Rate the latest movie you've seen.

[SGOS]

Frankenstein 1931 and Others

So I was walking by the movie isle in Walmart, and found a release of 8 films called the "Original Frankenstein Legacy Collection:  All Eight Films"  $5 for the whole set, and they are rendered in like new film quality, probably much better than the originals, with subtitles too.  I'd seen most of them of course, some uncountable times as they were shown almost weekly when television first came out.  Besides the original, The Bride of, Son of, Ghost of, House of,  and Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, also included is The House of Dracula, and what I'm looking forward to the most, Abbot and Costelo Meet Frankenstein.  I've watched three tonight, and trying not to watch another so I can stretch them out a bit.

They bring back nostolgic memories of the old time monster movies, which were thought to be scary, but they are not at all.  Mel Brooks humorous satire isn't much funnier than the original, but it's not because of any attempt at humor in the original.  It's because of the clumsy theatrics.  This is old school acting by actors who were taught to look like they were acting, rather than to just seem natural.  From start to finish, the actors seem like they are in constant competition with each other to see who can be the most theatrical and melodramatic.  Good grief, film as come a long way since when actors had canned theater devices like shielding one's eyes with a forearm in the face of gruesome horror, the quicker the shielding, supposedly the more gruesome the horror, but it's still just the monster spinning around in one place trying to figure out which direction he wants to go.  The women are constantly screaming, and everyone is running around with either a torch or a pitchfork, as the monster stalks around in an awkward Nazi goose step.  I'm finding it great fun.

[Hydra009]

God I hate critics.  It's "controversial" because its themes struck a nerve and some people hate that they got called out.

And now they're confusing movie quality with whether or not they like its message - essentially punishing the movie because they don't like its tone.

These people are awful.

[SGOS]

As a community, it seems to me that professional critics are limited by unspoken rules.  I even googled this one time to try and understand why the over all community of critics is so often wrong.  And much of what I read, I agreed with, but perhaps that's confirmation bias on my part. On the other hand, much of what I read felt like I was being lectured to by the community of critics who viewed me as just another schmots in the community of schmotses, composed of subhumans who are not professional critics.

But they did state quite clearly that political correctness played a big role in reviews by critics.  I get that, since I consider political correctness to be just another word for "what most people believe," and it should be part of the job of the professional critic to reflect what most people believe... or should it?  But that doesn't explain why Rotten Tomatoes comes up with scores of 15% from critics, while audiences score the same movie at 96%.  Something in the formula is wrong.  The articles tried to explain away these differences, but I didn't find them convincing.

Now last I looked, critics put Joker at 68%, which is the lower end of fresh, but very low for DC or Marvel.  For movies in general, that's not taking it off the table by any means.  Audiences gave it a 90%, which is maybe a little low for the current successful movies founded on comic books, but it's still very good overall.

In my opinion, Joker is edgy, but I like edgy.  It made me uncomfortable at times, but I like that too.  It made me more uncomfortable than a good horror flick, because fiction that it is, it was all too real.  I know people like that, misanthropes who fail in society, but regain their self respect by becoming the worst of the worst, instead of the best of the best.  Seeing that in a comic book based film hits too close to home.  It tells us what's wrong with the society we actually live in. But should that discredit a film?  Maybe, but it doesn't for me.  I liked it because I couldn't stop watching, couldn't doze off for a quick snooze in a dark empty theater.  It was gripping.

Would I recommend it?  Maybe; Certainly if you want to be informed.  Should you like it?  I don't really care.  I'm buying the DVD when it comes out, and I'll be looking forward to DCs next Batman movie to see how they develop the Joker further.  And now with my knowledge of his backstory, I'll expect him to be creepier than ever before.

[Hydra009]

But they did state quite clearly that political correctness played a big role in reviews by critics.  I get that, since I consider political correctness to be just another word for "what most people believe,"

I 100% agree with this.  Political correctness is just another word for what most people believe.

and it should be part of the job of the professional critic to reflect what most people believe... or should it?

I 100% disagree with this.

Critics should do far more than just be a mirror for the general public's views (and arguably, they don't even get that right since there's often such a wide gulf between critics' and viewers' opinions).  Imo, critics should serve as expert appraisers - thoroughly examining a work and determining the quality of its various elements - writing, acting, directing, music, setwork, etc - and then judging the overall quality of the finished product.  There's naturally a lot of room for subjectivity, but there must be some objective criteria for quality otherwise no one would agree on anything - Batman and Robin would be seen as just as deserving of awards as Dark Knight.

But that doesn't explain why Rotten Tomatoes comes up with scores of 15% from critics, while audiences score the same movie at 96%.  Something in the formula is wrong.

Exactly.  And this happens over and over again.  Something is seriously wrong with this process.

And apparently a big part of this process is prejudging a film, judging it by its genre, judging it by its perceived audience, judging it by whether or not it makes the reviewer uncomfortable, judging it by whether or not it's politically correct, etc.

