this is a spinoff from a reply in the Most Disappointing Movies thread.

Me? I reserve judgement on good/bad until I think I understand it better, I think it's foolish to say something is bad or good if you didn't get it. You can say you enjoyed it or didn't, but until you get it you have no idea whether it's actually good or bad.

I remember Bartek making a thread once about 2001 being a terrible movie after watching it once, completely unwilling to give the film the benefit of the doubt considering he really didn't understand what the movie was about on even a basic level.

there've been times when I didn't *get* something, but can see the beauty of it.

For Example, I'm one of the few people who thought "American Beauty" got a free pass ( especially the plastic bag scene), but I still think it was a pretty decent movie.


other examples:

"Vanilla Sky"
"Blade Runner" ( awesome film, but everytime I watch it, I pick up on something else, I never noticed...)

I don't like that idea.

It's pretty much the same thing you heard in the schoolyard in 3rd grade.

"I don't like Thundercats"
"Yeah?!?!?! Well you're a big stupid Doody-head!!!"


C'mon man. How can anybody say what somebody else doesn't *get*?

And bottom line, if people like something even for the WORST reason ( i.e "Halle Berry finally showed her Tits" ), that's easier to accept than somebody disliking it for a GOOD reason ( it was poorly written and had no character development)?




In that "dissapointing movies" post, I REALLY don't see why that kid couldn't accept the fact that I didn't like a movie ( REGARDLESS of my reasons...).


Just because you like something that you perceive to be highbrow, it doesn't make people who DON'T like it less intelligent than you. If ANYTHING, it says a lot about YOU (especially if you watch shit a hundred times just so you'll *get* it...).

I really don't understand you.
Your opinions are all over the place.
You don't want to have a legitimate discussion about something but feel fine dismissing it with no backing
No, I don't really give 2 fucks what you like. That's a cop out because this is a film forum and you posted publicly your opinion for other people who want to discuss film to see/reply to
you're referring to me and saying all this shit here
yet have completely ignored replying to me and the other cat who asked for some substance from you in terms of real reasons you shitted on it in the other post
It's just a wonder to me that that film could "suck" to any adult who knows film (especially one familiar with Kubrick)
there are crazy messages in that film, a bunch of shit I guarantee isn't apparent from one viewing
that's not me forcing myself to like it. Because that's fucking stupid. Some things could never be completely analyzed only seeing them once. That goes for art in general, not just film
if you don't like it you don't like it. Whoopie
but if you can't say why or describe the film other than "it's boring" or "sucks"
one can only assume you didn't grasp it or look for meaning
That films plot/story wasn't spoonfed, it took some personal thought on the viewers end
it would be perfectly fine to just say "I didn't like it" or "not my thing" and give some real insight into the film
but to just say "it sucked" and bounce out of the discussion makes you look like a fool
I'll just scroll past your posts then, ok?
>
>It's pretty much the same thing you heard in the schoolyard in
>3rd grade.
>
>"I don't like Thundercats"
>"Yeah?!?!?! Well you're a big stupid Doody-head!!!"
>
>
>C'mon man. How can anybody say what somebody else doesn't
>*get*?
>
>And bottom line, if people like something even for the WORST
>reason ( i.e "Halle Berry finally showed her Tits" ), that's
>easier to accept than somebody disliking it for a GOOD reason
>( it was poorly written and had no character development)?
>
>
>
>

>In that "dissapointing movies" post, I REALLY don't see why
>that kid couldn't accept the fact that I didn't like a movie (
>REGARDLESS of my reasons...).
>
>
>Just because you like something that you perceive to be
>highbrow, it doesn't make people who DON'T like it less
>intelligent than you. If ANYTHING, it says a lot about YOU
>(especially if you watch shit a hundred times just so you'll
>*get* it...).
>
>
>
>
>

Really I'm sorry to have gotten into this with you
it makes me look foolish in a way as well
because nothing came out of it. No intelligent discussion. I'd still like one but won't get it I see
it's stupid to bicker back and forth about opinions and get personal instead of delving into something more progressive for both of us; a real conversation
at the end of the day if you think the film was incredibly bad personally I think you seriously overlooked it, but you don't and honestly I don't care at this point as to why. At all.
peace

I'm sorry I got to you.

I don't feel like writing a dissertation to pick apart a movie i DIDN'T like ( let alone to please somebody else...). Personally, I think it would be more constructive to talk about shit we DO like.

