>RE: it could be my opinion Highlander 2 elevated the sci-fi action genre
> by making an artful movie, does that mean it's a sensible
>opinion?

If it's shared by a consensus of critics and movie-viewers alike, yes, you may just be on to something.

But when someone has an opinion that most others (including critics and everyday people) would view as clearly absurd - "Highlander 2 is the greatest sci-fi movie of all-time, and it elevated the genre" - then you're probably full of shit.

I haven't seen Highlander 2, so I have no comment.


>>I see your point, but to me, it was a spectacular movie
>>experience. Purely subjective of course, but everyone I know
>>who actually saw it in the theater was really impressed.
>
>spectacular how? impressed with what? seriously, I'm just
>asking, cuz on my part I'm not seeing it.

Spectacular as in, "holy shit, that movie was amazing!" Let's see it again!


>>"Artful" is a difficult thing to explain though, isn't it?
>>What makes one movie "more artful" than another? Is it even
>>necessarily a good thing?
>
>not really. the movies I think are artful I can at least
>explain to some degree or express some sense of what I thought
>was artful about it. and it's not about comparing one movie as
>"more artful" than another, just saying what you found artful
>about the movie on its own terms.

Sure. But for people who aren't film students, it may be hard to put into words WHY they felt a movie was artful. They just feel it and love it.

I gave a whole bunch of reasons why I loved Pulp Fiction - pretty much everything about it: "the tone and style, an awesome interwoven plot full of all the elements I love (action, drama, humor), cool plot structure, great acting, the beloved dialogue, fascinating characters, good music... and it exudes visceral coolness."

All of these are pretty concrete things, except for "visceral coolness", which IMO is essentially the "can't put into words" quality that some art has on the viewer. It's probably mostly generated by the tone and style; the dialogue and action help too.

Now if you want me to get all arty and talk about cinematography, lighting, framing, the dénouement... I'm not your guy. I just love movies, and I don't write essays now that I'm out of school.


>>Example - I recently saw Werckmeister Harmonies, which is
>>incredibly artful, but wasn't very entertaining so I didn't
>>enjoy it. Other folks, like Sponge and Deebot (?), loved the
>>shit out of it. And that's fine.
>
>I'm not equating artful with entertaining though.

Okay, but PF is both. That's my opinion, but it's shared by both critics and fans alike.


>again, it's not about comparing its "artfulness" to Citizen
>Kane or something. just asking, on it's own terms, what is
>artful about it?

I'd like to see someone describe what's "artful" about any mainstream movie.

Pulp Fiction had its own voice and style. It's been imitated since, but at the time, that alone was artful. The narrative structure - while perhaps not unique, was artful. Just a few quick examples off the top.


>>So when is it okay to say that a movie actually DID elevate
>>the genre, or was a work of art? You see where I'm going?
>
>when you can actually articulate a good case for it.

Sure. And I'm even more trusting when a whole bunch of critics can make a good case for it.


>>And that's a nearly impossible thing for a third party to
>>determine, isn't it? Unless the person admits it ("I will
>>always love anything so-and-so does, even if it sucks"), or
>>the entire world comes to a consensus that the work is a
>piece
>>of shit that only "fanboys" can enjoy.
>
>or if they keep proclaiming the greatness of its artistic
>merits , but can't articulate how or why.

But they did. Critics did, fans did. OE insists no one can give reasons, but plenty of people did.


>>Which rarely happens, and is certainly not true for either
>>Grindhouse, Death Proof, or any other Tarantino movie, all
>of
>>which have strong critical approval as well as fan support.
>
>I don't put too much stock in critical approval really. but
>Grindhouse got trashed by alot of critics too. and it seems to

I don't put much stock in critical approval alone, but in conjunction with fan approval, it's pretty compelling.

I understand that Grindhouse was a love-it or hate-it flick, so some critics and people won't like it, but I think the majority (granted, not nearly as universal as Pulp Fiction) enjoyed it.


>have diehard fan support, but not much general fan support
>though.

From what I understand, most everyone around my age (31 now) loved it. I think it has a lot of general fan support - what makes you think it doesn't?

>I like most of Tarantino's movies and I thought it
>sucked.

Wow. To each his own. Personally, I just don't understand how one could watch that movie and not enjoy it.
Unless you're turned off by violence, drugs, or bad language (e.g., old people)... but I doubt that's the case.