«

Rutgar wrote:
> What, exactly, about the above criteria did you not understand? I
> have seen all of these movies. So, that blows your "attention span"
> theory.

Not really.


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to
affirm life, purpose, and beauty." - Emma Goldman

damnfine wrote on [Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:22:13 +1030]:
> Rutgar wrote:
>> What, exactly, about the above criteria did you not understand? I
>> have seen all of these movies. So, that blows your "attention span"
>> theory.
>
> Not really.
>

Quite a few of the movies he listed did indeed suck hard

It has been my experience that people who complain about this the most are
young and/or immature types with relatively little film viewing and life
living experience. It takes time and effort to cultivate more sophisticated
tastes. Not everyone who enjoys "boring" movies is faking it in order to
appear more mature.

(V.S.) wrote in news:3089-3FF9FEBE-371@storefull-
2291.public.lawson.webtv.net:

> Some that come to mind (IMHO):

You need to check in with more than one or two critics - with a couple
of exceptions, the consensus reviews of the films you listed were
mediocre-to-OK. Using metacritic.com, which collects reviews from
various sources and converts them to a 1-100 scale, here is how
the following films you listed were received:


>
> Northfork

68

> The Safety of Objects

58

> Laurel Canyon

61

> Heaven (Cate Blanchet)

68

> Till Human Voices Wake Us

34

> Love Liza

58


The notable exceptions were Raising Victor Vargas, and Winged Migration,
which each scored 85. Having seen Vargas, I'd concur in the score.
Haven't seen Migration, but this is one of those you-know-what-you're
getting-into type of films; if you expect the birds to doublecross
each other and start shooting, then no critic is going to guide the
way for you.

>Rutgar

>Let's not forget:
>

>Dead Poets Society

What's wrong with this film?

It tells a very good story about conformity and how it relates to freedom of
expression and the freedom to be yourself.

(read: repression of creative expression and taking an overly analytical
approach to somthing that has to be appreciated at an emotional level to truly
be understood and enjoyed, not methodically and systematically analyzed. "I
don't hear ripping!" Also, about not being able to take charge of your own
future because of unreasonable demands from an authority. "You are going to
military school and you're going to be a doctor.")

I don't know about you, but to have someone tell me that I can't be what I want
and would force me to be what I would never want to be may drive me to suicide,
because I wouldn't have much of a life worth living anyways. Anyone who's seen
and understood this film probably know what I'm talking about.

But, anyways, with more people wanting films that are lowbrow rather than films
that actually matter, it should come as no surprise at why mainstream Hollywood
is at such a poor state of originality, particularly when compared to
independent, European, and Japanese cinema. - Reinhart

>What, exactly, about the above criteria did you not understand? I
>have seen all of these movies. So, that blows your "attention span"
>theory. BTW, what films do YOU think fit the list?

Not necessarily. Anyone can see a movie, but really understanding it is what
matters in appreciation of cinema. You don't have to like it, but you have to
clearly explain your reasons why, and only saying "because it's boring" or "too
drawn out" without much of a good explanation doesn't really count as a very
good reason why a movie is considered bad in your opinion.

Some films may have mistakes in pacing that can make key scenes longer than
they ought to be, but usually the director has a reason for all of his/her
decisions, including the length of time of a scene, in order to get a desired
emotional response from an audience that is truly paying attention.

Sometimes, but not always, good cinema, like any other form of creative
expression, expresses to us all something that needs to be known, even if no
one wants to hear it, see it, feel it, or think about it. Either directly or
indirectly. - Reinhart