The Criterion Collection

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by kndy

Personally, I can see were CG and ChadFL are coming from. I communicate with film snobs daily and the truth is, there are many of them who think everything that has come out of Hollywood lately is crap. Granted, I like to remind those who only follow foreign films that all countries are guilty of producing crap, not just the US.

But it all goes deeper as there is a new generation of film fans who dislike the mentality of older film fans because they allow films such as "Citizen Kane" to be in the top of "greatest films of all time" polls.

But what it comes down to is everyone has a preference of what they enjoy and what are not into. I get into conversations with younger cinema fans who cannot fathom why people watch films created before the 1950's as they felt the films acting and structure were terrible.

And again, to each their own. What's most important is what these films mean to you and if you are entertained. There are those who want something deeper and fulfilling, while there are those who don't mind catching mindless action or moronic comedy.

But just have fun enjoying and watching films.

It's all a generational thing. Even though I own a large library of pre-60's films and many silents I still find myself sometimes falling down the path of believing modern acting to be superior to most of the early stuff. And I have no doubt that 30 years from now when I'm nearing 60 I'll be looking back at the 1980's-2000 period as the height of cinema while the next generation will laughing at the acting from Back to the Future and Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Bottom line is EVERY generation has a good number of great actors and directors and a crapload of REALLY bad actors and directors.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

Well I won't argue with you there. Zombie seems extremely intelligent when it comes to films. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to translate to good directing. The only film of his I found mildly entertaining was his first Halloween film. House of 1,000 Corpses was one of the few movies I nearly walked of the theatre on.

It doesn't translate to good directing. I just hope it does someday.

Originally Posted by ChadFL

This website is only different because we have effective mods who have no problem nuking a thread that gets out of line. Which happens quite a bit thanks to people like you and me.

Yes, yes it does.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

P.S. You like Rob Zombie films?!?! Yuck!

House of 1,000 Corpses was hilarious........ but to each their own.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

House of 1,000 Corpses was hilarious........ but to each their own.

Yes, and H2 IMO, was his best directed film. Not the best film, but the shots, the cinematography (wasn't him, but his view) was prob the best I seen in a horror movie in a long time.

Look at the shots here in this topic someone made:

http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/...ilit=halloween

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

Yes, and H2 IMO, was his best directed film. Not the best film, but the shots, the cinematography (wasn't him, but his view) was prob the best I seen in a horror movie in a long time.

Look at the shots here in this topic someone made:

http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/...ilit=halloween

Oh don't get me wrong, Zombie does have a good eye for things like cinematography and getting great shots. He just has a bad habit of picking the absolute worst casts imaginable and a horrible job at developing a story. If he were half as good at making a good script and picking good casts he'd be a very good director IMO. But I do see why he has a certain cult following among those who like his style.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

Oh don't get me wrong, Zombie does have a good eye for things like cinematography and getting great shots. He just has a bad habit of picking the absolute worst casts imaginable and a horrible job at developing a story. If he were half as good at making a good script and picking good casts he'd be a very good director IMO. But I do see why he has a certain cult following among those who like his style.

I do agree about that. He likes to pull some type of Tarantino-like casting. Like, "let's get the 70's and 80's B-movie guys like Sid Haig and Bill Moseley" mixed with his friends and wife. Tarantino's casting works though (Jackie Brown is my fav Tarantino BTW).

I do like that he casts Brad Dourif though.

Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis is one of those "Oh Awesome. Can't wait to see that" to "WTF was that?" things, that I can't give Rob any crap for.

[bugsy_pal]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

Everyone. Check out this new movie I just heard about,

"Warner Bros Presents: A movie about a remake of a remake to the sequel of a remake. With Will Smith and Leonardo Dicaprio. It's going to have stuff blowing up, some background music to match the mood of that moment, some crying, and some plot explanations in the middle of the film to act like the audience is dumb. Don't forget a gimmick to keep people talking about it, like blue aliens or a little girl cussing and dressed as a superhero. Either Michael Bay, James Cameron, or the master himself Spielberg will direct. Or all 3. Does it matter anyways? We just want to see stuff blown up! Coming soon in 3D."

