Jump to content

AlmostAGhost

Members
  • Content count

    815
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Posts posted by AlmostAGhost


  1. 1 hour ago, bleary said:

    Because there is no set of 100 universally adored and lauded movies! 

    Hm I'm not sure I agree with this. Oh sure, there'll be haters of everything, but I think "the best films of all-time" should be fairly set in stone, give or take. I guess I'm in between subjectiveness and objectiveness here; I think we can answer this question, but it maybe isn't definable. That's a wishy-washy statement, I know. Maybe I'm wrong and it's unanswerable.

    Still, the question isn't "how many awards did The Godfather win?" it's "why is this so good?" That's where the focus should be. Wouldn't the list be better if "consider how many major awards it won" was replaced with "has an innovative structure and a story filled with remarkable characters" or "builds a cinematic universe" or whatnot?

    My takeaway from Unspooled is that perhaps the 'general consensus' that led to the AFI results needs some shaking up and modernization, and I think the criteria is a big part why.

    • Like 1

  2. 42 minutes ago, bleary said:

    AlmostAGhost questioned whether a self-proclaimed list of greatest movies should be using these criteria, as their relevance towards a movie's greatness is perhaps questionable.  But three of the five criteria are about a movie's greatness!  Critical recognition asks, did critics (at the time and over the following years) think the movie is great?  Major award competition asks, did industry professionals (at the time) think the movie is great?  Popularity over time asks, do fans (over the following years) still think the movie is great? 

    Right, but let's look at the criteria this way.

    Out of the 52 films, I've only rated like 10 of these 5 stars. And I feel like a lot of us are doing similar. The criteria of the AFI isn't particularly working. Sure, we're a vastly smaller sample than the AFI voters, but that criteria gives an unnecessary bias to the list. My guess is that the 100 movies on the list, most of them are all really good... but how many truly are truly GREAT? Every week we're seeing that it's not nearly as many as we think. So all that criteria is being rendered silly.

    And honestly I'd bet most of the actual voters haven't seen, say, Intolerance anyway, they're just echoing whoever. That's another problem with critics and awards, they create an echo chamber.

    The methodology is there for the creation of the AFI list, fine, but I don't see why I or we should follow it or even consider it. When I think about whether a movie is great, I definitely don't go "well how many Oscars did it win?" or "what do critics think of it?" That's a weird way to think about art if you ask me.

    • Like 2

  3. 4 minutes ago, grudlian. said:

    This is great but it makes me wonder about the nature of the game.

    Did the kid always mean for Matthew McConaughey to kill his step dad in the game? Because it seems like the game started as just hanging with his dad and fishing. If the rules changed to kill his step dad, having an anagram name for Bad Killer makes no sense. That would mean the anagram is just for the audience and it's a complete coincidence on the part of the kid.

    Hmmm yea. I was thinking maybe it was like the kid's avatar name. The kid is being Baker Dill in the game in order to kill his stepdad. Was he controlling Baker Dill? He was, in a way, I guess. Was Baker Dill even real? I don't know.


  4. 3 minutes ago, bleary said:

    First off, I want to rule out Toy Story 3, and it largely leans on the criteria that AFI asked jurors to consider in their voting: critical recognition, major award competition, popularity over time, historical significance, and cultural impact.

    Yea that's true. I'll add, my ratings and answering the 'should this be on the list' more or less ignores the AFI's criteria. Perhaps the first film does meet the criteria better than the second two, or any other Pixar film, or just about any movie ever, come to think of it, but... I'm not sure much of those criteria are relevant to the question ("What is great?").

    • Like 2

  5. I also voted no. For the simple reason that I believe #3 is better. I do think I like all three fairly equally, but the change in the second two is that they feel more about characters and less about 'toys', and that is an improvement for me.

    I can understand why a 'first' is often used to represent something, but the converse of pioneering something is that the first one can suffer for being a bit of a novelty. And I think there's a little of that here.

    I called the film 'product placement' in my Letterbox review, which is close to what Amy was expressing in it being too corporate. I'm not anti-corporate (used to be, less so now as I get older). But I definitely think that vibe is why I'd keep this version off the list.

    • Like 3

  6. It did change to Do The Right Thing next week, I confirmed it on twitter

    6/27 - Do The Right Thing (see tweet below; it's being re-released)

    7/4 - The Deer Hunter (hmm about this being on the Fourth Of July)

     

    • Like 1

  7. Honestly, I thought this movie was as bad as the HDTGM movies we watch. The two leads occasionally had some charisma (they are pop stars irl) but mostly everyone just talked quietly and slowly like they weren't interested in anything. The direction was weird, I thought, with the camera floating all over and around their heads and stuff. A lot of scenes were irrelevant and pointless. The script was generic and bland. I found it truly a chore to get through.

    • Like 2

  8. I wanted to expand on me calling it 'superficial' as I keep pondering that. I think my main issue is all these points that they mention on the pod -- homosexuality, his mother, self-identity, earlier trauma, being raised by TV, even Vietnam I guess -- are raised so minutely in the film that I feel like it's just all on the surface. I take this movie as very straightforward almost, which maybe is at odds with its rep or intent. I see it as just about a guy with some sort of misguided dream, who meets another guy with a similar misguided dream.

    *edit to note that sycasey simulposted a similar explanation. :)

    • Like 3

  9. Yea Amy is helping me a little with one too.

    I still find the film fairly superficial and think it doesn’t say all that much, really, beyond extreme hopelessness (which maybe is enough). It definitely a movie I’m finding I can’t stop thinking about though.

    • Like 2
×