Comments by "TheNabOwnzz" (@TheNabOwnzz) on "Top 10 Movies of All Time" video.
-
489
-
67
-
50
-
35
-
23
-
21
-
21
-
14
-
14
-
12
-
12
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
MUFASA So you think Jurassic World, Titanic, Avatar, Spiderman 3, even SUICIDE SQUAD is better than LOTR? hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahah, what kind of clown are you, man? You are probably just trolling with those honorable mentions. But then again, you seem to hate science, you also probably think the world is flat, so your idiocy would make sense. And you see 200 movies a month.. which equals an average of about 6,67 movies each day. Yeah... that never happened.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ricky B Now you're just living in denial…. this is starting to get ridiculous. I constantly throw irrefutable points in your face, and your inability to cope with them is becoming quite hilarious. I've lectured you multiple times why your point about theme parks is irrelevant. There's really no question about that. It's scientific, per definition factual, even. What you're constantly referring to is 'popularity', which is not relevant. And we're not talking about 'what makes the world tick', we're talking about what the best movies are. With your idiotic rhetoric only mainstream movies can be good, and mainstream is only achieved through popularity. Take Harakiri, Come & See, or the Human Condition trilogy. There's little doubt they are among the best in the world, but they're not very famous. They're not very 'popular'. Something, again, becomes mainstream by being popular, not by being so great. This is really common basic deduction, boyo. You're pissing in the wind.
4
-
@bradenmerriman5206 I just explained to you how psychologically the image of a cartoon is in perfect acquiescence with the juvenile nature of the childish mind, boyo. The subject isn't as relevant as the image when we are considering psychological age requirements. I don't mind escapism, but anime is childish escapism. It carries no deeper meaning other than to be transported to another world without allegory and with an entirely diverging and distinct image. LOTR does not fit this bill, as it is merely in subject set in a fantasy world, heavily influenced by the real one, but that is only subject, the image is human, and not cartoonish, and that is the salient point here. And anime superior in terms of style? What? And in terms of WRITING? This coming from the guy who said he hates books? Well... let us be honest, boyo, you're just being ridiculous here by acting like you can be a connoisseur of writing quality when you in all actuality despise writing and wish to have nothing to do with it. Don't make me laugh. As for style, this is a very vague and abstract argument. What does it mean? Likely it is just your blatant ostensible insecurity that is showing, and you do not require the innate capabilities of reasoning soundly anymore. And who says this is a "casual" conversation? What do i care about your subjective terms about Whatever discussion something is? I am merely quite a bit more intelligent than you, which also my loquacious eloquence allows me to proclaim, whereas yours is full of utter depravity & half educated coxcomb, however sincerely.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@quantumhype9839 Unfortunately, kiddo, jumping around brainlessly in clubs and partaking in idiotic post modernist societal nonsense activities such as dating is not 'health behavior'. It's sheep following the herd, such is the way with people like yourself. You could indeed say modern life has rejected me indirectly, with its vulgarity, artlessness, left wing propaganda etc, but the real bottom line is that i have rejected it. Especially young people today are extremely disgusting, and laying eyes on either them or modern buildings is a complete eyesore. I'm a conservative, therefore i am relevant, because right is right. You're a moronic hedonistic subjectivistic left winger, therefore you're irrelevant. It's simple math, boyo. And quit the emoticons already... you're acting like a 12 year old.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ricky B So you probably also think Taxi Driver is a crap movie because John Hinckley Jr used it as an inspiration to try and assassinate Ronald Reagan...? I mean, this is how ridiculous your rhetoric is. It's not a matter of disagreement. What happens outside of a movie is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. This is a fact, boyo. Of course, not with popularity, because that is measured by what happens outside of it, but the very definition of quality is in correlation with the internal components of something. That some people decide to build theme parks is completely irrelevant to something being good or not. Are you even being serious…? Rarely have i seen a more absurd rhetoric.
And your little rant here says nothing substantial, it's the same old 'doesn't appeal to mature audiences bla bla bla' without giving one actual point as to 'why'. Also, star wars is also fantasy fiction based on make believe heroes and monsters in a make believe world. Again, what kind of a clown are you, man? You keep embarrassing yourself with contradictions, it's really laughable.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@masteroftheseas9595 They're meaningless pieces of drivel, not masterpieces. Solaris is Tarkovsky's only coherent movie, and i saw all 7 of him. And likewise could be said for Nights of Cabiria and Fellini, though La Strada isn't that pretentious either, but that is nothing special. 8 1/2 & La Dolce Vita however... ugh. Incredibly terrible. Based on the fact that you think either Tarkovsky or Fellini have made masterpieces one can safely conclude that you are a gullible boyo. I'm not using it as an argument, it's a statement of fact. You are the type of boyo to go to modern art museums and idolize a canvas with puke on it. That is what Tarkovsky is. And what isn't bad about slavery? Well, judging by the context of society and the intelligence of the person enslaved, it can be quite a good thing. Since we are on the topic of Lee, take the Antebellum South, negroes who could barely get by by their limited intelligence and the fact that they did not really have a lotta say when free, enslaving them ensures them food, security, and care. There was little else for them to do elsewise.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Stan Schmidt Oh, i see everything just fine. The Godfather is, however, not an 'average' Hollywood production, that statement is lunacy. It is inherently superior to the Mirror and Stalker, which are both obviously purely abstract pieces of work that feature very little coherence and cohesion. 'equals being too stupid to understand what the difference between a piece of art and a piece of entertainment is.' ….This is the go-to excuse to defend filmmakers like Tarkovsky, Bergman, Fellini and in lesser terms even Nolan etc. It does not have anything to do with my intelligence, which is high enough. However, i do not believe someone who blindly throws a can of paint onto a canvas ( Implying Tarkovsky ) equals art. A movie that raises far more questions than it answers is not automatically 'art'. There is no reason to care about anything that happens in a Tarkovsky film, because the surrealism he uses is simply inhuman and lacks any kind of humane relatability, and ofcourse his characters (if any) are non existent. ( Again, Solaris is an exception to this ) The Mirror is just a typical example of this. No characters, non existent plot, lack of any form of cohesion, pretentious dialogue & amateurish editing. It is beautiful to look at, but that's pretty much it. I also will never understand the fascination a lot of people have in that trackingshot which ends with the burning house. Really sub-par scene. So yes, it is not just me, it is the movie's fault. True 'art' in cinema is emotionally powerful, and this is all the result of developed characters and a cohesive narrative. ( Which Tarkovsky lacks, and the Godfather doesn't ) And yeah, nothing from Hitchcock, Tarantino, Park or Tarkovsky is better than the Godfather. It features superb acting, one of the greatest screenplays & original scores, one of the greatest scenes ever made (The killing combined with the morally opposing baptism while Bach's Toccata and Fugue plays), fantastic cinematography and characters that are actually developed instead of neglected. All of this is art, and a lot of ambiguous abstract nonsense which has no meaning does not equal this.