You think I'm an idiot ( or whatever words you used), so be it. But I'm not about to dig into hidden subtexts of movies just to please you. So PLEASE let the shit die, and we can move on...



also, in the other post, you said you were done with it. I'm assuming that's not the case. Because I have to tell you. I'm not gonna go from post to post with this shit.

*scene*

I was more talking about the kids who called Magnolia a terrible movie. I honestly don't think they understood the movie at all, even a little bit.

Ok maybe there was some deep or hidden meaning that went over my head i dont know & i dont really care but the fact that i didnt like it was because
a) nothing that happened was that interesting to me at all & so i found it tedious
&
b) none of the characters grabbed my attention & i really didnt care about them

So if i watched the film again & analysed it & worked out what it was really about would that change my opinion on it? No it wouldn't because those two reasons above wouldn't change

That's fine, you didn't like it. But you also didn't get it so you don't really know at all if it's a terrible movie or not. It's actually a brilliantly orchestrated film, among the best, but if you don't enjoy sitting through it then you'll never enjoy the ideas behind it. Again, that's fine, just don't call it terrible.

It's not as if i was completely confused by what was going on. Now i didnt get the biblical references granted & i probably missed a theme or two but i still have the right to give my opinion on whether i thought it was good or bad if i have taken time out to watch it & tried to enjoy it.

I may have exaggerated in the other post i dont mean its terrible in a Plan 9 From Outer Space meaning of terrible i just mean that i hated it kind of terrible lol

.

like say...Death Proof

.

I definitely didn't imply anything to the contrary.

You can not understand a movie and dislike it. There are so many elements to a movie that getting the context or subcontext is only one element.

Perfect example: The Fountain.

I didn't fully get that movie. I'd have to watch it again.

But I don't want to.

Why? A lot of the imagery (i.e. Hugh Jackman in that yoga position floating around in space) was corny beyond redemption. A lot of the scenes played out in a really, really pretentious way. Some of the fx looked hokey. I didn't care for most of the acting. Not the greatest dialogue. Nothing about the movie jarring pace made me want to dig deeper.

Would digging deeper and watching it over and over to grasp the hidden elements make me appreciate the movie more? Maybe. I don't know. But then again if I saw High School the Musical over and over, who knows, maybe it'd eventually rub off on me.

But this is a logic that I don't think a lot of people share. I think a great movie has to exist on multiple levels. It has to entertain you on the surface level and make you want to look closer. I think that movies that can only be appreciated for it's subtexts are just as bad as movies that only bring a surface level of appreciation.

You may say you don't enjoy indian food or the blues, it's another statement entirely to say indian food or the blues are bad.

If you don't understand a movie, you are still perfectly capable of judging whether you enjoy sitting through it but perfectly incapable of judging its value as a piece of art.

really ALWAYS subjective?

>Perfect example: The Fountain.
>
>I didn't fully get that movie. I'd have to watch it again.
>
>But I don't want to.
>
>Why? A lot of the imagery (i.e. Hugh Jackman in that yoga
>position floating around in space) was corny beyond
>redemption.

"yoga bubble" is the main image that stands out when i think about it. i could barely get though it once, let alone ever consider giving it another shot. i'm sure there's plenty i missed. i don't care.

>I think that movies that can only be appreciated
>for it's subtexts are just as bad as movies that only bring a
>surface level of appreciation.

i'd say they're worse

If I, a reasonably intelligent moviegoer, can't decipher a film, then why would that be my fault? There's a huge difference between a movie that makes one think and a movie that makes one's head hurt.

an article explaining it was posted on here before, one of these days I'll get around to reading that and watching it again. but I can't say just cuz I don't understand it on first viewing that it's bad.

my response to it is usually..

"yeah, ive seen it, but i cant tell you a damn thing about it...other than a nice ass lesbian scene"

>"yeah, ive seen it, but i cant tell you a damn thing about
>it...other than a nice ass lesbian scene"

fucking brilliant stuff, even if Lynch wasn't thinking those things. I think I printed it out and still have it somewhere.

Deflecting criticism by saying that the person didn't "get it" is a cop out.

**********
"Play Your Game" (c) Stan Van Gundy

a good example is No Country for Old Men, people who don't like it tend to completely miss what it was all about and even who the actual protagonist was.

I usually have to preface my explanation of that movie with "Moss wasn't the main character, Bell was."

and in a commercial industry like cinema it is on the producer/director/writer to successfully get their message to the audience.

But for some reason the "arts" get celebrated for not communicating or for poorly communicating. The less accessible, the more praised.
It's just elitism.

