criterionforum.org

Mainstream Consensus names The Social Network the film of the year but everybody knows it lacks the power and popularity of true consensus-making films like On the Waterfront, The Godfather, E.T. and Saving Private Ryan.

Surely Everyone Knows that Come and See > Saving Private Ryan?

domino harvey wrote:As a human being, if a friend shares effusive excitement about a film I didn't like, I tend to either find something to mildly praise about it or just admit that while others were fond of the film, it wasn't my cup of tea, and offer extrapolation only if asked-- there's no need to tear down a flick someone just admitted they loved.

I had a first date with a woman who suggested we see a film. She really wanted to see Crash. Absolutely the worst cinema experience I've had. I sat quitely, and tried not to raise my fist to the screen, Basil Fawlty style. We walked out into the foyer, and she gasped 'WOW!'. The best film she had ever seen. She uttered the words 'life-changing'. I couldn't praise the film, but I was proud of myself for adding that it offered strong themes.

As cranky Franky sang:

I said that's life, and as funny as it may seem
Some people get their kicks,
Stompin' on a dream
But I don't let it, let it get me down,
'Cause this fine ol' world it keeps spinning around

I've had similar dating experiences, but most were of a musical nature. "Uh, yeah, John Mayer is certainly enthusiastic about what he does. He certainly plays guitar!"

Questionable Parenting
Speaking of not being a human being, I recently made the mistake of instructing my 2-1/2 year old daughter that a Lady Gaga song that came on the radio was "not a good song." Unbeknownst to me, she had apparently enjoyed the song on many occasions with her philistine aunt, and could only reply "But I like it" as she choked back the tears. To make matters worse, to this day, she has yet to apologize to me.

"Avatar's my favorite movie"
"BWAHAHAHAHA...ha...wheezes...heh...I'm sorry what were you saying?"
For some reason she hasn't returned my calls.

Murdoch wrote:"Avatar's my favorite movie"
"BWAHAHAHAHA...ha...wheezes...heh...I'm sorry what were you saying?"
For some reason she hasn't returned my calls.

Yeah, this is more of my nature. I'm incapable of putting on a smiley face for the sake of showing a smiley face. I don't think people should be so uptight about their opinions on film. If someone gets offended because I think their favorite film sucks, it's probable that I won't end up getting along with them anyways.

This is surely going to ruin a lot of opportunities for me in the future (relationship wise and career wise).

James Mills wrote:

Murdoch wrote:"Avatar's my favorite movie"
"BWAHAHAHAHA...ha...wheezes...heh...I'm sorry what were you saying?"
For some reason she hasn't returned my calls.

Yeah, this is more of my nature. I'm incapable of putting on a smiley face for the sake of showing a smiley face. I don't think people should be so uptight about their opinions on film. If someone gets offended because I think their favorite film sucks, it's probable that I won't end up getting along with them anyways.

This is surely going to ruin a lot of opportunities for me in the future (relationship wise and career wise).

I think that approach is really counterproductive, and winds up shutting people down and scaring them away from movies you want to share with them instead of pushing them away from the ones you think are crap. It's not 'uptight' to be bothered when someone responds to you talking about something you love with laughter and contempt, it's reasonable human behavior- there's a difference between lying and pretending to love something you don't and respecting other people's viewpoints and rights to an opinion.

Although, that said, I have a hard time not being an asshole when the movie in question is the Boondock Saints. I just really hate that movie.

I'm telling you, it's the only movie worth acting like an inconsiderate asshole about.

At the end of the day though, being the way that Murdoch and James Mills described about your opinions is just totally a weird ego trip. Sure, expressing them without provocation is one thing, but following up someone giving you their equally valid impressions of something with an "I'm better than you"-soaked doucheathon is going to alienate a lot of people in the name of what? Smug self satisfaction? Is that really worth it?