3
-
3
-
@justbreathe7816 Alright.. i'll explain it to you. Whereas some films disregard immediate reality and seek to convey a certain message in its sub text, The Godfather is the kind of motion picture that seeks to bring forth reality exactly how it was, and does this by creating a kind of family bonding that is as near perfectly structured as it can be.
Of course, The Godfather still utilizes cinematic moments, and has one of the greatest character arcs in cinema ( Michael's ). The film starts with a wedding sequence of half an hour, all in which we are introduced into the world of the characters, and their respective business. We see Don Vito Corleone ( Marlon Brando ) calmly doubting the sincerity of an undertaker's request, we see Santino Corleone ( James Caan ) breaking a camera of a journalist, we see Michael Corleone ( Al Pacino ) being the one soul that seems to be absent from most of the family at that part, telling us the story of the characters and personalities wonderfully. Due to this extended opening sequence, we also get a feel for the brotherhood and warmth that the mob can also possess. It is, of course, a sad cover for what is to come afterwards, as The Godfather is also somewhat of a study on the self destructive nature of man, as nearly every character in the end pays for price for immorality.
The Godfather is one of the best acted films of all-time. Most of this is of course because of Marlon Brando, who is deliberately made up like a 'bulldog' to fit his personality. The mannerisms & voice are somehow exactly what one would think when thinking of the founder of a gigantic mob empire. There is not really a weak spot in the acting throughout the entire picture, but other standouts are James Caan & Robert Duvall. Of course Al Pacino also set himself on the map with this performance as the good hearted war hero transforms into the stoic and calculated don of the family. As stated before, the film is near perfectly structured, with events always coinciding with character ( Take the final scene of Michael in Italy for example, with his wife getting killed in the car bomb. This scene is only there to further disconnect Michael emotionally between his work and his life, further sending him down the dark path to becoming the Don ), being the result of one of the greatest screenplays of all-time.
The Godfather features cinematography befitting its subject, as a lot of shots are very scarcely lit. In particular the scenes indoors where the mob business is being discussed, the darkness makes sure that only the faces and the white parts of the outfit are shown, as they are mostly wearing black during these scenes. This was to emphasize how 'shady' the dealings of the mob were, and this darkness enhances this feeling in the audience.
The original score by Nino Rota is also one worthy of mention, as it perfectly encapsulates what this movie is about; friendship, family, beauty & tragedy. Being an Italian composer who has previously composed other (Italian) masterpieces such as The Leopard (1963) & Rocco and his Brothers (1960), he also manages to give the Godfather this italian atmosphere, further enhancing the immersion into the roots of this family.
In the end, The Godfather is mainly about Michael's slow ascent to the top of the ladder in the family. He doesn't want to have anything to do with the business of the family at first, but he feels compelled to act when assassins try to assassinate his father, feeling that he is the only one who can get close enough to his enemies to eliminate them, and after he has done so, the events he witnesses in italy cause him to develop an even more emotionally disconnected personality that makes him feel compelled to take his family's throne. By the end, there is a sequence which contrasts the baptism of Michael's new nephew with the simultaneous murder of all of his competition ( Other mob bosses ), in a stunning sequence of moral duality. While Bach's satanic score plays, and enhances in sound significantly when Michael is asked if he renounces Satan. One of the masterful scenes in a masterful film, it perfectly shows us his final personal descent into immorality & emotional disconnection.