>If I, a reasonably intelligent moviegoer, can't decipher a
>film, then why would that be my fault? There's a huge

it doesn't have to be your "fault" per se. why would you assume you can or should understand everything you see at first glance?

to say a film isn't good in their opinion if it failed to adequately communicate its ideas.

I think that a film that is vague but clearly has defined ideas is more likely to grow on me than a film that leaves me mystified and frustrated. Something like Synecdoche, New York, in my opinion, was a film that I clearly didn't understand everything right off the bat, but I loved the film and looked forward to unraveling more of the mystery. Something like Donnie Darko, in my opinion, doesn't have mystery or intrigue to me because there's nothing to get.

>Donnie Darko, in my opinion, doesn't have mystery or intrigue
>to me because there's nothing to get.

but, there is though. disliking a movie or thinking it didn't adequately communicate its ideas to you doesn't mean there's nothing to get.

>If I, a reasonably intelligent moviegoer, can't decipher a
>film, then why would that be my fault? There's a huge
>difference between a movie that makes one think and a movie
>that makes one's head hurt.

Thats sort of a personal thing though. Something incomprehensible to you could connect with someone else on multiple levels.
It's up to you if you want to delve deeper or decide there's nothing to delve into.
Even if it isn't apparent to you the meaning of what you're seeing, it doesn't mean that the filmmaker isn't expressing an idea in a way he/she sees fit, or that there isn't real meaning to the film.
& if you find the content incomprehensible, can the film still be great on other merits? does the way it's made, shot, directed, acted, look, FEEL factor in at all????

But,
If it makes your head hurt to watch it, for the sake of your health, stop watching it!

Since someone brought him up, in the case of David Lynch, a film like Inland Empire I have absolutely no idea what his personal meaning of that story is.
So it makes it sort of "incomprehensible" in my case, because I couldn't sit here and write an analysis of it that made sense to anyone but me.
But I certainly wouldn't dismiss that film. It's obviously a personal vision/idea and there's a ton of messages in it that make your mind wander. You could have an hour long conversation about it and the people involved would still not really know exactly what it means in the end. but it still evoked personal thoughts about what you've seen & lead to conversation about things that might not have entered your mind otherwise. Things you wouldn't normally be shown in your more straight forward films
It's great film making & if certain people don't fully comprehend it (including myself) that's irrelevant to that fact. (in my own opinion)
Of course the "average moviegoer" (that sounds stupid but I think you know what I mean) these days would immediately write it off, but if that's your style, what are you doing even watching David Lynch films? lol
In the case of Mulholland Drive I think I could walk you through it if you wanted to. I certainly think there's a concrete answer to that film that's not really hard to follow once it clicks with you.

even though you also admit you don't fully understand it.

So would you admit there is sometimes worth in things not being completely spelled out for you.

Complexity is not the same as incomprehensibility though. An artist has a responsibility to communicate his ideas clearly to his audience or he's just masturbating, but the audience has a responsibility to do some of the thinking themselves...nobody likes to feel like they're being beaten over the head by the artist's message.

Also, some films are incomprehenisble but there's also nothing of substance behind it all. If you recognize that to be true you still "get" the film, in that you get there's nothing to it.

Usually, if I have trouble comprehending something at first, if I can pick bits and pieces out and say to myself, "Oh, okay, there are some actual ideas here, there's something to be understood in this," then I can admire a film's ambition and connect to the ideas that I do perceive. With Synecdoche, even though it gets clearer with time, I was befuddled on some parts immediately after. However, it was a befuddled that I thought was my fault, not the film's. Some films intentionally befuddle you in order to cover their lack of true substance, their lack of true things to "get."

This of course is all subjective. But if I don't get it, and I've looked closely, and I have determined in my opinion that it's not my fault but rather poor execution from the writer/director/whoever, then I am quick to say it's a bad movie.

>Some films intentionally
>befuddle you in order to cover their lack of true substance,
>their lack of true things to "get."

>This of course is all subjective. But if I don't get it, and
>I've looked closely, and I have determined in my opinion that
>it's not my fault but rather poor execution from the
>writer/director/whoever, then I am quick to say it's a bad
>movie.

I feel this way about I'm Not There. I don't understand it, but I'm also convinced there's a lot of smoke and mirrors to cover up that the film didn't really have anything to say...that there's really nothing underneath to understand (but then I have similar suspicions for a lot of Dylan's work lol). A friend asked me if it's a good movie last weekend, took me some time to answer her.

that was the most nonsensical shit I have sat through ever and at the end everyone was like what the hell did I just watch...

