The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[surfdude12]

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Film: 4.5/5
-my favorite of the series
-great intro to all the characters, initiation into Hogwarts, etc
-another favorite part is probably the Mirror of Erised, where Dumbledore tells Harry

[Show spoiler]that anyone who looks in it sees the most desperate desires of their heart, that men have wasted away in front of it, that the happiest man would just see himself and nothing else, and that "it does not do us well to dwell on dreams (future), but rather to live (now)"

PQ : 3.5/5 (could use an upgrade)

AQ: 4/5 (decent)

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Film: 4.5/5
-my favorite of the series
-great intro to all the characters, initiation into Hogwarts, etc
-another favorite part is probably the Mirror of Erised, where Dumbledore tells Harry

[Show spoiler]that anyone who looks in it sees the most desperate desires of their heart, that men have wasted away in front of it, that the happiest man would just see himself and nothing else, and that "it does not do us well to dwell on dreams (future), but rather to live (now)"

PQ : 3.5/5 (could use an upgrade)

AQ: 4/5 (decent)

Seriously under-rated movie nowadays, I can't believe people dislike this film because the newer films are older

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Seriously under-rated movie nowadays, I can't believe people dislike this film because the newer films are older

The later ones are arguably better films simply because they're more mature pictures, but the first two really capture the magic and imagination of the book. I agree with you.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Film: 4.5/5
-my favorite of the series
-great intro to all the characters, initiation into Hogwarts, etc
-another favorite part is probably the Mirror of Erised, where Dumbledore tells Harry

[Show spoiler]that anyone who looks in it sees the most desperate desires of their heart, that men have wasted away in front of it, that the happiest man would just see himself and nothing else, and that "it does not do us well to dwell on dreams (future), but rather to live (now)"

PQ : 3.5/5 (could use an upgrade)

AQ: 4/5 (decent)

I'm torn when it comes to ranking the Harry Potter films. The first one shows the characters and Hogwarts and you get to see the world for the first time. As the actors get older, they get better. Very different in feel.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

The later ones are arguably better films simply because they're more mature pictures, but the first two really capture the magic and imagination of the book. I agree with you.

I can't disagree with you, but people use the excuse that the newer films are more mature to say the first are weaker films.

[repete66211]

Inception - 2/5 - Interesting premise, but too muddled (contrived?) for its own good.

[repete66211]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

You can use epic for them but not masterpiece--they're too recent to be able to definitively say so, although it looks like it's the case

The term masterpiece doesn't denote just historical significance. A masterpiece can be a contemporary term used to describe a work of art that brings all abilities and talents together. Look at the term's original meaning--the piece of art (sculpture, painting, etc.) presented to the guild when applying for a graduation from journeyman to master. I just means the artist knows what he's doing as is talented enough to go out on his own.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by repete66211

Inception - 2/5 - Interesting premise, but too muddled (contrived?) for its own good.

First bad review I've seen for this film. And just when I was getting psyched to go see it...

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Steve46

I'm torn when it comes to ranking the Harry Potter films. The first one shows the characters and Hogwarts and you get to see the world for the first time. As the actors get older, they get better. Very different in feel.

Exactly, and it mirrors the progression in maturity that is prevalent in the books, as well. It's very difficult to rank them, no doubt.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I can't disagree with you, but people use the excuse that the newer films are more mature to say the first are weaker films.

Right, and I don't think that's entirely fair. A film can be "kiddie" and still be a good film. It really depends on what you're looking for. Each film really showcases the mood of the respective book. There's a broad spectrum that Rowling uses for the series, which is why ppl who haven't read the books generally enjoy the latter films more, since they are more mature. But it's the first two books that captured the world's imagination and attention, with their creativity.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by repete66211

The term masterpiece doesn't denote just historical significance. A masterpiece can be a contemporary term used to describe a work of art that brings all abilities and talents together. Look at the term's original meaning--the piece of art (sculpture, painting, etc.) presented to the guild when applying for a graduation from journeyman to master. I just means the artist knows what he's doing as is talented enough to go out on his own.