The Godfather is an epic family ballad of themes and tragedies, while also being exceptionally well made. It features some of the best acting & writing of all-time, superbly darkly lit sets to enhance atmosphere and a fantastic original score while being near perfectly structured. All of which cements this as one of the world's greats of mob & rise to power movies.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@quantumhype9839 Because you seem to be obsessed with the glorifying of hedonistic tendencies, such as dating & partying, as i gathered from previous quotes. You denounce me for not partaking in these ridiculously infantile post modernistic activities, thus making you a feeble minded pleasure seeker, simply indulging in short term self gratification, and nothing more. The thought that man can be anything beyond that probably never occurs to you. So yes, you're a moronic empty headed hedonist. And i never said i contribute to the advancement of man's knowledge. There's no such advancement to speak of in 2019. The only thing that matters is to bask in the glory of the past. This post modernistic present & future is utterly irrelevant, as they are disgusting. Thus, i 'observe' the advancement in man's knowledge, and remind myself of a time when this was the case. The 'yo mummzzz bassementtt' crap doesn't impress me, boyo. this is a 2005 insult. Get something a little more original next time. And all of this of course confirms my psychological & moral superiority over you. (Though, admittedly, nearly everyone on this comment thread is superior to you, that's not hard)
3
-
Ricky B You put the going to clubs in the relativist perspective… like there's nothing inherently good or bad about them, like you always do, but it's far worse than that. It's brain deadening hedonism and pleasure seeking by people who generally have no clue as why they are there. People without any principles or meaning. Utter sheep devoid of any sort of meaning.
Dating is not the same as courting. Date is the more established part of it with an object in question. It's forced and cringy as shit. These things need to flow naturally, not due to forced societal norms. Of course man and woman should form relationships, but not with these 'dates'. And really? Moms basement? Virgin? What's next? 'GO FUCK YO MOM'? You really need to work on your originality, boyo.
By the way, why do you even think there's such a thing as biology? Don't you relativists all think that everything is a societal thing? Seems to be yet another inconsistency in your principles, boyo.
And yes, young people are moronic idiots. Their brains aren't fully developed yet. They march on climate strikes consistantly, all following the hedonist lifestyle incessantly, and almost none of them are even a little cultured. And no, i am not young. My principles far outweigh any generation alive today. Hence why i stated i was a conservative.
Of course i'm also an architectural critique. I'm a critique of anything that impacts society. And modernist and post modernist architecture is disgusting. Awful glass eyesores everywhere one looks, especially in cities. It's not a matter of taste, it's factually cancer inducing to the eyes. 'Just deal with it'? Really…? Another generic quote, lmao. No, i will not 'deal with it'. It's utter crap, and i won't accept utter crap. I'm not like you, being compelled to relativate everything in order to not make something feel inadequate. But one never sees any beauty that way either.
Conservatives are by far the most relevant, yes. The only truly intelligent people, searching for meaning instead of easy pleasure. Liberals such as yourself are in fact quite irrelevant.
I don't 'call myself conservative', i am conservative. This is again quite factual. And i'm not even american so how can i be a republican?
And the usual moral self exaltation in the latter part of your post.... you're getting kind of predictable aren't you? You can end your posts with this 'seek a psychiatrist' and 'you're so dummmmbbb!!' all you want, it won't change your hierarchal position in this debate, which is far under me. Again… you still haven't even countered any of the arguments i gave in favor of LOTR, though we both know you never shall. So, i shall now instead tell YOU to seek some sort of life coach... someone who can make you a bit more aware of yourself, because you're an incessant fountain of contradictions. Might also do to study a bit of objectivism, and not relativate anything without anything to back that up. There's of course more, but you'll have to start with those.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@quantumhype9839 the CGI is used in small doses. You seem to be mistaking it for the Hobbit. Everything that's CGI in LOTR couldn't be made any other way. Sometimes CGI is handier than practical effects for gigantic scale things such as the Mumakils or the army of the dead. And no, it's one of the most substantial films out there. It's the visual splendor, but it's also the superb characterization, the themes of free will, humility triumphing over pride, repentance, temptation (the rings seductive power was probably an allegory for the temptation of the devil), the unending battle between the good 'west' and the evil 'east' (Sauron is probably an allegory for Stalin, despite Tolkien denying it), self sacrifice, salvation, fellowship & mercy. Not to mention the complex dual morality of in depth characters like Boromir. The complete transformations through all of the traits named above, especially by the four hobbits & Aragorn, also produce some of the finest character arcs in cinema. It's an epic allegorical mosaic on how goodness triumphs over evil in the catholic sense. Unfortunately, you're unable to see any sub text, so you take it on the surface, blatantly ignoring its obvious complex depths.
2
-
Ricky B There's nothing false about it, all art is objective. You're basing the opposite on assumptions that every view is indusputably influenced by personal bias, but on what basis do you claim this…? Your own personal way of looking at it? That hardly proves anything. Besides, even if literally every human being would be personally influenced in art, it still would be objective, because people letting feelings matter over facts doesn't mean the facts are non existent. I've explained to you countless times why this argument is therefore devoid of meaning.
What the hell are you talking about…? Re-spawned? I don't even know where you get these idiotic notions… probably some other reviewer. No sense of loss or suffering? Despite the extended spiritual & mental suffering of Frodo & Sam? The constant sense of hopelessness? Come on man, it's sense of suffering and loss are unparalleled, and certainly far better than kiddy star wars, lmao. If you're talking about something with no loss or suffering, it's star wars. ( Which is more specifically directed at kids than LOTR ) Stormtroopers never hit anyone, at least the orcs and uruk hai kill plenty of good guys. And no carnage is shown? I don't even know whether you're being serious or not…
Yes, Saving Private Ryan shouldn't be pg13, but LOTR isn't Saving Private Ryan. LOTR really doesn't have a reason as to why it should be R either. Orc blood isn't graphic anyway since it's black, so for the extra gore it shouldn't have been a necessity, and profanity would have been completely out of place. And despite that SPR is pretty good, also in the bonding of character & audience, it still doesn't come close to LOTR, whose significant character arcs & transformations result in quite possibly the most emotional movie ever made (RotK, especially).
