You can't really be a troll in your own thread unless the subject is "The Godfather fucking sucks."

Furthermore, a technically well made movie isn't necessarily a great movie, especially when it's stretching out a miniscule plot for a 2 hours, is a bit choppy and simply feels forced.

I disagree because by mechanics I am including things like the story and the direction and I think that 2046 is a very interesting movie. However, any movie can have an interesting idea behind it, but great movies sell that idea well. It's like that show "America's Next Great Restaurant". You can have an awesome idea for a restaurant but if you can't execute all of the details well (like the logo, the service, the menu, the design, the recipes, the slogan, etc) then that idea doesn't mean much. The same goes for movies and music. I thought that 2046 executed its idea very very well.

I'm bothered by that process you're talking about. The more you think of it like that the more you kill an emotion or passion in a film. Much like that clip from DPS was talking about.

Well you're definitely entitled to that viewpoint. The most important factor of a great film for me is that it's never boring to watch. There are other factors that I've mentioned before but that is what I personally value the most. I've seen many movies that were very interesting when you think about what it was trying to say, but they were not very well shot or written or acted and therefore I was bored the entire time. I had to force myself to keep watching it. When I watch a great film there is not one moment where I'm bored watching it.

soooo what would a film like Evil Dead stand in your form of critique?

I remember enjoying Evil Dead quite a bit actually, I haven't seen it in a few months so based purely on memory I'd give it a solid 3.5/5.0. It was original, funny and never boring for me. For the kind of movie it was which is a b-movie comedy horror it was relatively well done. However, I'd have to see it again to see how I really feel about it in comparison to the other movies on my list.

I never considered you a troll. Having gone to school with people like you I believe you are dead serious with the level of bullshit you spew.

I do have another problem though, this whole time you've been talking about mechanics and a set of criteria but now you admit that you factor in whether a movie is boring or not which clearly has nothing to do with the mechanics of a film and is entirely subjective. What you find boring other's may find thrilling.

I'm actually looking at your list now...so bear with me on this...but...LoTR? I like it too..but it's got flaws that you can't look away from..enjoyable as it is. 5 is way too high for thing.

Zubidoo, where's your list of great old movies? 1930s, '40s, '50s, '60s...

KING KONG
THE GRAPES OF WRATH
IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE
THE BEST YEARS OUR LIVES
AN AMERICAN IN PARIS
SINGIN' IN THE RAIN
ON THE WATERFRONT
THEM!
THE SEVEN SAMURAI
REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE
THE SEARCHERS
RIO BRAVO
THE APARTMENT
JULES AND JIM
PLANET OF THE APES
DIRTY HARRY
SERPICO
ANNIE HALL

etc., etc., etc.

Haven't seen Them! or Rio Bravo but I would give all of those other movies a 5.0/5.0. If you go to my 2000s list there's a link to my "best films that I've ever seen" list which contains a lot of old movies. Everything on that list I'd give a 5.0/5.0.

Okay, I feel better now, thank you.

(Although I still wish you'd check out 8 DIAGRAM POLE FIGHTER.)

So, is it bullshit because you don't understand him or because you don't agree ? Wether a movie is boring or not can very often have something to do with the mechanics of a film and it's not always subjective. If a movie is poorly acted with poor sets, etc, then what's keeping you interested ? There has to be something in a movie to keep you interested. It could be a comedic character in an otherwise bland movie, or a character with depth in a movie otherwise filled with boring, undeveloped characters. If you're so smart, how do you judge a movie ? And don't you dare say "If I like it, it's good" because that's crap, and you know it. There are plenty of bad movies that I like...because there's something about it that's interesting. If it's a horror movie, it could be because of the inventiveness of the kills. If it's a comedy, it could be because of the "straight-man" having to deal with all the idiots. But no matter how much I may like these movies, in no way, shape, or form are they good movies. For instance, I like Troll 2 (to use an obvious example of a bad movie.) The effects are bad, the story is ridiculous, and the acting is among the worst I've seen since Overdrawn At The Memory Bank. But I like the movie because it's so amazingly bad. It's a great movie to laugh at.

It is sought, not seeked.

That's the major flaw in your ratings and why so many best-of lists -- yours included -- are essentially useless. Take Malick's The New World, for example. There's the "mind numbingly boring" camp versus the "most beautiful movie I've ever seen, loved it" camp. Technically, it's quite flawless, but the narrative brakes to a halt with every lingering shot of the Virginia coast. And I'm okay with that. Others, obviously, aren't. So attempting to craft a completely objective list of movies is utterly pointless since there is NO WAY to judge the value of a film solely based on its technical merits.

It's bullshit because this so called immaculate set of criteria which he has yet to share has been contradicted and challenged with movies he has rated and he has no real valid reasons other than "I disagree." He claims to be completely mechanical with his evaluations and then talks about whether a movie is boring or not, this is subjective no matter what you say. There is much more than the mechanics of a film that contribute to whether you find a movie boring or not. Most importantly it's because he confuses his opinion with actual facts.

I've gone to school for film, taken countless thesis classes and no matter what you want me to say film is subjective just like any other artform. Sure when I evaluate a film the mechanics and how well it's executed obviously play a part but by singling those criteria out and judging a film solely on that criteria you take away the true meaning of the art. You take away the passion put forward and most importantly you destroy the emotion that it invokes inside you.

You're my new best friend.

I don't judge a movie just by the criteria you judge a movie by. It's exactly like you said. A film may be boring, but that doesn't mean that some people won't like it. It doesn't mean it's a good movie, though. It just means that they like it. The Troll 2 example I posted....Troll 2 has horrible acting and effects. But people still love it in spite of how horrible of a movie it is. A movie can be well made or badly made. But if you like it, that's perfectly fine. But if you like a movie that's horrible, you should be able to say, "so what that the movie's bad ? I like it."

