Initial Oz reviews are baaaaadddddd......

Originally Posted By leobloom

>> But I'm glad there's English teachers having kids read The Great Gatsby and Blood Meridian (not young kids). <<

(not young kids)

That made me laugh.

You don't think Disney could work wonders with Blood Meridian? Just think of the theme park ride...

Eek!

 

Originally Posted By leemac

>> But I'm glad there's English teachers having kids read The Great Gatsby and Blood Meridian (not young kids). <<


Is that right? Cormac McCarthy is taught in schools? The lack of punctuation makes it impossible for me to like his writing - I can appreciate that he has a following but I can think of a lot of better American writers like Philip Roth and Tom Wolfe.

 

Originally Posted By ecdc

>>Just think of the theme park ride...<<

LOL! And then Disney fans like us could dissect the ride.

"The effects in the ear necklace room haven't worked for ages, and that dancing Judge Holden AA's a joke!"

 

Originally Posted By DDMAN26

Actually Lone Ranger isn't the only other Disney movie, there's a little film called Iron Man 3

 

Originally Posted By WilliamK99

DDMAN, quite a few people on this board still don't consider Marvel movies official Disney films...I guess they just have to find a reason to complain...

Funny thing is quite a few critics here were slamming the purchase, and Disney has probably made about half their purchase price back thus far in less than 5 years...

 

Originally Posted By basil fan

>>When someone watches "Citizen Kane" or "Vertigo" (last year's best film of all-time according to BFI's Sight and Sound magazine) and says, "I don't get what all the fuss is about," they're revealing their ignorance...Experts in film incorporate a lot of different functions into watching a film.

And yet...

I just can't wrap my head around liking a film because BFI (or anybody) decided it's great. Vertigo is good, though Rear Window is head and shoulders above, IMO. Kane I've never been able to work up enough enthusiasm to see. Probably will someday, but it doesn't look like something I'll go for. Casablanca should've been voted Best Film. Or Some Like It Hot. Or Why Worry.

I appreciate the fine art of the Old Masters. I even understand more about it than some people (graduated from art school. Not bragging--never had the talent to become a really good artist). But there are plenty of "great" paintings I simply don't like. Don't enjoy looking at 'em.

You can give all the reasons a movie is great by all the experts in the world. But you can't make me like it.

Are we supposed to just keep watching the movies we dislike and skip those we enjoy because of the critics?

Maybe we should say, "This movie's great, but I hate it. This one stinks, but I love it." This way, everybody's happy.

Phil's Hero RUles
<a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/hero.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...ero.html</a>

 

Originally Posted By basil fan

Ditto for books, BTW. I love Dickens, can appreciate Shakespeare, but some of the stuff we had to read in school was just plain awful.

Phil's Hero Rules
<a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/hero.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...ero.html</a>

 

Originally Posted By mawnck

>>Maybe we should say, "This movie's great, but I hate it. This one stinks, but I love it." This way, everybody's happy.<<

EXACTLY!

I say that all the time, actually.

The critics worth reading will tell you both

(1) whether the movie is (and this isn't exactly the word I'm looking for) objectively good,

and

(2) what the movie is like, so you can make your own judgment as to whether YOU will enjoy it or not.

In other other words, if you don't enjoy watching Citizen Kane, that's fine. It's not in my "must see again ASAP" pile either.

BUT if you "don't get what all the fuss is about", or worse, if you think the critics are idiots for liking it so much, then that's you, buddy. Not them.

 

Originally Posted By ecdc

>>Maybe we should say, "This movie's great, but I hate it. This one stinks, but I love it." This way, everybody's happy. <<

Sounds about right to me.

You seem to be mistaking "historians and critics almost universally recognize this film as brilliant," with "You are required to like it." You are required, of course, to do nothing. But if someone says "Citizen Kane is boring and lame," one shouldn't expect such a comment in a public forum to go unchallenged. People seem to think that declaring something as their opinion somehow makes it immune from criticism, or that their opinion is just as valid as the experts. It is not, on either count.