LOTR is extremely human. That's the entire point. It's one of the most human movies out there. Everything is metaphorical. It's not meant solely to be fun, it's meant to be a statement on how goodness overcomes evil. It's highly idealistic in that regard. Yet it's not black and white… as the entire narrative arc of the ring proves. It's metaphorical for the seduction of good men into temptation, as we see with Boromir. The hobbits can resist it fairly well because they are simple hearted, and do not strive for the highest material as men do. Therefore, it can also be concluded it is a statement against materialism. In any case, it's an incredibly rich, complex & in-depth tale on objective morality, and why it is necessary. So no, it's not just 'fun'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kwolf2145 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is not just a movie, it is a beacon of hope, an array of light, if you will. In more concrete terms, it is quite possibly the greatest film ever made, out of the greatest trilogy ever made.
The Return of the King defines the 'magic' of the motion picture arts like no other. This kind of picture is the reason why we watch movies. The emotions going through you as you are experiencing this utter piece of art are quite indescribable, and need to be witnessed first hand. Peter Jackson has created a monument, to be standing tall for years to come, as a motivational piece for humanity.
Since there are no new characters that need to be introduced in Return of the King ( Except for Denethor if you haven't watched the extended edition of The Two Towers ), Return of the King focuses solely on Sauron's attempted destruction of Middle-Earth. This is not, however, a weakness, because the character arcs of characters like Pippin, Sam & Aragorn are being developed more than ever in this last entry of the trilogy, resulting in great character changes due to drastic events.
The acting is, like the entire trilogy, once again near flawless. Sean Astin & Elijah Wood as Sam & Frodo in particular stand out, while the corruption of the Ring tightens its grip around Frodo, with Sam always being there to save him from it. It is a friendship so real, of which the likes is rarely ever depicted on screen, at least not on this level. The make-up on both hobbits truly makes it look like they have crawled through barren wastelands for months on end, and Sam's melancholy references to the Shire, a forgotten period it seems, are truly as poignant as they come. There is a constant sense of hopelessness in what they are trying to do, but they kept on going anyway, due to an iron will of sorts. It is really this mentality that moves large portions of audiences.
The screenplay is ofcourse once again phenomenal. There are many different storylines & character arcs, and to be invested in all of them is truly top notch filmmaking. As i've stated in reviews of the previous films, this is probably also due to Tolkien's superb literature, but the dialogue, the character arcs, it is all perfection. As stated before, in particular Sam's motivational speeches to Frodo are literary masterful, as are the pre-battle speeches of Theoden and Aragorn.
One is too short on words to properly compliment Howard Shore's incredible work on this trilogy. The diversity of his score, his use of leitmotifs, the raw emotional power, this is definitely and undisputably one of the greatest scores ever created for motion pictures. It is weird to image the LOTR films without his iconic score, which, for a very large portion, added extreme layers of emotional intensity to this picture.
Like the previous entries, Return of the King is once again aesthetically pleasing. There are a couple of sets that might have been average looking, but when you look at the technical marvel of a set that Minas Tirith was, these minor shortcomings can easily be neglected. The shot of Gandalf ascending this titanic city while Shore's score plays is just one of the many examples of the goosebump and emotion inducing ride that Return of the King is. The final shots of Frodo & Sam lying on a rock on mount doom are also some examples of visual beauty.
With everything that has happened, and with the constant sense of hopelessness hanging in the air in this particular picture, this whole fictional world truly does seem to be at risk, and there is rarely a film that makes one so firmly root for its protagonist like this one manages to. When Aragorn & Theoden charge after their respective speeches, you wish as you were charging with them, and actually feel like you are doing so. These are some of the most likeable, well developed and complex heroes ever created, and it is sad to leave them for a time ( At least until the next viewing... ). The battle at the black gate, intertwined with Frodo, Sam & Gollum's struggle for the ring, are another marvel of tension filled filmmaking. The slow motion usage in the battle is not there to look 'cool', but to draw out tension and emotion in the audience. The battle sounds fade, and only Shore's melancholy score plays, as if certain characters were meeting their doom in this battle. The fantastic close ups of the facial expressions of our heroes after Sauron is annihilated is of course also a phenomenal kind of acting.
The many ending sequences are sometimes falsely criticized, since one has to keep in mind that we have witnessed a life changing story for our characters, and Frodo's inability to cope with a coming back to his previous and normal life further adds another layer to the complexity and the humane message of this film. The coronation, and the setting out for the Grey Havens also result in one of the both most satisfying & sad movie endings ever created. Furthermore, it is the kind of picture that should have no loose ends lying around, as every single character was set up to be something in the end, which is what has happened.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is capable of invoking emotions in audience that are never felt during any other film ever made. It is a genuinely humanist story about hope, brotherhood, friendship, and seeing the good in humanity despite all of its corruption and death. This is ofcourse all very resonant to the real world. Featuring great acting, character development, writing, cinematography & a phenomenal original score, Return of the King is a state of mind instead of a film, and my personal pick for the 'Greatest of all-time'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnmartel9433 No, Tarkovsky isn't anywhere near a novel. It's a joke to even compare them. Tolstoy isn't pretentious, and it is quite clear he is miles ahead of Tarkovsky, but i reckon you probably just google searched "best writers" and named all of those. Someone as gullible and naive as you probably does not read, and if you're seriously comparing Tolstoy's complex characterizations with Tarkovsky's cardboard caricatures you are even more idiotic. The one has substance, the other does not. Is there even a single Tarkovsky character non one dimensional and worth noting, lmao? And no, you don't want to explain because you know you don't stand a chance against me.
