Topic: Evan Has Bad Taste In Movies: A Radio Production

[Kairon]

We should start a Netflix club.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Svevan]

Replies to everyone:

Please note! I have a lot of opinions. On the internet, as in real life, it is hard to be opinionated and not be a prick. I'm not excellent at being considerate, and I really really really am not so self-obsessed as to think my opinion is greater than anyone else's. Nonetheless, this post may look egotistical. Forgive that.


Kairon

>hmmm.... I saw Gosford Park but...what did I miss?

See it twice. I know that's pretentious, but in this film it's worth it. Also, seeing other Robert Altman movies is a good aid. Some facets of his style are large casts, overlapping dialogue, simple roving camera, and incisive yet fantasy-inspired subject material. Gosford Park's success is character - everyone is connected, has a motive, has a real history, and is developed fully. And there's over 20 major speaking roles!

>HUH? Explain to me how Match Point is a masterpiece??!?!?!

A good help is Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors. Summary of both films: Good and evil exist, but God does nothing to stop evil from triumphing over good. Match Point makes it almost possible to sympathize with its cruel villain, but in the end the film judges him and rejects him. The film says that if God will not punish evil, than man will punish himself.

>Opinions on: Baz Lurhmann, James L. Brooks

Lurhmann is excessive, and I guess that's a quality. Parts of Moulin Rouge are fantastic. Others are shoddy. I think if you can appreciate his excess, then do it - I was once a believer, but now I am on the fence.

Brooks' Spanglish is fantastic, with some serious flaws. I really loved the movie though, perhaps more than I should. As Good as it Gets has great performances but is middling as a film.


True Nerd

>I've never seen a Roger Altman movie. I should probably get on that. Any reccommendations for a first one to watch, Evan?

For early Altman, try McCabe and Mrs. Miller or Nashville. Later Altman, go for Gosford Park or The Player. (Actually, just start with The Player and move from there.)

>I'm assuming you're referring to Memento as Nolan's one hit?

Sure - but I prefer Following to that, and Insomnia is pretty good too.

>if you have some general movie suggestions I would love to hear them and learn your ways. Do you have a newsletter?

The nicest compliment I've gotten in weeks. You can read my opinions every two weeks or so at my MySpace blog (ugh, I know): http://www.myspace.com/svevan But I'm no expert. Just a fan, for now.


PartyBear

re: Batman Begins

>Liking a movie doesn't always have anything to do with whether or not it's good.

Agreed! I really like Total Recall and Clue, but both are probably not very good films. (Or maybe they are and I'm too blind to see my own pretense.)


Caliban

>but are they really good movies? Does it really matter? I'm the one that is experiencing it, so why should I ever care what other people think of it. There is no absolute truth.

If there is no absolute truth, then your statement is not true because it is an absolute. If we agree that the statement "There is no absolute truth" is not absolute, then there is the possibility that there IS absolute truth and your statement is proven false. Therefore no one can ever make the statement "there is no absolute truth" because it is a fallacy.

If you believe only your opinion of film or art or life matters, than you might as well live in a shell. I believe everyone's opinions deserve to be heard, but not all are equal - some people speak truth and others speak lies, some believe one thing while others believe the opposite. One person is right. We are not truly objective, nor are we perfect, but I believe it is possible through education and faith to achieve a stronger opinion, one that can be more fiercely defended and may eventually be rock-solid.


Deguello

>In fact any movie where the characters unplausibly burst out into a musical number sucks.

I disagree. No one here has yet referenced a truly good musical (though Dancer in the Dark comes close). I submit Singin' in the Rain, The Bandwagon, most Disney animated films (particularly Pinnochio), Fiddler on the Roof, The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T, The Wizard of Oz, Woody Allen's Everyone Says I Love You, and a very special film titled Lagaan. I highly recommend this last one. It is a very long film, nearly 4 hours. It is set in India and subtitled. It is a musical. But, lest you shrug it off, let me tell you that it is about Cricket. As in the British sport. And it is highly entertaining.


Wandering

re: Batman Begins

>For one thing, the fight scenes don't make me sick on the small screen

A serious problem with today's filmmakers: they edit their films on a small screen rather than a big one. See Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings for battles imperceptible in a theater, better at home. The Bourne Supremacy, though, is imperceptible in either place.


Let's just start a Funhouse movies podcast.  

[Deguello]

Quote
I disagree. No one here has yet referenced a truly good musical (though Dancer in the Dark comes close). I submit Singin' in the Rain, The Bandwagon, most Disney animated films (particularly Pinnochio), Fiddler on the Roof, The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T, The Wizard of Oz, Woody Allen's Everyone Says I Love You, and a very special film titled Lagaan. I highly recommend this last one. It is a very long film, nearly 4 hours. It is set in India and subtitled. It is a musical. But, lest you shrug it off, let me tell you that it is about Cricket. As in the British sport. And it is highly entertaining.