Wow. Awesome right? That shoud totally make some serious money!



I think I just actually gave studios an idea.

Actually, this is not funny at all... just another example of Mr CG bludgeoning us with his wit and opinions about everything. If you are not a film snob, why do you keep crapping on Spielberg? (Raiders of the Lost Ark and Close Encounters are enough to keep him in my pantheon).

We appreciate that you like silents, Godard, and subversive cinema of the 60s and 70s - and you don't like Kurosawa. (There's more no doubt but I can't remember and can't be bothered trawling through this thread).

I like noir, Fritz Lang, Welles, Hitchcock, Bogart, Truffaut, Polanski and lots more besides - but I don't go on about it at every opportunity, and I try to be open and receptive to others' views.

Mr CG, I don't regard you as openly hostile - more passive-aggressive . You are prepared to engage with your critics, but usually from a defensive standpoint, conceding nothing. Aside from that, I'm sure you're a nice person

(...waits for scathing reply)

[Juiceboxjerry]

Originally Posted by kndy

Personally, I can see were CG and ChadFL are coming from. I communicate with film snobs daily and the truth is, there are many of them who think everything that has come out of Hollywood lately is crap. Granted, I like to remind those who only follow foreign films that all countries are guilty of producing crap, not just the US.

But it all goes deeper as there is a new generation of film fans who dislike the mentality of older film fans because they allow films such as "Citizen Kane" to be in the top of "greatest films of all time" polls.

But what it comes down to is everyone has a preference of what they enjoy and what are not into. I get into conversations with younger cinema fans who cannot fathom why people watch films created before the 1950's as they felt the films acting and structure were terrible.

And again, to each their own. What's most important is what these films mean to you and if you are entertained. There are those who want something deeper and fulfilling, while there are those who don't mind catching mindless action or moronic comedy.

But just have fun enjoying and watching films.

Totally agree with this. It's always best to just focus on what you like, and forget what everyone else thinks. If you find something entertaining, or funny, or whatever, it shouldn't matter if someone else does.

When it comes to "Best" lists like imdb, those are better used for fun and discussion. They shouldn't be viewed as something that determines what's good and what isn't. I don't care how high on that list "Inception" is, I still think it was pretty lame.

As far as the "film snob" thing goes, the only problem I have, is when people rip on others because of what movies they like/don't like. It shouldn't bother anyone if, for example, CG makes fun of Spielberg or Shawshank Redemption or anything else. It's his opinion, and frankly, it makes things a lot more fun and interesting. Same thing with the guy that found Passion of Joan of Arc boring. It's just one person's opinion.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Juiceboxjerry

As far as the "film snob" thing goes, the only problem I have, is when people rip on others because of what movies they like/don't like. It shouldn't bother anyone if, for example, CG makes fun of Spielberg or Shawshank Redemption or anything else. It's his opinion, and frankly, it makes things a lot more fun and interesting. Same thing with the guy that found Passion of Joan of Arc boring. It's just one person's opinion.

Thank you. It's not like I am bashing a member or his film likes. There has not been one example of someone saying "Hello my name is blah blah blah and I like this movie" then I turn around and say "That movie sucks!". I have never done that. I have opinions on movies, but never try to call someone a name (Hello people calling me a snob).

[Sukuri]

Originally Posted by J.Cornelius

Did you watch the film on mute?

The film just didn't come with any sound.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by bugsy_pal

We appreciate that you like silents, Godard, and subversive cinema of the 60s and 70s - and you don't like Kurosawa. (There's more no doubt but I can't remember and can't be bothered trawling through this thread).

I like noir, Fritz Lang, Welles, Hitchcock, Bogart, Truffaut, Polanski and lots more besides - but I don't go on about it at every opportunity, and I try to be open and receptive to others' views.

Mr CG, I don't regard you as openly hostile - more passive-aggressive . You are prepared to engage with your critics, but usually from a defensive standpoint, conceding nothing. Aside from that, I'm sure you're a nice person

(...waits for scathing reply)

I am a nice person. I say thank you sir, and hold the door for anyone. But when it comes to passions/things of interest, and since this is the internet where no one should take anything personal, I unleash my opinions. Who cares at the end of the day. It's just me venting. I don't want to hurt anyone on here, because there isn't a reason to. It's just opinions clashing and having fun.