That was my reply to your drivel. Read it this time, blind boyo. Eraserhead is a garbage film and that's a fact. It's one of the most meaningless, badly acted & badly written films out there. The argument of "you didn't get it" when you don't even understand it yourself (This is evident by your evasive manuveurs whenever one asks you to explain) is a ridiculous rhetoric to defend something that is undefendable, and it is furthermore an ad hominem despite the obvious fact that i am quite a bit cleverer than you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aaronmarjamaa1070 A debate usually has no middle ground, that's quite normal. You're referring to a discussion, which this is not. Besides, i cannot admit to things that simply aren't true. If you do not apply any value to art, the word means nothing. It's nonsensical to use it, since everything and nothing is art with that logic. The truth is, some human beings are more gifted than others, and are able to thus create greater things. Some of those are the true artists, but not everyone in existence, lmao. You probably also thought that banana ducttaped on the wall in a modern art museum was art. It's ridiculous. Art is the very highest being of human sophistication and human creativity, not with some post modernist doctrine, everything some low iq moron can fingerpaint. It defeats the entire purpose of this thing that sets us apart from the beasts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TaxiDriver 101 Damn, are you thick headed. I don't respect people's opinions if that opinion is shit, and that is simply the way it should be, as i stated before respect is something that has to be earned. A film is always a film, no matter how you try to twist or turn it, it is always the same. Some casual moviegoers dislike certain genres for no obvious reason, but for objective ones such as myself this matters none. I judge everything on actual quality and face value, as this is the way they are supposed to be rated. Ofcourse the true factors on how casuals rate a film differs, but what's the point in taking people seriously that can't even backup their opinions with argumentation? Thus cinema, and art in general is completely OBJECTIVE, and it is only in the common people's feeble minds that they turn it into subjectivity, but since they can't back their opinion with relevant argumentation, their opinion is not to be taken seriously.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
MC_Uniboob I'm not American, and you can't speak for your entire country, boyo. I know a lot of the favorite movies of some people i know, people that are not very gifted in knowledge of the arts of cinema, and a lot of them favor LOTR as the greatest film they have ever seen. Not to mention the people mentioning it on this comment thread. It's very popular with the both the mainstream and the buff crowd. Just because your little group of english friends doesn't acknowledge this doesn't mean the whole of England doesn't, lmao. Also, entertainment comes naturally with quality, so that isn't a factor to judge something with. In fact, i've yet to find a film that is not entertaining, and i have seen many. The only logical conclusion is that entertainment is a purely subjective argument, and thus not very relevant for other people. You keep saying 'nerds' where you mean a 'film buff', and with everything you've stated thus far, every single film buff is probably more sophisticated and cultured than you, yes, if you don't even understand that LOTR is casually popular. I bet you haven't seen a lot, which partly proves your ignorance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@quantumhype9839 Unfortunately, kiddo, assumptions do not resemble truths. Another basic life lesson that you seem to have taken no notice of. Besides which, i rarely watch more than 1 movie a day, so your little rant doesn't make a lot of sense. And i do not want to be a knowledge seeker, i am a knowledge seeker. And an avid art lover, of true art, that is. And why should i accept crap opinions? I'll accept it if it's worth accepting. Nothing in life comes easy, boyo, which is another lesson you have yet to learn, it seems. Respect is something that is earned, not given. I do not respect you simply because you exist, as you had no say in that. I'm sorry if the truth offends you, son, but you can call reality wake up callers 'smug little shits' all you like, it won't change the facts of life.
2
-
Ricky B You seem to understand not even the basic concepts of objectivism, and you try to tell me i know nothing of life...? What do you know about philosophy or psychology for example..? Nothing. What do you know about theology or art? Nothing. In short, you really don't know anything. Me, i'm an intellectual, i am interested in the nature of the human condition. I'm not a worthless hedonist such as yourself. I do not antagonize, i speak facts. Again, if you're offended by the truth, that's not my responsibility. And i never said i wanted to 'garner respect'. I don't give a shit about that, kiddo, lmao, what are you even talking about? I just said respect is something that's earned, not given, you politically correct progressivist half educated coxcomb. Look, the salient point here is the following…. me > you. Unfortunately for you, that's quite indisputable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Shrek Clearly you have difficulty understanding basic concepts, let me explain it to you; When i said there's no variety in rock i do not mean different albums. I mean every song has the same beat, the same basic concept. There's some random lines in a same beat and the same chorus over and over again. Rinse and repeat this. Most classical music doesn't follow this pattern. So yes, rock factually has no variety. And a year ago i was another person, i grew the fuck up. Maybe you'll do that some day too, and you'll figure it out for your own. Sticking past principles and opinions on me make no sense. I'm not of that mind anymore. And yes, rock is very modern. Rock originated not before the 1950s, which was an age in which modernity and even post modernity was already in full swing. It was made as a rebellious act by teenagers against conservatives. It's an over indulgent hedonistic movement that made kids feel more 'free'. It's the epitome of music conceived by modernist ideologies. This is also quite factual. But yes, of course the more recent crap is worse, that much is indeed true, but it takes a braindead moron to not realize that. Obviously your Zed Lepellin is better than some rap crap, but that doesn't take away the fact that classical is superior, and rock is simply fun for entertainment value.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 How is that superficial? Let me just educate you, boyo. You believe that nothing is superior or inferior to anything, so, this example is indeed a very primitive and obvious one, but it very solidly proves the fact that film is NOT subjective. Besides which, you can't measure a films quality? You keep saying this, but there are seven key factors in easily and objectively measuring this, which are acting, writing, cinematography, production design, sound & editing. And yes, you can measure all of them. Elsewise, Tommy Wiseau being better than Marlon Brando is not a wrong statement, since it's all subjective, right? Don't make me laugh... this entire war on the fact of objectivism is laughable. I think you need to grow up, boyo. Dig into something of Ayn Rand like i said or any other respectable conservative and quit listening to your liberal professor teachers.