Impossible.  Musicals cannot be good movies.  If you say that audiences are participatory in the movies they view, then I consider that a two-way street.  They must participate in the plausible world that we live in.  And nowhere in this world would anybody for any reason burst out into a song with pre-written lyrics specifically for that occasion that describes how they are feeling or what is happening.  And furthermore, nobody would join them, but rather start dialing the white vans from the funny farm.

You may like some musicals, and that's fine.  But obiovusly liking something doesn't make it good, and they all screw up a fundamental fact of the human condition that they try to evoke.  Nobody sings.  And especially not during important moments of their life, and they certainly do not have songs written out for events in their life that have yet to happen.

And seriously, Evan, musicals are the worst edited things ever.  Plot BAMF Music BAMF Plot BAMF Music.  It's irritating.

[Caliban]

Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
Caliban

>but are they really good movies? Does it really matter? I'm the one that is experiencing it, so why should I ever care what other people think of it. There is no absolute truth.

If there is no absolute truth, then your statement is not true because it is an absolute. If we agree that the statement "There is no absolute truth" is not absolute, then there is the possibility that there IS absolute truth and your statement is proven false. Therefore no one can ever make the statement "there is no absolute truth" because it is a fallacy.

If you believe only your opinion of film or art or life matters, than you might as well live in a shell. I believe everyone's opinions deserve to be heard, but not all are equal - some people speak truth and others speak lies, some believe one thing while others believe the opposite. One person is right. We are not truly objective, nor are we perfect, but I believe it is possible through education and faith to achieve a stronger opinion, one that can be more fiercely defended and may eventually be rock-solid.

My statement is not an absolute, it is my statement, my view, it is from one and only one individual, so it is not absolute.

I too believe others opinions are important, but does it really matter, you are still going to watch it no matter what others say, and you will have your own opinion on it.
We are perfect, but how well can we master perfection is where we are at.
I liked your last "I believe it is possible through...", however even so sometimes that is not enough.

[wandering]

Quote
A serious problem with today's filmmakers: they edit their films on a small screen rather than a big one. See Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings for battles imperceptible in a theater, better at home. The Bourne Supremacy, though, is imperceptible in either place.

Hmm, interesting point. (But did filmmakers ever not edit on the small screen?)

Quote
You may like some musicals, and that's fine. But obiovusly liking something doesn't make it good, and they all screw up a fundamental fact of the human condition that they try to evoke. Nobody sings. And especially not during important moments of their life, and they certainly do not have songs written out for events in their life that have yet to happen.

Yeah, I am aware of your kind. I'm not sure whether or not I agree. I suppose this maybe is true in general, but with exceptions. One can make a serious case for musicals only working when they are comedic (see: Rocky Horror Picture Show, Little Shop of Horrors) or when the characters sing throughout the whole thing (see: Les Miserables, though that's a bit off topic, what with it never being made into a movie.) Though that definition excludes Cabaret and Chicago, so it fails. Maybe you could say musicals can also work if they feature characters whose lives revolve around the stage and singing.

[Kairon]

Are you kidding Wandering? There are musical aspects to our lives: lullabies that children fall asleep to, songs that get stuck in our heads, soundtracks we compile specifically to take them on the go, the familiar repating sounds of our workplace, nature... the human voice ITSELF is musical! (especially the female human voice)

You don't notice it, but music infuses everything around you. Hmmm... but this is a funny observation coming from me, who didn't start actually collecting or really listening to music until 2002, who carries no MP3 player around with him, and when given the choice, would rather have silence than turn on his playlist.

Oh, and I can't believe I forgot Fiddler on the Roof Svevan. Hey guys, what about Jesus Christ, Superstar!

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

P.S. It's neat how this thread was made to lambast Svevan but we're all treating him with reverence like he's PGC's own expert film critic!

[IceCold]

Quote
If there is no absolute truth, then your statement is not true because it is an absolute. If we agree that the statement "There is no absolute truth" is not absolute, then there is the possibility that there IS absolute truth and your statement is proven false. Therefore no one can ever make the statement "there is no absolute truth" because it is a fallacy.

If you believe only your opinion of film or art or life matters, than you might as well live in a shell. I believe everyone's opinions deserve to be heard, but not all are equal - some people speak truth and others speak lies, some believe one thing while others believe the opposite. One person is right. We are not truly objective, nor are we perfect, but I believe it is possible through education and faith to achieve a stronger opinion, one that can be more fiercely defended and may eventually be rock-solid.