So I'm not going to hate on your response. I like it. You got balls for saying you like Spielberg.


But if some of you look at me as a bad guy, well.....

You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your ****** fingers and say, "That's the bad guy."

So say good night to the bad guy!

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

Oh crap......

ccfixx
rkish
kndy
Beta Man
P@t_Mtl
BillyJack
ChadFL
Dotpattern
herzog4life
jcs913
Juiceboxjerry
Knapsack
Monolithium
ShellOilJunior
Volume11
zedd_117

someone doesn't respect me and doesn't listen to any words I say because I have strong opinions on something that shouldn't of even been talked about on this thread. OH NO! I'm a snob. A Rob Zombie movie loving film snob.

What, I watch Godard movies and not Spielberg movies? How anti-american of me. FILM SNOB! What, I don't like generic emotions pushed onto me while watching a movie? FILM SNOB! What, I don't agree with IMDB ranking sytem? FILM SNOB! What, I think it's a joke? FILM SNOB! It's my fault that I branch out rather than watching the same **** all the time? FILM SNOB! I must like Will Smith movies, right? NO. What? FILM SNOB!

Too bad I never went to film school. They would really have something to grab onto with this Film Snob stuff, huh?

You continue to play this martyr act - "Oh no, people attack me for my opinions, I'm the only one who likes new things and doesn't watch the same-old same-old." Except NO ONE is criticizing your taste in films. You like Godard and Zombie, and don't like Spielberg and Nolan? Good for you. If you have interesting things to say on why you like some, and dislike others, hey that's wonderful. I would never accuse you of being a snob for liking what you like, and hating what you hate. And I haven't seen anyone else do that to you either.

I am criticizing you for doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. You see what they like, and make assumptions about WHY they like it. You lump them into this mythical "movie-going sheep" populace that only listens to marketing. You go off on rants, not about the quality of popular movies, but about people liking popular movies. First, it's illogical, as the basis of your argument is normally just that people are ignorant for liking popular things. How else does something get popular, if not because many people like it? Is your argument that NOTHING should be popular, that positive opinion should be evenly distributed over every movie in existence? Or is it just that you feel what YOU like should be what's popular? And second, people just plain don't like being told that they only like things because they are popular. That is insulting, and annoying. And we all wish you would stop.

So again - just to summarize so we don't get another "Woe is me, I am the film martyr" rant - no one cares what films you like or don't. No one thinks you're a snob because of your tastes. People think you're a snob because you criticize people's opinions directly, and either imply or outright state that they only have those opinions because they are sheep. People don't like that. Cut it out.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

People think you're a snob because you criticize people's opinions directly, and either imply or outright state that they only have those opinions because they are sheep.

Hey Hey Hey. Once again show me when I ever have bashed a film someone came out and said they liked! I throw out films I don't like and people bash me for it, and it gets into a 5 page rant over and over.

For example, if someone said "I love Seven Samurai", I never came out and said "That film sucks! HA HA!". It usually happens when I start saying "I don't care for Seven Samurai" and someone goes "WHAT? You're nuts, Seven Samurai is the greatest".

Yes I do get into popular/marketing crap, but thats my opinion. I don't single someone out and say "Chad. Your taste in movies suck because your sucked into the Hollywood ways!".

The problem is I have opinions that some people don't like and they single them self out by responding. Truth is this can get dropped, but your name calling keeps coming. Yes I will still play the "I'm not bashing, your bashing" card, because to this day I have not called one person a name because this is something where I don't want to hurt someone. It's the internet. Rant away.

Oh, and I like Nolan.

Also, Chad, sorry for picking your name. Your my buddy.

[s00perd00per]

Oh man, I wonder if one day there'll be a movie about internet forum drama.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by s00perd00per

Oh man, I wonder if one day there'll be a movie about internet forum drama.

Well we gave studios 2 movie ideas today.

