What is so good about Mr and Mrs Smith? I watched it the first time last week and I didnt really like it.. Ok its a nice movie, you watch it, and thats it.. but to be a really good movie? I dunno, I dont get it.

Again: it shows how subjective it all is.

pito on Fri Apr 22 13:15:41 2011 said:

Nope it is not a good movie at all! That is why it is in my guilty pleasure list!

There are some things that are objectives of course, and then you have your own taste which is completely subjective and can be a good one or a bad one; and the more you know about movies the better became your judgment (or at least that is how it should be!)

laurequillo on Fri Apr 22 13:20:32 2011 said:

Eum, yes and no.

If you watch movies in the style of "the more you watch/know" the more you can see what movies are good.. then I dont completely agree.
Because you maybe start to notice things that dont matter, small mistakes or you start looking at technical details...

Or what do you mean with the better your judgment gets? What is it then that you look at or think about?


In my opninion: those so called "specialists" (critics) are often not doing a good job and are often making/killing a movie for the wrong reasons..

pito on Fri Apr 22 13:15:41 2011 said:

It's not good at all but he likes Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie....
and besides, sometimes, you just rest your grey matter a bit and just enjoy something...no matter what..

my point is that movies are like wine. A perfect valid way to look at them is "I like it or I dont like it", but when you watch a lot of movies you start to appreciate things that you did not appreciate before, and for example, if you watch classic movies you can see how they used to do things, how it evolved... So, that is my point, that if you "know" about cinema, about directors, about cinematography, about dialogue, you can enjoy a movie in more levels that you would do if you did not know about that things.
So, there are a lot of critics (bad a good ones!), and each one has his own opinion, so you just follow the ones you think fit better with your personality. But what I like is when somebody can tell you a movie is good or bad giving you reasonble and valid arguments, and that is when you can see if somebody "knows" or not about movies, independently of his taste

laurequillo on Fri Apr 22 13:35:22 2011 said:

Eum, you are hitting a spot here that irritates me ... the so called "wine specialists".. dont make me start talking about those idiots...... But thats another discussion.
(the art of wine tasting is perhaps one the most hypocritical things out there)

I see your point, but in my opinion... eum, no.... it doesnt work in my opinion.

I understand what you mean and yes, that can be helpfull to see certain stuff and to appreciate how movies are made, but it has no added value for me in the case of "liking" or not liking a movie. A movie is something you look at, with your brain turned down a bit.
If you start noticing things like the more technical stuff... its ok for some, but it should make a difference for the general opinion about movies.
There are movies out there that are very very good in terms of technical stuff and all the right rules have been followed etc.. while the movie itself sucks...

A movie for me (and for most people) is about the simple fact "can I watch it for 90 minutes and not get bored"
(based on story and acting, nothing more)
90% of people dont care about other things.. they just want a nice moment or rest...

When critics start to notice (and base their critic) on technical aspects, how the dialogues are, how the cars are realistic or not... then the whole idea of the movie is gone.

I give a very simple example: the use of fire-arms in movies. If you look at how realistic it is and you start taking that into account then almost 99% of the gunshootings in movies are fake.
So should we look differently at movies with guns in them? Or?


What you describe is more for schools that teach on the subject of moviemaking.
Or for a very few intersted people to discuss specific details about movies.. but those things should not influence the main population of people that want to watch a movie as a timepassing...

And about the old movies, I dont get it. WHat do you mean? Do you mean that watching old movies and seeing how they did certain stuffs it makes you have more respect for them if you see how they did it with less tools then now? Or?

Maybe I am missing something here and didnt understand what you ment cleary?
If so, tell me what exacly (with examples) you mean by getting a better/other judgement when watching movies. What did change for you for example during the years you have been watching movies?

Well, first my main point is that there is always something objective, not all is subjective in a movie, there are certains things that can be measured. And of course you can notice them, I see a lot of movies that I know they are not so good but I like them. But if you see a great movie, i.e The Godfather, you know that is not the same than for example Rambo, even if you like both of them.
Then, the point about waching a movie just for fun is true. But the problem is what is fun for you maybe it is not for others, and maybe I just watched a movie and get bored because it did not make any sense for me, so of course at the end everybody wants to be entertaint but not all of us get entertain by the same type of movie! And all those details (cinematography, dialogue, music, timing, composition...) increase the "movie experience" and make me really enjoy the movie, so for sure they count at the entertain level! (I am not talking about realistic or not, because I dont care about that). When I watch a Tarantino movie for example Kill Bill or Inglorious Basterds, the dialogue is great and the music, and every detail of the movie makes me enjoy it, but not because is realistic, is because it appeals to me.

laurequillo on Fri Apr 22 15:08:55 2011 said:

About the Tarantino: ok I get your point, but thats just subjective and has nothing to do with "knowing more" .. Its just the style you like?

And what is so good about godfathers then? The dialogues or..? To be honest: those movies, I get bored watching them...

pito on Fri Apr 22 15:28:08 2011 said:

well, I could watch The godfather every other day! But ok, that is your taste.

And about Tarantino, of course is the style I like, but the dialogues are pretty damn good! and that is the part that is objective!

Anyway, about old movies, it is just that there are some movies that everyone should watch, even if you dont like them...I dont know how to explain it...it is like with books, if you like literature you should read some shakespare`s novel, so with movies it is the same...but I know that it is not a clear or a strong argument, but I really believe it. And you can see how people used to do movies before the fu*ing CGI...I hate CGI...and the charm of those old movies...and how the good ones are still funny and good and completely up to date!

laurequillo on Fri Apr 22 15:34:52 2011 said:

Eum, but this is something I dont agree on.
I dont see the point in watching something you dont like.. this is only good if you really want to learn something..


Using your "book" analoy: its not because someone likes to read/reads a lot he/she should read all the so called classics.. Again: I come back to the part of: who makes them classic.. critics..
An good example here is the book "Das Capital" by Karl Marx. You hear so much about this book and almost everyone I know that reads a lot has this book... but when it comes to reading it: no-one ever did read it or if they did, they didnt get further then the first 20 pages...