This is something that I have always disagreed with you about. Let's take games, for instance.. You can judge games on technical aspects such as graphics (polygon count, effects etc), sound quality, production values and, to an extent, controls. However, people will always have different opinions about things like art style, music and, most importantly, whether it is fun or not. And I really don't think you can say that one person's opinion is correct, while another's is not. That last thread hit a dead end when you gave a detailed description of your definition of fun. I don't want to argue semantics, but I do believe that it's not so cut and dry. One person is not always right.

[UltimatePartyBear]

As the person who introduced the phrase "absolute truth" to this discussion, I'd like to point out that it was only hyperbole intended to put down a crappy movie.  Get back to insulting each other's favorite movies, please.

[couchmonkey]

Musicals:  I used to hate them but I'm growing to accept them.  You have to be willing to accept that the musical sequences do not necessarilly corelate to the reality of the movie.  i.e. a musical sequence is someone dreaming.  Or it's just plain fun.

That said, I'm still not crazy about the genre, I've just learned that it's okay for ridiculous things to happen...in the right context.  "That guy is swinging from buildings, that NEVER happens in real life.  Spider-Man is a terrible movie."

The other problem with musicals besides the fact that they break the suspension of disbelief is that you might just find the basic concept annoying.  I also hated music videos that were all dancing back in the day, actually I'm still not too crazy about them, but the point is that I thought they were shallow and pointless.  I learned that if I look at the performance rather than the "meaning" of song-and-dance numbers I get a lot more from them.

Edit: Insulting favourite movies, eh?  I love Ghostbusters, The Big Lebowski and Snatch.  Also pretty much any animated films, although this year the huge glut of computer animation is killing my interest.

[Khushrenada]

On the glut of animated movies, I don't think it's the fact that there are so many of them that makes them seem disinteresting. (though it is a bit of a factor) Rather, I think it's the uninspired stories. Finding Nemo and The Incredibles are movies I went to see in theaters and loved. Cars, on the other hand, I haven't seen yet and won't see until it's out on video. I like Pixar. I think they're the best animation studio at the moment. But I don't care much about cars. And watching a movie about a racing car learning to slow down and appreciate life is just not something that interested me as much as Finding Nemo and The Incredibles. Not to mention, I loved those other movies styles and worlds. The trailers and advertisments for Cars just never wowed me in that regards.

But I'm just focusing on one of the many disinteresting plots that animated films are using. I was watching Ebert and Roeper the other night (though it should really be called Roeper and a moron, since Ebert has been away and they've had mindless guest "critics") and Roeper made a comment during a review of Open Season about all the cartoon movies he's seen of animals and the wild. It's true. It seems to be such a huge theme.

Another part of the problem besides copycat story telling is simple storytelling. Finding Nemo and The Incredibles both had stories you could appreciate at any age and were deep enough for any age. They could also bring out emotion in me. I recently saw Open Season and you will get no emotion from that. Except starting to hate some of the characters. I don't know if anyone else has seen it but I think I'll post agin later in this thread tearing into this movie. But the story-telling is just predictable and uninspired.

I really can't remember all the animated movies that have come out this year. I think I've only seen two. But since I've mentioned Open Season, I'll get to the point of this thread. The best animated movie of the year and the one everyone should see is Over The Hedge. I'm not really a big fan of Dreamworks. I don't care for the Shrek movies. But when I first learned of this movie, I made a note of it. And when I saw the trailer for it, seeing it was a lock for me. To me, it was a Pixar film. That's the best praise I can give it. It can be enjoyed by everyone. It has a story everyone can appreciate. It may not have emotional depth like Pixar stories but the movie is more of a comedy unlike Pixar's films. It is a good comedy also. I can't believe this film didn't do better at the box office. So, if you are looking for a good animated film this year, Over The Hedge is the winner. And when you see a movie like Over The Hedge or Finding Nemo or The Incredibles, it's no wonder that one is disinterested in the other animated movies out there. You can always see what they're lacking.

[Svevan]

Deguello

>Impossible. Musicals cannot be good movies. If you say that audiences are participatory in the movies they view, then I consider that a two-way street.

No, that is impossible. Performance is a two way street, film is one way.

>They must participate in the plausible world that we live in.

That is not the "other side" of the audience participation "street." Your analogy doesn't work.

>And nowhere in this world would anybody for any reason burst out into a song with pre-written lyrics specifically for that occasion that describes how they are feeling or what is happening. And furthermore, nobody would join them, but rather start dialing the white vans from the funny farm.