And I guess that's the bottom line, for me. Since cinema is mass entertainment, accessible to all with ease, it makes everyone think they're an expert. It leads to a sense of, at least as I've detected in this thread, resentment that someone somewhere thinks they're more qualified to decide a film's merits. So there's a defensiveness anytime someone likes a movie that critics don't, and rather than just own the fact that they liked the movie, they go the next step and denounce critics as party pooping snobs who like hoity-toity junk.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<Vertigo is good, though Rear Window is head and shoulders above, IMO.>

Thank you. Even if we're just looking at the 50's, I think RW, Strangers on a Train, and even North by Northwest (not as "deep," I guess, but hugely entertaining) are all better than Vertigo. I mean Vertigo's good, but the critics love to go on about how it's all about "the filmmaker's eye" and "Hitchcock's obsessions fusing with his character's obsessions" and they make it all meta... but I find it all kind of obvious. YMMV.

For the record, I enjoy Citizen Kane quite apart from the undeniable innovations it brought to film, which have been copied ever since. I think some people get intimidated because they've heard it's supposed to be "great" - it is, but I find it a lot of fun as well. Again, YMMV.

 

Originally Posted By Witches of Morva

ORDDU: Movie Critics are human, too. I would never put them on a pedestal offer their opinions as much credit as certain others do. Their opinions are shaped by their experiences the way everyone's opinions are shaped. What touches one person's heart leaves others cold. So you really can't judge people's opinions with any absolutes. When you do that you set the scene for all kinds of misunderstandings and misjudging. Sometimes we over-analyze these things to the point where it's ridiculous. The best bottom line for this is: 'One man's meat is another man's poison.'

 

Originally Posted By mawnck

>>Their opinions are shaped by their experiences the way everyone's opinions are shaped.<<

Yeah. Their film school degrees, and having seen WAY more movies than you.

>>The best bottom line for this is: 'One man's meat is another man's poison.'<<

I believe a lot of nutritionists and toxicologists would take issue with that one.

 

Originally Posted By ecdc

>>The best bottom line for this is: 'One man's meat is another man's poison.'<<

That's a really, really odd statement when trying to argue that everything is subjective. Tell you what, I'll lace my steak with salt, and yours with arsenic, and let's see how reality turns out.

Again, the fact that film is accessible doesn't make it an equalizer of all opinions.

Someone is welcome to enjoy Jaws: The Revenge all they want and insist that it was the most entertaining film they've ever seen. If they say it's better than The Third Man, they are wrong. Yup, dead wrong. Not, "Oh, well it's your opinion and American social graces dictate that I respect that, and since you've stated your opinion, how are we to possibly rate anything or determine the quality of anything." No, they are wrong.

 

Originally Posted By DDMAN26

There are plenty of films better than the Third Man, but Jaws the Revenge is definitely one of them.

 

Originally Posted By mawnck

>>There are plenty of films better than the Third Man, but Jaws the Revenge is definitely one of them.<<

In the name of humanity and all that is good, please tell me there's a word missing here.

 

Originally Posted By DDMAN26

Not, NOT

Stomach flu is wreaking havoc today

 

Originally Posted By Manfried

Thank you for the correction DDMAN26, we were about to permanently revoke your corn dog and Dole Pineapple Whip rights.

 

Originally Posted By Witches of Morva

ORDDU: Sorry, mawnck, duckling, but there's no way you're going to win this argument. In the first place you don't know how many movies I have seen compared to any given critic. That information has never been shared and is merely an assumption on your part. When wrong assumptions are made, arguments break down and can't be verified. In any case, it's not good to over-anyalyze topics to the point where they lose their point. That's what has happened here and a witch has better things to do with her time than to argue over such trivial matters.

 

Originally Posted By mawnck

>>Sorry, mawnck, duckling, but there's no way you're going to win this argument.<<

I wouldn't call "holding truths to be self evident" arguing.

But thanks for chiming in to not-argue again.

 

Originally Posted By DDMAN26

Oz dropped 46.9% this week to about 22 million. Considering it faced it the Croods which opened to 44 million. Last week it fell 47%. so it's having pretty good weekend holds.