|
think you got stuck in "debate O_E mode" talking about Pulp Fiction - LOL.
>>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.
the comparison was being made to grindhouse, and the consensus of movie-viewers seems to be no on that.
>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.
you're lucky. shit is horrible.
>>>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!
yeah but why? The Dark Knight was like that for me , but I can tell you why I thought that.
>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.
they don't have to write a thesis on it, but I'm sure they can at least say what it was about the movie that struck them.
>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.
right, those are good reasons. I'm not really seeing anything similar given for grindhouse though.
>>>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.
dude I like Pulp Fiction.
>>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.
you just did for Pulp Fiction.
>>>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.
consensus I don't care so much about. I tend to be more trusting if a critic can articulate something meaningful or insightful about a movie, even if it might not be the consensus. cuz alot of times critics in the consensus can be full of shit and just seem like they're cosigning the consensus just because.
>>>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.
grindhouse, not PF.
>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.
exhibit A on why I don't put much stock in critics consensus.
>>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?
are you still talking about PF, or grindhouse? I'm talking about grindhouse, and I don't think it had much general fan support because the shit bombed horribly.
>>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.
again, grindhouse, not PF.
looking at our lists ranking Tarantino's movies I think we're pretty much in agreement aside from Death Proof.
___________________
Mar-A-Lago delenda est
|