Supermallet

I don't need your pity, thanks.

As for the rotten tomatoes thing, everyone in the world could love the film, and it wouldn't make me feel any different about it.

Sondheim

I've been meaning to rent this film, but I always forget when I'm actually at the store (which is something that happens to me far too often.)

Honestly though, no matter what I think of this (or any) film after watching it, the fact that the critics hated/loved said film will not change my opinion. There isn't a single film in existence that every intelligent person likes (or hates,) no matter whether it's "Citizen Kane" or "Plan 9 From Outer Space."

C.H.U.D.

Dumbest post ever. Enjoy your mindless movie critic worship.

SunMonkey

I thought this was rather nice movie.

slop101

It's not about critics - it's about raw numbers, and it's the best way to show a solid figure which points out that far more people like this movie than don't.

Also, when something is that drastic on RT (i.e.: when a movie is over 90% or under 10%), it's usually pretty right on - I challange you to find me a movie with a rating below 10% that doesn't suck.

Giantrobo

I agree. Rent it yourself. You may hate it, or you may love it. Neither professional Critics nor Net geeks know everything and they certainly don't speak for everyone.

Supermallet

No, the point is that numbers don't matter. Britney Spears and J. Lo move millions of albums, but that doesn't mean I have to like them. You will never win an argument of taste by saying "Almost everyone likes it, there must be something wrong with YOU." Taste is subjective. I'm no more wrong in disliking it than you are in liking it.

eXcentris

Yes and no. People often confuse "like" with "good" because (psychology 101) if they "like" a film, surely this is because this is a "good" film. This politically correct nonsense that would have you believe that all "tastes" are created equal, aka "to each his own!" annoys the hell out of me and is pure bullpucky.

Edited to add: Which doesn't mean that you HAVE to "like" a film that is considered "good". What's important is that you are able to make the difference.

slop101

This is a totally wrong analogy and you completely missed the point. Your analogy may have held up if I posted how much money Triplets made, but I didn't - it actually made very little money. People who like crap music, are just ignorant of good music (ask your typical Britney & J.Lo fan) - same with movies. While I'm against blindly following what critics say, most of the time, their opinions do not stem from ignorance of cinema.

And I totally agree with eXcentris.

As it says in dasMonkey sig: "you're not entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to your informed opinion."

Supermallet

I think this is the first time I've been accused of holding an uninformed opinion, especially about film.

The discussion at hand is primarily about taste. No one here has spent much time debating the technical aspects of the picture. Yes, it had a unique look and was certainly different from most commercial animated fare. However, I found that many of the ideas (such as the Triplettes making music from household items) to be derivative of other things (Stomp, anyone?), and that the story was needlessly overblown.

And eXcentris, I am not saying taste is subjective in order to be politically correct. However, I find that value judgements of good or bad can only work if you have a broadly accept set of standards. For example, you can discern the difference between good carpentry and bad carpentry because there's a set of quantifiable standards to which they adhere. Art has no such standards. They may have once, but you'll find that the standards never sit still, and in the wake of the post modernists, all of them become completely obsolete.

Now, if you want to talk about aspects of cinematography, editing, set design, the technical aspects of a film, you can say "This is good" or "this is bad," BUT you can't apply those standards to the work as a whole. Look at a film like Desperate Living. The cinematography and set design are pure crap, but they both work in service of the film.

So please refrain from calling me uninformed in the future, thank you.

slop101

Please point out where I called you, specifically, uninformed.

I was speaking in generalities and not pointing a finger at you, just at your analogy.

And I'm still waiting on the good movie that has below a 10%...

eXcentris

Supermallet, I don't totally disagree with you but I woudn't say there are no standards, I would say there can be different sets of standards. So does architecture for example (IMHO a better example than carpentry). And you can only have an informed opinion about "good" or "bad" or come to the conclusion that breaking standards can serve a particular film (as in your example) if you are aware of what those standards are. I guess my point is that personal likes and dislikes have little to nothing to do with "taste". Taste takes effort, taste is a conquest, it's not something you're born with. My main beef is that in our politically correct society where god forbid we should offend anyone, we are trying our best to completely eliminate the notion of taste and replace it with laziness by using formulaic nonsense like "to each his own" or "different strokes for different folks" or "you can't account for taste" and all the other variations.