I'm aware of the original meaning of the word, but like many things, the meaning of the word can change and is used differently depending on the context. If every great movie is called a masterpiece, the word loses its meaning, even when taking into account the historical meaning that you accurately point out. I've read several articles that have bemoaned its overuse in modern times and I agree. It's very similar to the overuse of the word "classic." The use of both "classic" and "masterpiece" is better suited for use retrospectively, because as we all know only time can tell which films will be revered by future critics and audiences, and it is their take on these films that (for better or worse) determines the worth of a film.

[repete66211]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

First bad review I've seen for this film. And just when I was getting psyched to go see it...

It's a decent movie, just a little busy for me personally. I'm not gaga for Leo or Nolan, so what I have to say about this movie is definitely a minority report. I mean, look at the thread for Inception. According to the poll over 70% rate it 5/5 stars and about 20% rate it 4/5. Read into that imbalance what you will, but it's apparent a lot of people enjoy it. I (and those I was with) didn't.

[repete66211]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

If every great movie is called a masterpiece, the word loses its meaning...I've read several articles that have bemoaned its overuse in modern times and I agree.

I would argue the words great and masterpiece can be synonyms. If masterpiece is overused then so is the word great. If you have a 5-star grading scale, movies should fall into the bell curve pattern. There should be very few really, really bad movies and very few great or masterpiece movies.

If, on the other hand, you take the historical meaning of the word--the one piece of art that gets a guy his diploma--then each great director would only have one masterpiece, meaning there would be very few indeed.

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

It's very similar to the overuse of the word "classic." The use of both "classic" and "masterpiece" is better suited for use retrospectively, because as we all know only time can tell which films will be revered by future critics and audiences, and it is their take on these films that (for better or worse) determines the worth of a film.

I understand what you're saying, but the word "classic" denotes the passage of time in its very definition. Not so with masterpiece.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by repete66211

I would argue the words great and masterpiece can be synonyms. If masterpiece is overused then so is the word great. If you have a 5-star grading scale, movies should fall into the bell curve pattern. There should be very few really, really bad movies and very few great or masterpiece movies.

If, on the other hand, you take the historical meaning of the word--the one piece of art that gets a guy his diploma--then each great director would only have one masterpiece, meaning there would be very few indeed.


I understand what you're saying, but the word "classic" denotes the passage of time in its very definition. Not so with masterpiece.

You make very valid points and I don't disagree. Another reason why I think "masterpiece" really should be used after a passage of time is the example you used regarding each great director having one masterpiece. People have used that term for the past three Nolan films, for example, saying "this is his masterpiece." Why not wait a decade and see which of his films holds up the best instead of proclaiming one to be his masterpiece now?

As for the usage of the word "masterpiece" in the art realm, which you're correct about, it's difficult to apply that usage to film. The reason I say this is because as you point out, it was used when an artist has made a work warranting the master title. By that very definition, whatever film has brought a particular director his first great critical acclaim would be his or her masterpiece, with all great films coming subsequent to it being almost expected since he or she has progressed to the master level. So, it doesn't take into account which film is truly the director's masterpiece, but rather which film has placed he or she on the upper echelon of directors.

[repete66211]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

...whatever film has brought a particular director his first great critical acclaim would be his or her masterpiece, with all great films coming subsequent to it being almost expected since he or she has progressed to the master level.

Well said, although I think this should be clarified: Being a master artisan doesn't mean everything you produce is going to be Great, it just means you have mastery of the tools of your trade. As Hitchcock, Polanski, etc. have shown us, even masters can create some real disappointments

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by repete66211

Well said, although I think this should be clarified: Being a master artisan doesn't mean everything you produce is going to be Great, it just means you have mastery of the tools of your trade. As Hitchcock, Polansky, etc. have shown us, even masters can create some real disappointments

Agreed, good points.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

So....should I use the words epic and/or masterpiece in my upcoming reviews of the Lord of the Rings movies...would that earn the Jhiggy Stamp of Disapproval? (

[Show spoiler]AKA -

)

They qualify as epic because of their scope and run time.

I'll let onthers debate the masterpiece qualification.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

But there are exceptions like Hans Zimmer's score of the Batman films

[repete66211]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

They qualify as epic because of their scope and run time.

I'll let onthers debate the masterpiece qualification.

Yes, if the Lord of the Rings trilogy isn't epic then nothing is.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

First bad review I've seen for this film. And just when I was getting psyched to go see it...

I gave it a 3/5. I found it too simple and "easy".