesting that a lot of people, even on ATOT, are using that argument to justify crappy movies. "Why does it have to be *good*, it was entertaining - that's all that matters!" What I don't get is that a movie can and should be both, yet our expectations continue to fall..

:thumbsup:

I'm never entertained when it is painfully obvious that the director and producers expect me (the audience), to be nothing more than a mindless, twitching, ganglion.

Ebert has always been great, and extremely diverse and fair when it comes to reviews. Anyone who tries to label him as elitist has obviously never read his reviews.

Definitely all of this and what swbsam posted.

2 thumbs way up! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

KT

 

[torpid]

This is like complaining that a restaurant reviewer doesn't like the food at a crappy truck stop.

 

[OCGuy]

It all depends. Sometimes a Grand Slam at Dennys @ 3am tastes as good as a filet from your favorite steakhouse *at that moment*


Sometimes a no-brainer movie like Hangover can be as entertaining as a classic like Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan.

 

[NGC_604]

Originally posted by: torpid
This is like complaining that a restaurant reviewer doesn't like the food at a crappy truck stop.

"It's Taco Bell, it's not supposed to be good!"

 

[Via]

I find Ebert to be an entertaining critic. His revies are always a good read.

That being said - he does seem to let personal feelings get in the way at times. His treatment of "Gladiator" was nothing short of childish.

"The Usual Suspects" got 1 star and "Blue Chips" got three stars. Does anything else need to be said?

Bad reviews of movies by certain directors also seem off limits. Ex. - He's afraid to criticize Spike Lee movies. Some of Lee's movies are good, but some (like Mo' better Blues) are boring pieces of shit.

 

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: OCguy
It all depends. Sometimes a Grand Slam at Dennys @ 3am tastes as good as a filet from your favorite steakhouse *at that moment*


Sometimes a no-brainer movie like Hangover can be as entertaining as a classic like Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan.

I think the problem is with action movies and CGI - action movies can be smart and still bombastic, without being stupid. Transformers (1, I haven't seen 2) was a screensaver - a cartoon, and didn't bother to even attempt to tell a story, while a movie like say Iron Man was entertaining, had great action, but also told a story. I wouldn't call Iron Man obscure, arty, or pretentious in any way, but it didn't leave me with a migraine.

 

[So]

I don't understand why people like Michael Bay. I can't think of a single movie that he's done that was good. I didn't see either Transformers, but for god sakes, it's a movie remake of a low budget TV show made to sell plastic toys to six year olds. There's just no way it's a good movie.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: OCguy
It all depends. Sometimes a Grand Slam at Dennys @ 3am tastes as good as a filet from your favorite steakhouse *at that moment*


Sometimes a no-brainer movie like Hangover can be as entertaining as a classic like Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan.

I think the problem is with action movies and CGI - action movies can be smart and still bombastic, without being stupid. Transformers (1, I haven't seen 2) was a screensaver - a cartoon, and didn't bother to even attempt to tell a story, while a movie like say Iron Man was entertaining, had great action, but also told a story. I wouldn't call Iron Man obscure, arty, or pretentious in any way, but it didn't leave me with a migraine.

Great comparison to Iron Man. I don't understand studios that spend $100m making a movie like Transformers and then not spending the time to write a fucking coherent screenplay.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: So
I don't understand why people like Michael Bay. I can't think of a single movie that he's done that was good. I didn't see either Transformers, but for god sakes, it's a movie remake of a low budget TV show made to sell plastic toys to six year olds. There's just no way it's a good movie.

Who the hell likes Michael Bay?

 

[A5]

Originally posted by: BUTCH1

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I haven't even seen Transformers and feel fairly confident in saying that there is no way it is better than Casablanca.

"Casablanca" entertains through story, acting, cinematography and directing. Haven't seen transformers but it looks like just another special effects vehicle, not much more. I hope high schools have film classes where kids can watch movies like "Casablanca", "high noon", "Flight oh the phoenix" and such. It's saddening to think that today's youth might consider "Harold and Kumar" as some form of art...

Most of our high schools fail at teaching kids math, science, and history...let's try to get that down before we add film studies.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: So
I don't understand why people like Michael Bay. I can't think of a single movie that he's done that was good. I didn't see either Transformers, but for god sakes, it's a movie remake of a low budget TV show made to sell plastic toys to six year olds. There's just no way it's a good movie.

I was going to agree with you, but according to imdb he directed Playboy Video Centerfold: Kerri Kendall ... his best work! He's been in an extended sophomore slump since then.