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 If you know Ben, you must know that facts don't care about your feelings, and that all truth is objective. You're not really acting like a conservative with these idiotic subjectivity claims. How does bringing up the Godfather prove that i'm trying to avoid an argument that i know i'll lose? It's fairly simple: I'm giving you a Mickey mouse example of the fact that artforms are objective, because if this was not the case, the argument could be made for Wiseau to be better than Brando. Again, this doesn't really need any explanation. You know it, and i know it. You can try telling yourself that preferring Brando or Wiseau is a matter of 'taste', but one is factually a good actor, and the other is not. Again, we both know this, so quit kidding yourself. You're kind of insulting my intelligence for demanding an explanation for such an obvious thing, but it is due to the obvious: Wiseau does not embody a human being, but a wooden npc stuck on a single facial expression, while having a couple moments of extreme overacting. Brando, on the other hand, nails everything an actor should have, including manner of speech, physical mannerisms, proper emotional intensity etc. Anyway… we both know that there is an objective difference here, so quit kidding yourself.
1
-
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 You've not proven anything, boyo. You only said you can't measure quality, but that's just false. Like i said, you can objectively measure endless aspects of cinematic quality such as acting, writing, cinematography, art design, sound, editing etc. It has little to do with personal feelings or preferences, so it IS NOT SUBJECTIVE. Just because some people are biased and unable to form an objective opinion doesn't mean film isn't objective. So no, you haven't proven anything. I've already explained to you why Brando is better a couple of posts ago. You need to improve your reading comprehension. Seriously though, why deny it? We both know that Brando is a better actor. It's not a matter of 'taste' or 'personal preference', it's just a fact.
1
-
@taxidriver1019 Yeah, it's clear you're a liberal in disguise. There is no other way i can understand this. Proper conservatives always acknowledge objective truth, because they are generally the only people that are thinking clearly. Not you though. How do you measure the Sistine Chapel being better than my living room? How do you measure Ode to Joy being better than some rap hiphop modern crap? You don't particularly, but they are better, and that's factual. It's not a matter of taste, that's a secondary thing. And again, i've already explained to you why Brando was better a couple of posts ago, i'm not going to disrespect my own intelligence by doing it again, since at this point i don't even believe you're being serious anymore. Your claims are becoming quite ridiculous. Just curious, you probably also don't believe in right and wrong in this world, right? That would fit in perfectly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 You can objectively compare anything. But like i said earlier, when two performances are near perfect, there is no real difference, and in this case it does come down to subjectivity, yes. This doesn't mean that film is subjective, because both are OBJECTIVELY GREAT. Let me put it to you like this: Let's say we have a rating scale of 1-10, using halves. Their performances are both 9,5 for example, and therefore fairly indistinguishable. However, there are also performances with 7s, or 6,5s, which are OBJECTIVELY WORSE. This is why i kept mentioning Wiseau, since he was the lowest on this scale, which proves my point about some performances simply being better than others. Anyway, i think you need to check on some information on objectivism, since you clearly seem to be lacking knowledge about its factual existence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JDP2104 You don't really understand anything i've been explaining to you, nor do you realize the consequences of your subjectivism ideology. Say, for matter of discussion, that it was all subjective, this would entail that nothing holds any base value. Therefore, the ugliest woman in the world can be considered equal to the hottest, because there is no base value. It's absurd, and contradictory by itself. Saying attraction is subjective is ALWAYS a subjective statement, but nevertheless you people claim that that's objective, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to convince me of it. It's contradictory, and it goes against common sense. I've already told you also that comparisons after judgements DON'T MAKE SOMETHING SUBJECTIVE. Just because there is little differencr between two hot women doesn't mean an ugly and a hot one are also the same. And yeah, the examples i've been telling you about 500 times in this thread. Actually read my posts next time, Jesus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seamoose1731 Uhm, no. There is nothing to suggest that i am mad, that is an idiotic assumption on your part, based on very little logic. Furthermore, like i said, some opinions are better than others, and it just so happens this guys opinion is quite terrible. It doesn't matter if he considers it his favorite or the best. I mean, you're trying to tell deny me the right to criticize because it's 'an opinion', which is of course ridiculous. Any man has the right to criticize anything, boyo, quit trying to force opression on people. Anyway, if this is the OP's favorites that's his right, i'm not denying him anything, but it is of course another right to criticize it if that list is terrible. It is quite simple really.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@quantumhype9839 Uhm... except for the Sauron thing everything was straight from Tolkien himself... he stated that these are the inspirations for him during these scenes. There's thus no 'interpretations'... it is literally what he had in mind. So it's not personal. None of my arguments are personal. All of yours have been though. Thus, everything remains in my favor, and shall stay so. I also think Izzmond meant WWII, not WWI. And the constant sinister sense of doom & hopelessness says otherwise about there not being anything at stake, boyo. That's the whole strength of LOTR, that things ARE actually at stake. I know you'll cling on to your butt buddy Ebert's words, but he's hopelessly wrong. Remember, we're talking about some deluded moron here who thinks there will be blood has a flaw because there are no women, dirty harry is fascist, clockwork orange is a right wing fantasy, to kill a mockingbird is bad because the hero is white & that speed 2 is a masterpiece. That's your 'idol', boyo.