[Beta Man]

What's not to love about Shawshank?

Stephen King Adaptation...... 'Check'

Morgan Freeman voice-over ..... 'Check'

Lead by Actor who is known but type-cast...... 'Check'

Powerful supporting roles....... 'Check'

I really enjoy this film..... I enjoy it despite being a HUGE Stephen King fan...... Many of his fantastic works (It, Tommy Knockers, The Stand, Misery etc etc) have gone on to have far from good films created from them......... but the original ideas/story-telling are still there.......

Big thumbs up for Shawshank from me....... I'm curious what it is about it that puts you off of it?

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Big thumbs up for Shawshank from me....... I'm curious what it is about it that puts you off of it?

As the subject of this being brought up was IMDB placing it as #1 film (either as most popular or greatest of all time, whatever), that was my main thing.

But about the film itself, one of the best examples of Hollywood's pushed emotions. The spelling out of you be sad when we want you to be sad. Now hear comes the sad music. This is why I have a dislike for Spielberg's films and call him the Master of it. Not all Hollywood films do this. This is why I like alot of mainstream films still. And yes, foreign films do this too, but I never said I like all things foreign (um, Kurosawa anyone?)

It's the type of films that gets me. "Subject A does something dramatic. Sad music, maybe some tears or over acting. Let's get an oscar and go home.". And it shows (with IMDB) that people eats that up. So I think it has something to do with the power and money studios have and marketing. It has to. I'm not saying people is sheep. It's just that they think thats the only thing out there. Just go watch movies millions of people haven't rated on IMDB. Thats the problem. Most people just don't step out the box because others hasn't. It's like "Who is jumping off the bridge first? Not Me. Well not me either. Well if your not doing it, then I'm not doing it!".

[Juiceboxjerry]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

As the subject of this being brought up was IMDB placing it as #1 film (either as most popular or greatest of all time, whatever), that was my main thing.

But about the film itself, one of the best examples of Hollywood's pushed emotions. The spelling out of you be sad when we want you to be sad. Now hear comes the sad music. This is why I have a dislike for Spielberg's films and call him the Master of it. Not all Hollywood films do this. This is why I like alot of mainstream films still. And yes, foreign films do this too, but I never said I like all things foreign (um, Kurosawa anyone?)

It's the type of films that gets me. "Subject A does something dramatic. Sad music, maybe some tears or over acting. Let's get an oscar and go home.". And it shows (with IMDB) that people eats that up. So I think it has something to do with the power and money studios have and marketing. It has to. I'm not saying people is sheep. It's just that they think thats the only thing out there. Just go watch movies millions of people haven't rated on IMDB. Thats the problem. Most people just don't step out the box because others hasn't. It's like "Who is jumping off the bridge first? Not Me. Well not me either. Well if your not doing it, then I'm not doing it!".

I agree with the point of what you're saying, which is that it is sad that certain director's have to fall back on the same tricks to try and manipulate an audience's emotion.

But I do think some movies can use those tricks, and still make a good film though. I think Shawshank is an example of that. Even though it might be simplistic in the way it gets it's story and message across, it's still very well done imo.

Whereas, I totally agree with you on something like Saving Private Ryan. That's an example of a director (Spielberg) using those tricks in a heavy handed way, for the sole purpose of trying to get a certain reaction from the audience (CRY NOW!). I recently watched it again for the new Blu release, and I find that I like it less and less with each subsequent viewing.

[pro-bassoonist]

PRE-ORDERS:

America Lost and Found: The BBS Story:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ameri...Blu-ray/14981/

Modern Times:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Moder...Blu-ray/14982/

Antichrist:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Antic...Blu-ray/11304/

Pro-B

[42041]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

But about the film itself, one of the best examples of Hollywood's pushed emotions. The spelling out of you be sad when we want you to be sad. Now hear comes the sad music. ]

I think that's a gross oversimplification of how such movies work. Popular filmmakers of a lesser caliber (Michael Bay comes to mind) employ the same tools to very weak effect, so clearly there's a lot more to making an effective crowd pleaser than that. I suspect many of the filmmakers that film snobs revere do not possess that skillset either.