 

[oogabooga]

A bad movie is a bad movie. It doesn't necessarily mean it can't be entertaining - afterall for some movies their only goal is to get you to sit and watch for 2 hours and then be done with you. Obviously some movies (and it tends to be the better ones) strive for more and are better for it.

I know a lot of movies I like can be torn apart critically, and a lot of movies I don't like are critically solid. there is room for your personal taste and as such - who cares what Ebert thinks. If you watched and you liked it so be it.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: So
I don't understand why people like Michael Bay. I can't think of a single movie that he's done that was good. I didn't see either Transformers, but for god sakes, it's a movie remake of a low budget TV show made to sell plastic toys to six year olds. There's just no way it's a good movie.

Who the hell likes Michael Bay?

Someone does. He seem to be one of the most profitable directors and even here, there has been considerable buzz about his last two "summer blockbusters"

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: OCguy
It all depends. Sometimes a Grand Slam at Dennys @ 3am tastes as good as a filet from your favorite steakhouse *at that moment*


Sometimes a no-brainer movie like Hangover can be as entertaining as a classic like Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan.

I think the problem is with action movies and CGI - action movies can be smart and still bombastic, without being stupid. Transformers (1, I haven't seen 2) was a screensaver - a cartoon, and didn't bother to even attempt to tell a story, while a movie like say Iron Man was entertaining, had great action, but also told a story. I wouldn't call Iron Man obscure, arty, or pretentious in any way, but it didn't leave me with a migraine.

Exactly. i actually cared about Tony Stark. A good film will leave you invested in the characters, be it action, art, romantic, whatever. Without a story, you have no film. effects are simply a means, they are ancillary (George Lucas actually paraphrased this back in ~82. ...too bad he didn't stick to his own conviction )

I find it extremely difficult to ever care about any character in any M Bay flick, b/c they are only ever treated as wooden cut-outs; mere vehicles to lead to the next explosion, or over-done car chase. He induces not only headaches, but the worst of our culture, to be honest.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: A5

Originally posted by: BUTCH1

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I haven't even seen Transformers and feel fairly confident in saying that there is no way it is better than Casablanca.

"Casablanca" entertains through story, acting, cinematography and directing. Haven't seen transformers but it looks like just another special effects vehicle, not much more. I hope high schools have film classes where kids can watch movies like "Casablanca", "high noon", "Flight oh the phoenix" and such. It's saddening to think that today's youth might consider "Harold and Kumar" as some form of art...

Most of our high schools fail at teaching kids math, science, and history...let's try to get that down before we add film studies.

Apparently, there is no arts education in any CA public school. Not sure how long this has been going on (I only recently moved out here).

I'm thinking that if the crop of children in and around LA found themselves in the Industry a decade from now, things will only get worse, and worse.....and worse.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: So
I don't understand why people like Michael Bay. I can't think of a single movie that he's done that was good. I didn't see either Transformers, but for god sakes, it's a movie remake of a low budget TV show made to sell plastic toys to six year olds. There's just no way it's a good movie.

Who the hell likes Michael Bay?

Someone does. He seem to be one of the most profitable directors and even here, there has been considerable buzz about his last two "summer blockbusters"

I guess we have different definition of "like." Because no one likes his movies. Doesn't mean they won't make money.

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: A5

Originally posted by: BUTCH1

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I haven't even seen Transformers and feel fairly confident in saying that there is no way it is better than Casablanca.

"Casablanca" entertains through story, acting, cinematography and directing. Haven't seen transformers but it looks like just another special effects vehicle, not much more. I hope high schools have film classes where kids can watch movies like "Casablanca", "high noon", "Flight oh the phoenix" and such. It's saddening to think that today's youth might consider "Harold and Kumar" as some form of art...

Most of our high schools fail at teaching kids math, science, and history...let's try to get that down before we add film studies.

LOL, well I wasn't suggesting bumping math for film study but a little cultural enrichment couldn't hurt...

 

[So]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: So
I don't understand why people like Michael Bay. I can't think of a single movie that he's done that was good. I didn't see either Transformers, but for god sakes, it's a movie remake of a low budget TV show made to sell plastic toys to six year olds. There's just no way it's a good movie.

Who the hell likes Michael Bay?

Someone does. He seem to be one of the most profitable directors and even here, there has been considerable buzz about his last two "summer blockbusters"

I guess we have different definition of "like." Because no one likes his movies. Doesn't mean they won't make money.

If you go and pay money to see all of the man's movies, you like them. He can only fool you so many times before we dub you a fan.