More like boredom and self-loathing. Not that the above exchange actually happened.

mfunk9786 wrote:At the end of the day though, being the way that Murdoch and James Mills described about your opinions is just totally a weird ego trip. Sure, expressing them without provocation is one thing, but following up someone giving you their equally valid impressions of something with an "I'm better than you"-soaked doucheathon is going to alienate a lot of people in the name of what? Smug self satisfaction? Is that really worth it?

matrixschmatrix wrote:I think that approach is really counterproductive, and winds up shutting people down and scaring them away from movies you want to share with them instead of pushing them away from the ones you think are crap. It's not 'uptight' to be bothered when someone responds to you talking about something you love with laughter and contempt, it's reasonable human behavior- there's a difference between lying and pretending to love something you don't and respecting other people's viewpoints and rights to an opinion.

I don't mean to imply "I'm better than you", I mean it as simply "I think that film is terrible; here's why". It's definitely counterproductive in today's society, but I appreciate it when people tell me their honest opinions about a movie rather than simply agreeing with me just to be placative or affable. People take things too personally in general imo, no need to exacerbate the matter with insincere appeasements.

Granted, I know you guys aren't advocating just being like "Oh yeah, I totally agree! Great film!" when you actually thought it sucked, but even the mere omission of mentioning things you disliked about it is detrimental to the other person's learning process. I mean, life is about learning, might as well learn at least why someone else disliked something you liked (even if you think they're totally wrong; can't hurt you).

James Mills wrote:Granted, I know you guys aren't advocating just being like "Oh yeah, I totally agree! Great film!" when you actually thought it sucked, but even the mere omission of mentioning things you disliked about it is detrimental to the other person's learning process. I mean, life is about learning, might as well learn at least why someone else disliked something you liked (even if you think they're totally wrong; can't hurt you).

That's true, but the effort can be pointless (or rude) if the other person isn't inclined to listen to you. It also depends on what movie you're discussing. A drunken pow-wow on Black Swan is likely to be more fun than one on Stalker or Red Shoes. I love discussing the movies I watch, but if someone's not in the mood then small talk might have to suffice.

James, I really hate the fact that everything you say seems to bother me, believe me, it hasn't been a fun fact lately - but jeez, "even the mere omission of mentioning things you disliked about it is detrimental to the other person's learning process?" I mean, come on. That's the most egotistical thought I've ever heard on this forum - the idea that your opinion of a film is so much more valid that when discussing it with someone else, you have to make sure you hit every point of your opinion of said film to make sure that they learn from your masterful film knowledge. Even if you were Roger Ebert that would be a shockingly obnoxious thing to say.

colinr0380 wrote:Surely Everyone Knows that Come and See > Saving Private Ryan?

What are you talking about? This is Armond White here - [null set] > Spielberg.

A more likely formulation:

The Jewel of the Nile > Come and See
Elem Klimov gave do-gooder liberals something to gawk at and justify their self-loathing, but Lewis Teague looks forward instead of backwards, and expands on Zemeckis's masterpiece Romancing the Stone with his visionary fable of international relations in our turbulent world.

James Mills wrote:I don't mean to imply "I'm better than you", I mean it as simply "I think that film is terrible; here's why". It's definitely counterproductive in today's society, but I appreciate it when people tell me their honest opinions about a movie rather than simply agreeing with me just to be placative or affable. People take things too personally in general imo, no need to exacerbate the matter with insincere appeasements.

Granted, I know you guys aren't advocating just being like "Oh yeah, I totally agree! Great film!" when you actually thought it sucked, but even the mere omission of mentioning things you disliked about it is detrimental to the other person's learning process. I mean, life is about learning, might as well learn at least why someone else disliked something you liked (even if you think they're totally wrong; can't hurt you).

You continually say things like "I don't think people should be so uptight about their opinions on film" and "People take things too personally in general imo, no need to exacerbate the matter with insincere appeasements.", but in my experience neither of those are true unless you present your disagreement in an unnecessarily blunt, condescending, or confrontational manner.

If I love a movie, and talk to someone about it, and their response is "Oh, God, that movie is awful" there's no way I'm not going to take that personally- it's a direct attack on my taste and comes off as a kneejerk dismissal of something I've just told them I really care about. If, on the other hand, their response is "that movie never worked for me, for x y and z reasons" that does two things- first, it doesn't presume some sort of godlike knowledge of what is good and what is bad, and second it presents the view as an argument based on specific, debatable things rather than an attack to be followed by support if and when the support is dragged out.