You are correct. James Bond would never succeed at any of his missions, nor live for thirty years and never age. Superman cannot actually fly. Fish don't talk. Yet we accept certain things on stage and in film that we don't in real life. Do you really think that if something doesn't happen in every day life that it cannot be put on film? Film shows us events ranging from mundane to fantastic - fantasy is usually a method to describe something true through visuals when another method would not suffice. Music sung in a film is meant to be an emotional outpouring, one that describes and enhances the TRUTH, not reality, of a given moment. Truth is the ultimate goal of all art, not realism.

>You may like some musicals, and that's fine. But obiovusly liking something doesn't make it good, and they all screw up a fundamental fact of the human condition that they try to evoke.

Disliking something doesn't make it bad either, yet you end with your personal dislike of the musical style:

>And seriously, Evan, musicals are the worst edited things ever. Plot BAMF Music BAMF Plot BAMF Music. It's irritating.

An excellent opinion: some musicals are edited poorly. But the diversity within the genre belies your generalization. Dancer in the Dark is the opposite of Singin' in the Rain in editing, but both are musicals.

Jeff, I think you need to see a really human musical as opposed to the flashy modern ones. Chicago, for instance, is edited poorly and I dislike it a lot. Moulin Rouge is for certain tastes only. Try out something like Lagaan, Fiddler on the Roof, or Kenneth Branagh's Love's Labour's Lost. South Park was a musical, and I don't think you could complain about its editing or humanity. Robert Altman's Popeye is pretty deft at weaving its music into the film without it seeming out of place.


Wandering

>But did filmmakers ever not edit on the small screen?

Some used to edit on small machines that you would peer into to emulate a larger screen, but Sidney Lumet says that he always edits on a small screen like most, but then plays it on a big screen to make sure it works. When you see Howard Hughes in The Aviator watching his film in a very small theater, or Jack Black in King Kong, that's the place where they would play the newly edited stuff and see if it "works." I'm not sure Jackson ever took that step, and if he did he liked how incomprehensible it was.


Caliban

>My statement is not an absolute, it is my statement, my view, it is from one and only one individual, so it is not absolute.

But you hold your statement to be true; is it true for you only? If so, does that mean absolute truth exists except where it affects you? Which means that when I believe in absolute truth for everyone, including you, I'm correct even though that contradicts your belief that there isn't any such thing?

>I too believe others opinions are important, but does it really matter, you are still going to watch it no matter what others say, and you will have your own opinion on it.

My opinions are the product of many other's opinions. Instead of dismissing them as "someone else's" I reason them through, consider them, and decide if they match up with the observable world. I am not so vain as to think I can get through the world on my own. Many people have brought me to the place I am at - that is why we read, listen, and converse.

>We are perfect, but how well can we master perfection is where we are at.

This is a major philosophical disagreement. I believe humans are fallible and depraved to the point of corruption. You speak of "mastering" our perfection, but that shows that we haven't actually attained the perfection you claim. How can you master something as absolute as perfection?


IceCold

>This is something that I have always disagreed with you about. Let's take games, for instance.. You can judge games on technical aspects such as graphics (polygon count, effects etc), sound quality, production values and, to an extent, controls. However, people will always have different opinions about things like art style, music and, most importantly, whether it is fun or not. And I really don't think you can say that one person's opinion is correct, while another's is not. That last thread hit a dead end when you gave a detailed description of your definition of fun. I don't want to argue semantics, but I do believe that it's not so cut and dry. One person is not always right.

I bolded that sentence because I agree that you and I cannot say that. No one can determine 100% that someone is correct, but we can come to strong conclusions. People will always disagree, but why are they disagreeing? Does one man merely say "I thought this movie was good," the other says "I thought it was bad," and they both rest knowing that both of these statements can be true? The world today doesn't believe in antithesis - that is, that two contradicting statements cannot be equally true. Otherwise every sentence we say, including everything said above by the relativists among us, cannot be proven or disproven. It merely exists as a vapor that floats through the universe and affects no one. I heartily disagree. Why do you think I keep saying I disagree with you? Because what you said just now is your opinion, and I do not believe that the natural world supports it. This is of course based on my incomplete observations of the world, something I desire to improve constantly.  

[wandering]

Oo, I know I really good film musical. Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

Quote
More like YOU suck...Both rock!

I actually really like Shyamalan. I hope someday he manages to make a third good film (with his first two good films being the Sixth Sense, 3/4 of Signs, and 1/4 of the Village.)

Quote
Some used to edit on small machines that you would peer into to emulate a larger screen

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. Hmm.

