Your Most Controversial Film Opinions?

I guess, for me, that's the thing. I obviously kicked the hornet's nest when I so-so-ed this Movie Great. I guess my comment about Kane probably WILL be the most controversial comment.

My recollection is that the first time I saw it was in a movie history class in college. The prof stopped the movie about a hundred times to explain why it was important that Kane glanced left rather than right or why that chair in the office was tilted, or whatever. That spoiled it for me....over-analysis. Since that fateful day, I have watched without interruption a couple of times, but it's still "pretty good" to me; a cinematic bag of tricks. I can think of lots of movies I'd rather watch.

I recently went looking into info on the success of Citizen Kane (1941) and learned that, although it wasn't considered a flop upon release, it was not well regarded. It was only via re-releases after about a decade later that the film began to find renown among new fans (not unlike a cult film). It could almost be compared to It's A Wonderful Life (1946) which I believe was categorized as a flop upon release, but which much later became renown as a cherished holiday movie, but only after it began to be aired on television.

Yeah. I'd much rather watch Wonderful Life than Kane. It's heartwarming, enjoyable and a complete tour-de-force by James Stewart. Besides, who, at some point in their life did NOT need a guardian angel.

Um, no.

I said if you never watch anything but one specific thing, which was the question I was answering, you definitely don't know what it is. That's all.

You did a very bad job of reading that.

I'd say it's en vogue to knock Citizen Kane on MoFo, in the same way that it's trendish to say Vertigo is a masterpiece. Kane might be stiff and a tad boring but it hits it's marks. Vertigo on the other hand has several big glaring flaws and some corny crap to boot. It's only become the darling of Hitch's movies as it was unavailable for years an when critics got to watch it again then went orgasmic and movie-philes soon followed suit.

You're still being too vague. Is it one of the reasons or THE reason why you wouldn't know what a movie is?

Am I supposed to be passing some kind of test here?


I've explained all of this stuff ad naseum around here. I have no interest in getting into it for the thousandth time, under the orders from someone I've never even talked to before.



Nice chatting.

I think it's pretty uncontroversial to suggest that maybe watching it for the first time in this manner influenced your opinion of it pretty heavily.

Still not sure how it's "predictable," except in ways that would actually be to its credit (per my earlier post about influence). But this certainly explains the "boring" part. It sounds like you were bored by your professor and the film just had the misfortune of being on in the background. I, too, hate parts of movies that aren't in them.

I hear ya. I do disagree though. I think Pacino and DeNiro are amazing at playing Pacino and DeNiro which a lot of people want to see. I think Hoffman is great at being the character he's playing which is what I want to see.

Gasp. I love both of those but neither are in my top 3 Grants even.

Cary Grant is the man! And that ain't controversial. One of these day I'm going to watch/rewatch everyone of his movies.

See, now I like Awakenings (1990) wherein Pacino played against type. Sure, many actors could have played that role (whereas some of them might not play a convincing gangster), but De Niro played it well despite it not being his usual type of role.

(And I say that while not exactly being at the top of Robert's fan list right now.)

I'm not gonna lie to ya, I saw that movie in the theater and I kept thinking that DeNiro couldn't escape his own mannerisms and I thought he was gonna whack Robin Williams before he went back into his coma.

Edit - I actually thought the same thing in Meet The Parents. Same mannerisms, same facial expressions as every gangster he ever played or pretty much anyone he ever played. That was actually when I gave up on him.

That didn't stop you from get involved and point out (for the thousandth time, apparently) that people who only watch one particular genre (what they know) don't know what a movie is.

As someone who's not familiar with your explanations ad naseum, I wonder if there's more to it, or just that.
Because it obviously suggests that people who do watch films in many different genres or by many different filmmakers know what a movie is.
And to be honest, that still doesn't make much sense to me because it only tells me what they do, not what they know.

I don't want to knock Kane, but, all my life I've been hearing that it's the greatest movie ever. "Hits is marks" just isn't enough for Greatest. I honestly have no idea what IS. There are so many possibilities, genres, movies and rating criteria that, personally, I think Greatest is a completely hopeless task. I can think of lots of movies I like better and, most of the people I know probably have never seen it.

Ironically, comparing it to anything by Hitchcock is strange. He was a master of his craft, made a lot of good movies, all of which are at least good. Welles is nearly a one-shot deal. Nothing else measured up to Kane.

He was a great narrator, though.

That literally made me laugh out loud!

M'kay. I have a hard time defining "good" and "bad" taste. Is it "good" if it aligns with mine? Is it "good" if it aligns with the masses'? I despise some popular films. Do I have bad taste? I'm not trying to be an *******; I'm genuinely trying to figure it out.

What I don't like is when someone says, "You have to feel the same way I do, or you're wrong." No one has to agree with anyone on everything.

__________________
I destroyed the dastardly dairy dame! I made mad milk maid mulch!

I hate insomnia. Oh yeah. Last year I had four cases of it, and each time it lasted three months.

It can express a feeling or a thought, sure. A filmmaker doesn't get to decide what the viewer pulls away from a film, or what the message ultimately is. The filmmaker can say, "These are my views on the subject." It's up to the audience what the overall message of the piece is.

I think I explained my point poorly. Sorry about that. I think you interpreted what I meant with your second bit there. Sometimes I get distracted and things fall apart and get muddled. What I don't like is when the artist decides what the audience interprets. The artist just needs to say, "Here's what I think," and let the audience decide what it all means.