It also means that people will be far more interested and less aggressive when you present your views about the movies you love and they think are trash- ideally, everyone comes to a mutual understanding, and nobody feels condescended to. If you do it the other way, nobody winds up happy.

mfunk9786 wrote:James, I really hate the fact that everything you say seems to bother me, believe me, it hasn't been a fun fact lately - but jeez, "even the mere omission of mentioning things you disliked about it is detrimental to the other person's learning process?" I mean, come on. That's the most egotistical thought I've ever heard on this forum - the idea that your opinion of a film is so much more valid that when discussing it with someone else, you have to make sure you hit every point of your opinion of said film to make sure that they learn from your masterful film knowledge. Even if you were Roger Ebert that would be a shockingly obnoxious thing to say.

You seem to take everything I say out of context, hence why I don't respond to you. I have no idea whether or not you're intentionally trying to appear as if you misunderstood me or if I'm really that hard to understand. Obviously I wasn't referring to solely myself when I said "but even the mere omission of mentioning things you disliked about it is detrimental to the other person's learning process. I mean, life is about learning, might as well learn at least why someone else disliked something you liked (even if you think they're totally wrong; can't hurt you)." Don't you think I would have written "I" instead of "You" if I actually meant "I" instead of "You"?

On the contrary, my point is obviously a universal one. My point is that even Roger Ebert can learn something from a 5 year old when he or she tells Roger why he or she disliked the film at hand. At the very least, Roger learns why this particular 5 year old didn't like the film. Now this newfound knowledge might not propel him towards a Nobel, but I at least enjoy learning anything and everything I can, so I'd apprecaite the 5 year old's candidness.

*checks self into a mental hospital*

I think I need a break from this forum for a few months.

Don't go! You'll miss the thread split!

James Mills wrote:Obviously I wasn't referring to solely myself when I said "but even the mere omission of mentioning things you disliked about it is detrimental to the other person's learning process. I mean, life is about learning, might as well learn at least why someone else disliked something you liked (even if you think they're totally wrong; can't hurt you)." Don't you think I would have written "I" instead of "You" if I actually meant "I" instead of "You"?

This is an extraordinarily weak argument for having been taken out of context.

I already had a banning hung over my head like the Sword of Damocles today via a PM by a mod who has now taken on the role of burly protector of the worst posters on this forum; I think that before I point out that James just said the complete opposite of what he originally said and accused me of taking his post out of context (and get into a macabre game of tug of war in the process), I am just going to walk away. But I'm not coming back. I don't want to sound dramatic, but: bye guys. I have had several posts deleted lately, and the ban warning today and the fact that I now feel that I need to tiptoe around here all of a sudden isn't comfortable for me.

It was nice while it lasted, but I'm done posting here.

I have had enough of your trolling of James Mills. I don't know what you think is the benefit of following a member around the forum and attempting to degrade him with nasty comments whenever he posts, but it's trolling to me and I've gotten sick of it. It's even starting to get complaints from other members.

Put him on your foes list, ignore him, whatever, I don't care what one. Just know that if you continue the insults I'm going to start doing more than just deleting the offending posts.

James Mills wrote:On the contrary, my point is obviously a universal one. My point is that even Roger Ebert can learn something from a 5 year old when he or she tells Roger why he or she disliked the film at hand. At the very least, Roger learns why this particular 5 year old didn't like the film. Now this newfound knowledge might not propel him towards a Nobel, but I at least enjoy learning anything and everything I can, so I'd apprecaite the 5 year old's candidness.

Five year olds have nothing to tell anyone of any value about any movie made for adults. They're five years old

matrixschmatrix wrote:If I love a movie, and talk to someone about it, and their response is "Oh, God, that movie is awful" there's no way I'm not going to take that personally- it's a direct attack on my taste and comes off as a kneejerk dismissal of something I've just told them I really care about. If, on the other hand, their response is "that movie never worked for me, for x y and z reasons" that does two things- first, it doesn't presume some sort of godlike knowledge of what is good and what is bad, and second it presents the view as an argument based on specific, debatable things rather than an attack to be followed by support if and when the support is dragged out.