There are a million and one things that Richard Kelly is doing in that film. I understood, maybe, 12 of them. I will freely admit to not "getting" that film on even a rudimentary level.

And yet, I have no problem telling anyone who'll listen that it was the worst fucking film I've ever seen.

You know why? Because he didn't even try to make a movie that made sense.

"Southland Tales was initially planned to be a nine-part "interactive experience", with the first six parts published in six 100-page graphic novels that would be released in a six-month period up to the film's release. The feature film comprises the final three parts of the experience."

Oh, I'm sorry Richard Kelly, am I a philistine because I didn't commit to absorbing the entirety of your masturbatory canon? I guess if I don't seek out and devour 600 pages of self-indulgent wankery, then I am completely unqualified to give my opinion on your film. Uh-uh. That movie was shit. SHIT. Celluloid doo-doo.

>Because he didn't even try to make a movie that made sense.

Sometimes there isn't anything to get. Sounds like you recognized that, you get that there's nothing to "get". You get that it's trash.

Sounds legit to me.

I think you're right.

there of plenty of films that a 3 yr old can understand, that doesnt make them good...

I understood Graffiti Bridge just fine...it still sucked...

Some movies dont make sense, have plot holes, etc...but you cant let it ride because it was made well...Magnolia, for example....

so much of that film was masturbatory...the frogs and the numerology is neither here nor there...the smaller stories within the whole were engaging...the characters were interesting, their interactions were engaging and the whole film was superbly acted...but when you put the pieces together, it doesnt gel as a whole like PTA intended...

You liked Eyes Wide Shut.

Leave it at that.


*******
www.windimoto.com

I said it makes you qualified to judge its value as art. You can judge it to be bad or good. If you don't understand it (unless you're convinced there's nothing to understand...ie the movie was pointless), then the best you can say is whether you enjoyed it or not.

I don't understand bebop, but I enjoy listening to it. I couldn't tell you what's bad or good bebop because I don't understand it, I leave that to people that do. But I can tell you which records I enjoy listening to and which I don't.

So no

In fact, I almost walked out of it but the director hooked me down @ Sundance so I felt obligated to stay & give it a shot. Once they saw their doubles I was hooked. And besides Shane's courtesy, there's still something about it that makes it worth the confusion.

Southland Tales on the other hand...ehh not so much.

Why do you HAVE to understand every movie? Why can't a select few just work on your senses/emotions and say fuck the logic?

A good example is the much discussed motel scene in No Country for Old Men. It bugs me because I can't tell if the Coen brothers meant for it to be clear, but just missed the mark, or if they meant for it to be an ambiguous set-up. Nowadays I lean more towards the latter, and so it's doesn't bother me like it did when I first saw and was trying to figure out what I missed.

The short answer is no, I don't immediately equate comprehension with quality, so when I don't get a movie chances are there's something else wrong with it, beyond me not 'getting' something.

You gotta take intent into consideration, I think. Not all movies set out to tell you a clear cut story. Some films want to mix you up, or be allegorical, or feel absurd or dream like. You can still "get" it, but it's not going to register with the part of your brain that comprehends information in the most traditional, straightforward sense.

And some movies are kind of like puzzles, in that they require some work on your part to piece things together. This may require some brain twisting and repeat viewings. If I'm going to invest that kind of time or effort into a film, there had better be *something* about it I liked the first time around, even if I didn't absorb everything. I feel like it's possible for a movie to be deep, and still be bad. Just because you've got something to say doesn't mean you're saying it well.

So whenever I feel like I didn't 'get' a movie, I guess I try and ask myself what the movie was about (not just plot-wise, but thematically as well). And if I can't answer that, then maybe the problem was me. But if I can answer that, and still feel confused in some way, then it's time to examine where the movie might have failed to get its point across in a clear and satisfactory way.

no matter how good a movie is, there will always be people who don't "get it" based on what they like and what experiences, biases, etc they bring into the movie experience
just like no matter how bad a movie is, there will always be someone who LOVES the shit
and not like in the "it's so bad, its good" ironic way
but in the way people who genuinely like "boondock saints" way
there is no universal criteria on what makes a movie good, no matter how many classes you've taken, no matter how much criticism you've read, no matter how many movies you've made or seen yourself
you're always biased and it remains subjective
i know people who refuse to watch the godfather because of the "let them lose their souls" scene
my roomate thinks "paid in full" is one of the greatest movies ever made
i know people who consider themselves movie buffs who think "do the right thing" is bad.
who the hell knows?