Quote
When you see Howard Hughes in The Aviator watching his film in a very small theater, or Jack Black in King Kong, that's the place where they would play the newly edited stuff and see if it "works." I'm not sure Jackson ever took that step, and if he did he liked how incomprehensible it was.

I didn't find the Lord of the Rings' battles incomprehensible on the large screen. But whatever.

Quote
Why do you think I keep saying I disagree with you? Because what you said just now is your opinion, and I do not believe that the natural world supports it.

Interesting. When I say I disagree, on matters such as film, I think I do so to point out my own priorities. You might say you love Olivier's Henry V because of it's breathtaking visuals, I might say I didn't really like it because Olivier butchered a good story for the purpose of propaganda. I don't see how either stance isn't supported by the natural world.

[the REAL wandering]

Quote
Originally posted by: SUPER's dupe account

Quote
Why do you think I keep saying I disagree with you? Because what you said just now is your opinion, and I do not believe that the natural world supports it.

Interesting. When I say I disagree, on matters such as film, I think I do so to point out my own priorities. You might say you love Olivier's Henry V because of it's breathtaking visuals, I might say I didn't really like it because Olivier butchered a good story for the purpose of propaganda. I don't see how either stance isn't supported by the natural world.

Ah, you talk about 'matters such as film' as if you treat other matters differently. Where do you think the priorities you speak of, the ones that determine what you find important in film, come from? Doesn't it tie back in to your sense of right and wrong? Your belief in God? You cannot say your opinion on film is unrelated to the ultimate truth of the one true God, the prophets who relay his message, and his only son.  

[wandering]

Quote
Originally posted by: the FAKE wandering
You cannot say or opinion on film is unrelated to the ultimate truth of the one true God, the prophets who relay his message, and his only son.

A person's religious beliefs cannont be considered objectively true.

[the REAL wandering]

Bull****. God either does or does not exist.

[wandering]

In practical terms, that's irrelevant. An objective person, with no knowledge of what is ultimately true, cannot say whether or not a particular person's religious beliefs are correct.

[the REAL wandering]

Stop trying to weasel out of losing the argument, which was never about what was practical.

Actually, you've just rendered any further debate pointless:

Quote
what is ultimately true

Bzzt, sorry, that's the correct answer. You lose. Please come back and play again.

[IceCold]

EDIT: Guess not..

[the REAL wandering]

Chaos and Mr. Dragon have nothing in common. NOTHING.

[wandering]

Well, they do have some things in common. But Mr. Dragon is way cooler than any lame Final Fantasy boss.

[IceCold]

Who the hell is Mr. Dragon?

[wandering]

WHAT?

[the REAL wandering]

He's only the COOLEST CAT in the greatest non-linear goalless Cyan-made children's game.

[couchmonkey]

Ignoring this train wreck and responding to Svevan's(?) comments on the copycat problem that animated movies are facing this year...that's right, there's a huge copycat vibe.  So many movies about animals!  One needs to attempt to stand out, I think Flushed Away will manage that, but as a shameless Aardman fanboy, of course I think that.

But even the ones that aren't animal themed seem like boring "me toos" and I think the sheer number has something to do with that.  A lack of quality does too, which I guess might be what you were getting at more than copycat-ism.

Ironically, after Disney ditched its traditional animation units, those ex-employees went on to create Curious George which is not an all-time great movie, but it succeeds at standing out from all the "me too" computer animated flicks just because it's not one of them.  I saw it and although it's geared towards kids, it's charming in a way that a lot of these other movies don't seem to be.  They're too busy trying to be cool.

[Caliban]

Svevan > But you hold your statement to be true; is it true for you only? If so, does that mean absolute truth exists except where it affects you? Which means that when I believe in absolute truth for everyone, including you, I'm correct even though that contradicts your belief that there isn't any such thing?

Yes.
If it exists for others, then so be it.
You are correct accordingly to your own observable world.

Svevan > My opinions are the product of many other's opinions. Instead of dismissing them as "someone else's" I reason them through, consider them, and decide if they match up with the observable world. I am not so vain as to think I can get through the world on my own. Many people have brought me to the place I am at - that is why we read, listen, and converse.

Indeed, however that does not mean that you won't form your own observable world taken from those same opinions and matchups.

Svevan > This is a major philosophical disagreement. I believe humans are fallible and depraved to the point of corruption. You speak of "mastering" our perfection, but that shows that we haven't actually attained the perfection you claim. How can you master something as absolute as perfection?

Then how would you see a human as perfect?

Svevan > Does one man merely say "I thought this movie was good," the other says "I thought it was bad," and they both rest knowing that both of these statements can be true?

Yes.