1
-
@quantumhype9839 Art isn't open for interpretation, that's the point i've been making all the time. All art is objective. But that's beside the point. The point is, Tolkien thought of these things when making LOTR. He literally implemented them in it, so it's factually not interpretation, boyo. And again... quit the 'younger' argument, kiddo. Tdk and star wars are in your top 10, not to mention other pg13 crap like forrest gump. What a hypocrite you are. But no, LOTR was conceived as adult literature, despite the facts that kids could read it too, although the novel is fairly complex in terms of language. It's far too sophisticated to be directed at kids. This is simply the way it is, boyo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
thethikboy Actually, it's usually called 'argumentum ab auctoritate', the Argument from Authority, but i picked a smaller, more fitting branch of that. An ad hominem is fitting in this case, because your ridiculous observation that The Godfather 'sensationalizes crime' is indeed caused by the ignorance of the subject ( Which is you ). It is depicted as a dark, sinister, brooding, filthy business resulting in the death of numerous loved ones and family members. It is the epitome of something that denounces crime. In the end, Michael also dies alone, with no one by his side, due to the immoral life that he has led. I don't think you really understand messages that movies mean to convey. Of course there's a lot of violence, snitching & immorality in it, and this is depicted as harsh as it is because it is being denounced. Really, it isn't very hard to understand. And yes, America is considered as #1 in cinema by nearly every available source, except for a couple of pseudo intellectual nonsense sites. I don't doubt that you're a 'published author', but you really don't understand anything about movies. Besides, how much is 'countless'? That's a very broad term.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eisenschleifer The Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, The Good, the Bad & the Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West, Taxi Driver, Seven Samurai, L.A. Confidential, Ran, The Usual Suspects, The Shawshank Redemption, Ben Hur (1959), Braveheart, For a Few Dollars More, Casino, Barry Lyndon, Goodfellas, Harakiri, Jurassic Park etc. Need i name more?
1
-
Eisenschleifer Of course they weren't garbage. The acting is one of the stronger points in TDK, but that alone doesn't make it edible as one of the all-time greats. It has a poorly written villain (Since he is not motivated by anything, which is hardly a difficult character to write), amateurish montage-like editing (The consistent use of fast-forward shot editing makes it seem more like a documentary instead of a motion picture), heavy reliance on too much exposition (TDK isn't even overly complex in its narrative, so this is just a method of storytelling devoid of any intellectuality ), besides which, Batman Begins & TDK Rises both had superior and more complex narrative structures, and villains that were actually morally complex instead of TDK's nihilistic joker, which is why it really is the weakest entry in the series. Also, it doesn't have a clear theme, and never understands quite what it wants to be, whereas Jurassic Park is a clear criticism of the dangers and inhumanity of cloning, and LOTR of bravery, friendship & courage in the hearts of men.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wafflez Senpai I'll hereby just quote a review i made about it:
'For some reason Bergman is considered by many great directors & critics as one of the greatest directors of all time. After having seen The Seventh Seal (1957) and this one i can definitely declare that statement null and void.There's no doubt the black and white photography and the visual imagery are beautiful, and there is really nothing wrong with Bergman's skills with the camera itself, as he uses brilliant closeups and wideshots combined with great cinematography to create a visually impressive film. But these kind of factors need to be combined with the context of an actual story to truly make an impression on its audience, since simply showing pretty images all the time isn't what cinema is about. It's about a combination of technical expertise and relatable human emotion to create a great immersive experience, but this film only has one of these traits.I suppose this movie is generally well liked mostly by pseudo intellectuals who think themselves very smart for liking such an incomprehensible film. The first forty five minutes of the film are pretty linear and straight forward, and do not seem to be anything out of the ordinary. Now these first 45 minutes weren't very good either, but atleast it was coherent and it seemed to have an actual plot. It still never made any sense that the connection between the nurse and a mute actress became so strong so quickly and that she would tell her about something so sensitive that she never told anybody before, but atleast Bergman seems capable of telling a story for some part in a film. However, after the 45 minute mark is where it gets considerably worse and its final 30 minutes focus solely on muddled and repetitive dialogue, weird editing & just a complete mess of a conventional narrative structure to make sure you will have no idea what's going on. Totally seemingly irrelevant images of a spider, a nail being driven through a hand, a boy reading some book are seen throughout the film and all of them are designed so the film can appear to be intellectual, while in reality it isn't. It's easy to say that the film isn't meant to have a conventional narrative structure or an actual cohesive plot because of its ability for pseudo intellectuals to 'Open your mind', because that would make it a whole lot easier to create an actual good film since there is no need for a story, characters, character development or creating a coherent experience in films like this. These kind of experiences are never immersive, because we do not feel connected to the main characters in any way because their connection built in the first 45 minutes feels so wobbly and fake.So, in terms of visuals and camera work there really is nothing wrong with Bergman's way of directing, but it's the messy plot structure and the disconnected editing and sometimes addition of irrelevant images is what turns this film into a pretentious jumble.'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bootydaddy555 Again, for the ten thousandth time, the academy is a very limited bunch of people who are neither well versed in film nor objective in their judgment, this is commonly known. Anyone with even a slight knowledge of cinema doesn't take them seriously. Furthermore box office is based on popularity, not quality. It's utterly irrelevant to the latter. And 89% RT isn't even high enough to be in the top 500 on RT, lmao. Also, it has only 75/100 metacritic, 7,8/10 IMDb and 3,7/5 letterboxd which makes it noy reach the top 300 anywhere. And this was voted on by MANY people, not just the handful of the biased academy. So no, it's a fact it's not considered to be a "great film". But even if it were, it wouldn't excuse the objectively garbage writing & acting.