I totally hear this and have debated this process with friends, but hear me out real quick: films are subjective, right? If you see a film and find a handful of things that personally irk you (but may not irk another viewer), is there really anything the other person can say to change your mind to the point that you do indeed think it is a good film? If I dislike a film for a bunch of reasons, the film is a bad film to me, and I don't think I need to sugarcoat that. I don't mean to imply that anyone who likes the film has bad taste, but rather that in my world (and my world alone) it is a bad film. I feel like saying simply "Well, it didn't work for me because so and so" is understating my actual opinions, if that makes sense?

Perhaps its my own theoretical search for totality in film or simply my own immaturity/egocentrism/insecurity, but that's honestly how I feel. Whatever the reason, if I really don't like something for a number of arguably tangible reasons, I feel uncomfortable not stating that I thought the film was terrible. As a corollary, I don't take it personal if someone is equally passionate against something I like. I enjoy the discourse and then think "Well, they're wrong, but good to know "

mfunk9786 wrote:I already had a banning hung over my head like the Sword of Damocles today via a PM by a mod who has now taken on the role of burly protector of the worst posters on this forum; I think that before I point out that James just said the complete opposite of what he originally said and accused me of taking his post out of context (and get into a macabre game of tug of war in the process), I am just going to walk away. But I'm not coming back. I don't want to sound dramatic, but: bye guys. I have had several posts deleted lately, and the ban warning today and the fact that I now feel that I need to tiptoe around here all of a sudden isn't comfortable for me.

It was nice while it lasted, but I'm done posting here.

Well this ruins my day, mfunk sorry to see you go, always enjoyed your posts. forever

Yes, the line "but even the mere omission of mentioning things you disliked about it is detrimental to the other person's learning process" by itself sounds egotistical. But he follows it up with "might as well learn at least why someone else disliked something you liked (even if you think they're totally wrong; can't hurt you)," which is perfectly true.

James Mills thinks that finding out the particular reasons why someone dislikes something you like is a good learning experience. Seems pretty fair to me. His argument about Ebert and five-year-olds is bizarre and not helping his clarity, but all it seems to mean is that talking to another human being honestly about your opinions is worthwhile, even if it doesn't change the person's mind.

James maybe ought to take more care in his phrasing, but he doesn't seem to be implying anything terrible. If I'm wrong, let me know.

domino harvey wrote:

James Mills wrote:On the contrary, my point is obviously a universal one. My point is that even Roger Ebert can learn something from a 5 year old when he or she tells Roger why he or she disliked the film at hand. At the very least, Roger learns why this particular 5 year old didn't like the film. Now this newfound knowledge might not propel him towards a Nobel, but I at least enjoy learning anything and everything I can, so I'd apprecaite the 5 year old's candidness.

Five year olds have nothing to tell anyone of any value about any movie made for adults. They're five years old

I'd rather know why a 5 year old didn't like my favorite film than to not know why a 5 year old didn't like my favorite film. That's interesting to me, personally. Any knowledge is interesting to me, especially someone's opposed opinion.

Brian C wrote:This is an extraordinarily weak argument for having been taken out of context.

Did you also take what I wrote the same way as mfunk? Do you really think I was implying that only my opinion on film can help other people learn about something (if anything, as my response to domino is trying to argue for) when they disagree with me? How else can I argue that this obviously is not what I meant? I fail to see how this misinterpretation is not absurd.

James Mills In Real Life wrote:Look, I will tell you why something you like sucks and if you think something I like sucks, then you're wrong but I will indulge you, peasants, in your folly

James Mills' Friends wrote:

James Mills In Real Life wrote:Oh shit, no one will talk to me anymore. Time to get a dog

Three Weeks Pass

James Mills' Dog wrote:Stop fucking asking me whether I agree with you about Gummo, all right?