And I didn't call your opinion uninformed.

Supermallet

eXcentris: My last post was in response to you and slop. He's the one who brought up the uninformed opinion comment. And again, my opinion on taste isn't an attempt at being politically correct, it's coming from a post-modernist viewpoint. Even Kant said that in the end, you can't have standards for art the way you do for most things. And architecture still isn't the same, because architecture has to be functional in some way. Art doesn't have that limitation.

slop: True, you didn't specifically say "Suprmallet, your opinion is uninformed," but what you did was about as close as you can get while still being passive aggressive about it. No need to defend yourself again, it's not going to serve the conversation any further.

As for your request, I see no purpose in fulfilling it, as even trying would say that I in fact do care about the numbers, when I clearly do not.

MISS PEACH

I would argue the film has serious flaws technically at the very least — namely, identical activity that is revisited (and therefore loops) and might be forgiven if it served some higher purpose.

To make my point in relation to TOB specifically I would urge you to read Wallace Stevens' poem Thirteen Ways of Looking At A Blackbird. Now why on earth would Peach bring that dusty old thing into this discussion? you ask. I'll tell you! Because if this film is about as much of what it is not as what it is, then its producers failed to achieve that lofty goal. I submit Thirteen Ways only because, if TOB were poetry, we'd have the first stanza — repeated 13 times. Oh yes, before I forget: THE POEM.

True, my good friend Baracine was able to see "the thirteen different ways" (so to speak) of looking at this film, but I couldn't glean a one of them when it became apparent that entire scenes were being, essentially, repeated with variation. Mouse over to discuss spoiler data:

Can anyone for instance share with me the value of lengthy segments of the

Anyhoo, it's the looping sequences I had perhaps the most trouble with, and since I consider that FILM 101, I say shame on the producers of TOB.

PEACH

jaeufraser

Well I think it's silly to say anyone is wrong with their opinions. The long, drawn out sequences have a certain atmospheric way that creates this mood that the film carries. It makes those scenes with music and action stand out more, and lends a kind of lacadaisical feeling to the mother and son character, which can be seen even more in the way they act.

Now, I enjoyed that aspect. It was kind of a relaxing, laid back film, lacking in tension but steeped in atmosphere. But, I can recognize very clearly why this might turn people off, as might the complete lack of dialogue. Critics numbers are high, but that doesn't really indicate that this is a film you have to enjoy, or for that matter will. I certainly can see why some might've disliked this, despite my own enjoyment of the material. It's rather pointless though to claim people are right or wrong, better to just express what we disliked and compare and contrast.

C.H.U.D.

ZZZZZZZ. Uh, what? Sorry, I was thinking about those long, drawn out scenes.

TripWire

i really enjoyed, saw it in the theaters before there was a buzz about, was different enough and the animation style caught my attention.

RevLiver

Loved this film, one of my favorites of 2003.

baracine

Miss PEACH, you've gone too far... I know someone who will not be on La Clark's Christmas list this year, especially in view of the fact that she is sending her exclusive rendition of "Belleville Rendez-Vous" to all her fans...

I refer you to my own poem: Thirteen Ways to Peel a Peach.

CKMorpheus

I caught it in theatres. After seeing the trailer for it I was really excited, but after it was over I was really disapointed. It just dragged on and the animation style got old after 10 minutes. I could understand what the director and animators were going for, it just didn't work, imho.

MISS PEACH

Oh I am so sorry if I have offended you Baracine! You are a sentimental dear however, and that is exactly why I like you — and will continue to like you. My late fiancé was 100% French, so let there be no ambiguity that this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with (anything) French.

LA PEACH