What's wrong with that ? There are all sorts of bad movies that people still like.

I have a few questions for you.

1. Is The Godfather a great movie?

2. Is Troll 2 a terrible movie?

If your answer to 1 is yes and your answer to 2 is yes then you have just confirmed to me that you believe one CAN judge whether a movie is great or not even if you personally can't explain why. If you EVER say a movie is good or bad then you are in fact admitting that you think movies CAN be judged objectively. So far it seems like you feel that you can only like or dislike a movie which is a subjective thing, and while that's your opinion and you're entitled to it I personally think that's not true whatsoever.

Just because something is great doesn't mean it will emotionally resonate with YOU personally. One's emotional reaction to art is entirely subjective and I agree with that. I am merely saying that you could never convince me that one cannot watch The Godfather and then Troll 2 and conclude that one is not better or worse than the other.

OP, I'm curious again.

What do you think a critic is? And do you think you are one?

I'm serious.

I agree with everything you're saying. A person emotional reaction to art is subjective. But a movie being good or bad is not. Godfather is a well made movie, but I happen to think it's boring. For a gangster movie, it's one of the best. I just don't like it because I don't like gangster movies. Godfather is well made and tells a good, if extremely cliched, story. Troll 2 is a horribly made movie, but it's a lot of fun to make fun of. That's why I like it. Even though I like it, I can recognise that it's a bad movie. That doesn't mean people can't like it. Just as because Godfather, or any other movie is well made, doesn't mean that people can't not like it. Again, I agree with everything you've said in this thread. I'm happy to find somebody in this thread, indeed on this entire site, that knows what they're talking about. It's weird that talkingchase, having supposedly gone to film school doesn't get it.

I think a good critic does the first two following things, but a great critic does all three:

1. Establishes a system of parameters whereby the reader knows what the critic is looking for in a good or bad film.
2. Rates movies based on those parameters in a consistent and reliable manner so that if the reader agrees with the critic then he or she will always be able to know whether he or she will enjoy that movie based on that critic's ratings.
3. Is able to describe well why a movie works or doesn't work.

I don't think that I'm at #3 quite yet but I do believe that I've got #1 and #2.

I don't want to speak for talkingchase but it sounds like he is of the school of thought that all art is subjective and therefore it is useless to try and argue objectivity. I can understand where he's coming from and I know several people who are like this, but I also know of several people who are not. My personal favorite review site for music and film is allmusic.com and allmovie.com, and if you watch all of their 5 star films like I have you will begin to recognize a pattern - every single one of them is very well made. For ratings other than 5 I have yet to understand their reasoning, but anything they give a 5 is understandably deserving of a 5 when one looks at how well made it is. Also, they too recognize and explain that one must compare apples to apples not apples to oranges.

As for whether allmovie adheres to my 3 rules, I'd say they sort of adhere to #1, sort of adhere to #2 and do not adhere to #3. By sort of for #1 I mean that they recognize that every movie has a different style and that it's only fair to rate movies compared to other movies of that style. Other than that, though, they don't explain whether a film's emotion, concept, themes, mechanics or some combination of those four are the most important elements to them when rating something a certain way. At the moment I can intuit simply by watching every 5 star movie they've rated that they are mostly interested in a movie's mechanics. By "sort of" for #2 I mean that every single 5 star review they give is completely reliable but any other rating is unreliable. As a whole, then, I would say they are unreliable, but to me they are the only even partially reliable review site I've found on the internet.

Okay, I think I understand you know, and allow me to disagree.

What you are describing is a form of scorekeeping. An evaluator. Someone with authority to hold up a placard that says "9.3" or whatever and backs it up with reason.

Basically, a judge.

That is not what makes a great critic.

I don't think you read great criticism, because if you did, you would know the difference between great criticism and scorekeeping.

Here are some great film critics:

James Agee
Graham Greene
Otis Ferguson
Robert Warshow
Dwight Macdonald
Pauline Kael

Not one of them has ever given a movie a score. They never used stars or numbers. They never trotted out a list of objective standards.

What they did was.....well, I think you should read them and find out.

Now there are a lot of GOOD critics, and some of them give out scores, but even those people do A LOT MORE than what you say is the divine standard for GREAT criticism.

To be a good critic---I'm not talking great, just good---you don't need standards....or "parameters" as you call them. You need knowledge of the world. You need life experience. You need the talent to evoke images and sounds using only words.

What you need is something no formula can give you. You need to know enough about reality to see how it compares to the abstractions up on the screen. You need to say, not only why something is good or bad, but why you think audiences react in the ways that they do. That way, you are taking responsibility for your PERSONAL reactions and defining your ideas in a way that engages people without falling back on a hackneyed value system.

If I knew a critic had such-and-such a formula for looking at every film, why the fuck would I read that critic? Every one of his/her reactions would be utterly predictable. No room for nuance. No passion. Just a scorekeeper.

Sorry, but movies aren't the Olympics. And critics aren't supposed to be Zeus.

The other thing about the critics you cite (and I would add Manny Farber to that list) is that they were great writers as well. If I had to think of critics today who are also great writers, I'd have to lower my standard down to "good" writers and include J. Hoberman (Village Voice) and A.O. Scott (NY Times), but that's about it.

As for scorekeeping, I find it hard to reduce films to numbers when I'm called upon to do so. I review lots of stuff for Amazon.com and IMDB. On Amazon, you have to do a * ranking, 1-5. But on IMDB, it's optional, so I usually don't add a ranking there. I just let the review tell you what you need to know.