My question (and a question shared by Arthur):  who gets to decide what's right and who gets to decide what's funny?

In my opinion, Joker is edgy, but I like edgy.  It made me uncomfortable at times, but I like that too.  It made me more uncomfortable than a good horror flick, because fiction that it is, it was all too real.  I know people like that, misanthropes who fail in society, but regain their self respect by becoming the worst of the worst, instead of the best of the best.  Seeing that in a comic book based film hits too close to home.  It tells us what's wrong with the society we actually live in. But should that discredit a film?  Maybe, but it doesn't for me.  I liked it because I couldn't stop watching, couldn't doze off for a quick snooze in a dark empty theater.  It was gripping.

Exactly.  Decent art is entertaining.  Fantastic art is both entertaining and speaks to something true.

Imho, and I know I'll get flak for this statement - true art makes you uncomfortable.

[Mike Cl]

Imho, and I know I'll get flak for this statement - true art makes you uncomfortable.

I agree 100%.  And I will expand that to all art--photos, paintings, movies, books (especially SciFi for me), sand creations, etc.  Good art is good to look at; great art is art that strikes something deeper than 'good' within us--and that is personal.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Those that can't do, criticize.

[SGOS]

Looking at the now famous painting of Kramer, the wife says, "This man disgusts me," and the husband replies, "I loath him," and then adds, "I must have this painting," and his wife agrees.  Apparently good art can also be completely benign.  Just Andy Warhol:

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"A fool and his money are soon parted."

There's a scene in Ironman II where Potts and Stark argue about a "painting" that is a white background and a single rectangle of black on that. Apparently it was "important". Suckers.

[Mike Cl]

Looking at the now famous painting of Kramer, the wife says, "This man disgusts me," and the husband replies, "I loath him," and then adds, "I must have this painting," and his wife agrees.  Apparently good art can also be completely benign.  Just Andy Warhol:

I like Warhol's work--it's fun to look at.  But that's it.  Fun.  Nothing deeper (at least for me).  But that's okay--I'm not being critical, just stating a personal opinion.  Nothing wrong with fun art.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

At least he didn't stick cigarette butts to it.

[SGOS]

Nothing wrong with fun art.

Or a fun movie.

[Munch]

Just came from seeing Joker.

Dammit.. that was such a deep dive. I literally came from the cinema and just started looking at society itself as it was shown in the movie, as anarchy just waiting to boil over.

I dunno what else to say that hasn't already, but fuck it, I wanna give my thoughts.

[spoiler]Phoenix first off was fantastic, I dunno if theres ever been a take on the joker that you felt so sympathetic for, that even when he does gruesome things, you both are shocked and yet feel sympathy for him doing it. There was no one he killed in the movie that didn't deserve it.

The way it put a lens on the things showing the dregs of society compared to the wealthy elites and just how all this slowly broke down the main character, there was so much you could apply to todays society though this movie, and why its so corrupt and unsympathetic that of course it would break anyone down before they snap. This made the anarchy that follows all the more understandable.
I also think this twist of showing Thomas Wayne as a massive pos, making his death have more meaning and more satisfying then any other batman storyline has ever done.

This was a masterful movie. Maybe I'd say this isn't my most favorite take on the joker, but from a character study and his role in the movies world, is was incredible how it all worked. [/spoiler]

Two things I thought after coming from the movie.

1: While I want to say if this movie doesn't get an oscar, its a crime, but same time I don't give a shit about the oscars or academy awards anymore, so if they don't pick it it won't surprise me, given the messages in this movie, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't.

2: Why are overly sensitive morons online complaining about this? There is literally nothing in this movie they have to target it for, theres no more violence in it then you'd have in something like reservoir dogs or any mob based film, so where is the hate for it coming from?

Either way, this movie left its mark. 9.5/10

[SGOS]

I haven't watched the Academy Awards for years.  Most of the time I don't know who won what, nor do I care.  When I was younger, I had a mild interest in them, and I think I did enjoy some, perhaps many, of the movies that won something or other.  But there are some movies on the top of my list that were never nominated, and there are movies on the bottom of my list that have won big.  Sometimes I might agree and sometimes not, but mostly I don't care either way.  I suspect it's done mostly to create interest in movies and fill the theaters.  But I'm already interested in movies, so I don't need anyone to hype them to me.

[Shiranu]

I know I've posted a fair few of these videos, but this one is probably the most important. Like it or not, Avengers was a generational, cultural-defining moment that I think very few forms of media (or even other cultural events) can match. I think even Lord of the Rings looks puny in comparison.

It's a three part series, with the first two focused on the film itself and what makes certain parts great. The third part, the conclusion, where he will really dive into the cultural and meaningful significance of the movie comes out next Friday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qd8PkLHwt

[Munch]

the links busted on that video