^ You don’t think there’s a difference between the likes of Roger Ebert and some palooka with a podcast or YouTube channel?

I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone here claim that the average movie watcher’s opinion is equal to an actual film critic like Ebert.

I do

You have not been paying close enough attention.

When it comes to judging an art form - be it paintings, music, movies, etc., - it will always be subjective. There is no way of measuring what is 'best' ... it's all a matter of opinion. Some people have more knowledge about films, and the filmmaking process, and it's interesting to hear what they have to say but, at the end of the day, their opinion is still only their own when it comes to what they like, Roger Ebert included. There is no definitive 'best' as every viewer / listener will have their own opinion when it comes to determining that. I've never understood the need that some people have (looking at you, Dooku) to definitively label something subjective as the 'best'. It can't be done, IMO. The beauty of art is how it affects you ... regardless of how technically accomplished it may or may not be. A movie critic's opinion does not influence my own.

It's a good movie. The best? Hardly. What Welles did get right is that he incorporated all of the film techniques available at that time into his film (popularized deep focus) - and that was mainly thanks to cinematographer Gregg Toland. As far as story goes, yeah, it's cool.

Thank you very much

It's the way the story is told.

Story is told quite well.

I'll be watching the commentary track tonight.

I'm confused by all of this though. I think the forums are going the way of humanity in general. Nobody makes any sense anymore. Yes, art and movies are entirely subjective. And yes, when a large consensus of educated critics agree that a movie (CK) is "the best" it surely means that it is at least exemplary of the best that movies can be. Is it 'the best'? Impossible to ever make that call. Is it "one of the best"? A movie fan can say "not one of my best" while acknowledging that it is overall one of the best from a critical perspective.

Breaking a movie down by its technical merits is much more quantifiable. In doing so, CK would certainly rank as a great example of accomplished filmmaking, no denying that. A lot of other movies would rank quite high, as well, whether one likes them or not. How a movie impacts you emotionally will vary from person to person. There is no definitive 'best' for any single movie when it comes to that.

1. I took great pains to distance my post from any language that comes close to saying "single definitive best". Why you doin' me this way?

2. Yet, nonetheless, there is a single definitive best movie in terms of subjective emotional impact:

Except that for some people, their personal opinion of a movie is not correlated to how a movie impacts them emotionally. In fact, they might devalue a movie that impacted them emotionally because it was melodramatic and manipulative.

A movie doesn't have to be melodramatic to affect someone emotionally, it just has to strike a chord with them. It could be any emotion.

Your post said that a movie can be evaluated by breaking down its technical merits, which would be an analytical approach to forming an opinion.

Such an approach would provide a more objective evaluative criteria, and so should not vary much from (educated) person to (educated) person.

Then you said that the other kind of opinion of a movie comes from how it affects a person emotionally.

This is, you say, is truly subjective because how a person is affected emotionally has to do with their personal psychology. Essentially, we all have different triggers.

However, this is not true because we all know that filmmakers are very adept at manipulating the emotions of mass audiences, so the idea, which you put forth, that one's emotional reactions to a movie is personal and subjective is demonstrably false.

Also, your premise that every person's subjective opinion would be determined by how the movie affects them emotionally is also demonstrably false. I stand as the evidence for that. I resist movies that attempt to affect me emotionally, except for comedies.

I'm very analytical, so my subjective opinion is what you would call an objective opinion.

What you think is the best may not be what someone else thinks is the best when it comes to art. So who decides definitively? I'm saying no one because it's subjective. Who do you think decides it does for all of us?

When I'm trying to get someone to watch Kane for the first time, I usually recommend that they watch the movie and enjoy the film, then watch it again with Ebert's commentary, then watch a third time to appreciate it more. Same with Casablanca.

I am not saying CK is the best movie ever made, and when it was released it was not considered by most to be the best movie ever made. So how did it come to be known as "the best" of "one of the best" movies ever made? There is your answer.

My take has been that the craftsmanship and entertainment value of a film are two different things. A perfectly crafted movie can be boring, vice verse. The ability to make a movie entertaining is a skill upon itself, separate from the others. Critics will concentrate on the craftsmanship, yet, acknowledge the skill to make a film entertaining enough to overcome it's technical flaws.
A good example would be time travel movies. Most, if not all, have serious plot hole issues, yet can be so entertaining the audience doesn't care. Critics will slam plot holes as a defect in the script, yet praise the filmmakers skills at making the audience ignore the plot holes, thus giving a positive review.

The point is that there are a lot of people, and some members of this forum, who cannot differentiate between what they personally like or dislike, and a broader concept of quality.

I don't like the taste of coffee, but that does not mean that I think coffee is no good. I can recognize that my personal distaste is completely out of step with the general consensus about coffee.

Same thing with Citizen Kane or Casablanca, or any other movie held in the esteem as one of the greatest movies ever made. There will be people who watch it and don't like it, and then declare that the movie sucks. And then when confronted about its status as a great movie, they will just dismiss that as other people's opinions, and that since all opinions are subjective, their opinion is of equal value.

And please don't reply that no one thinks that way. LOTS of people think that way.

I don't know what the argument is here. I think on this board, we're all on the same page that while some people have greater understanding of a medium to better judge technical proficiency of a given work, ultimately each person's enjoyment of any film is up to their subjective tastes.

I think a more interesting discussion is whether a viewpoint shared by a sizeable enough populace creates enough influence/reputation/momentum to create a bias in a subjective viewing experience, one way or the other. i.e. agreeing with a general sentiment (unconscious social acceptance desire) or rejection ("hype backlash").

Dooku sayin that some people will say that because they don't like a movie, that means it shouldn't be considered one of the greatest at all. (Though in their arguments they usually don't frame it exactly like that.)

To IB's point () yeah consensus always creates bias. For what percentage? Who knows? The Ebert commentary was great, anyway, even though he kept calling a jigsaw puzzle a crossword puzzle. RIP.

That's what Dooku is saying, and on this forum, you hear that POV about great movies, TV shows, songs, actors, singers.

Ok, but so what? Why does this seem to matter so much to you?

Because it's really fucking stupid.

Here's my blurb: "If you liked The Social Network," give Citizen Kane a try!"