1
-
1
-
J-masterLegend It is subjective by your logic, boyo. They came to the subjective conclusion of those points. It' also a fact Titanic has 7,8 IMDb, 3,7 letterboxd & 75 metacritic. Grow up. It's not considered great anywhere. And yes, you can factually dismantle whether something is properly written by deducing the returning motifs, eloquence, possible twists or implementation of themes etc. Same goes for acting. There's no subjectivity in any of them. And the fact is, writing of Titanic is abyssmal and the acting is too. Just accept it, boyo. That's the reason it's not considered great anywhere. The only reason it scores about 7/10ish everywhere on average is because a lot of subjectivist fangirls giving it a 10. In reality, it should be a lot lower, obviously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bootydaddy555 Film is objective and this is a fact. And i know how RT works, boyo, lmao. But it does have ratings, and Titanic is 89% and 7,98/10 on there, so even on RT it doesn't make the 8, lmao. So again, how the hell is it considered great by anybody except some academy of a very limited amount of people who generally always are biased towards melodrama and are known for their shitty picks? And no, it's not hate, it's acknowledgement of the fact that Titanic is not a great movie. Not a single online rating site has it over an 8,0/10. And financial results, again, are the result of popularity. For Christ sake, their revenue comes from people who generally have not even seen it and are going to see it for the first time. Their money comes in because they overhype it and make it popular, when the money is given the people haven't even seen it yet, so how is this relevant to quality? You know really little about film, but yeah, Titanic fanboys generally always do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomt-c9610 Because it's good. The character arc & bonding, the narrative with complex lore, the score, the cinematography, the writing, production, everything. That you hate fantasy is unfortunate for you, but the reason you don't love it is primarily because of yourself. And on the second part, feelings are random, and generated by pure chance. Their being there can never be explained, so discussing it makes no sense. Concrete things, objective things, on the other hand, can actually be discussed with results.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@centacc3878 I'm not the one who keeps bringing up Parasite, so who's the one who's triggered? I merely reply to your vain and poorly argumented claims in order to prove the obvious point that Parasite is a mediocrity and little more. If it were up to me, i don't consider it even slightly worthy of bringing it up. So again, who's the triggered one? And i also explained this in my review. Yes, the lower class family is portrayed as disgusting people, but nonetheless the movie justifies where their behavior is coming from, and attempts to make us sympathize with them in the end, which is of course a moral fallacy. But the main point is that the movie implies that class division is the greatest evil on contemporary society, and all it does it depict the violent consequences of this non existent fantasy thing. It's a clear indictment of capitalism by someone who knows nothing about capitalism, and who still believes that upper classes have any more say in society than lower ones, which is something of the past, something which this director is obviously stuck in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bruh You literally contradict yourself already when you say "there is no objectivity in movies". That is an opinion. If you say this like a fact, which i know is what you mean, it's contradictory, because it's not measurable where it lies that it's either subjective or objective. You can't say it's all subjective as an objective fact, that's utterly nonsensical. It's just a limited way of thinking, and nothing more. You've apparently also not seen movies like The Room, Birdemic, Sharknado etc to be talking this way. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Movies, like all artforms, are completely objective. That not everyone agrees means nothing. Taste & actual quality are different things, and both exist, boyo. You can say you don't like the Godfather, but it's a fact that that's quite a good film. It also denounces the achievement of the artist, because by your logic, nothing holds any value. And if everything is just "taste", how come certain movies are more acclaimed than others? Why is Shawshank more loved than the Room? Both are drama, so both are of the same "taste", but there is quite obviously a significant objective difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bradenmerriman5206 On the contrary, i'm the only one of us who reaches beyond the surface. LOTR has generally natural backdrops and faces, it utilizes CGI only when inevitable, and even when it does it is coupled with a sense of realism. The same case can be made for even the most CGI heavy movies. Despite that, there's always the regular faces and humans in them every time. Anime is by its very essence built to negate that, and its otherworldliness is made to appeal to kids by its very definition. It is really in no way to be compared with even the mosr CGI laden movie. And you are right, i'd never use those words in real life, because i am not a native English speaker, though i can assure you that i use the national equivalent of them in my particular country, boyo, therefore rendering your accusation quite groundless, as for that matter are all of your infinitesimal arguments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 No, the action is actually much better than the other two. That's something that got better each film. In Batman Begins it was an incomprehensible mess, with extremely quick edits & rapid fire moving camera's. You could see absolutely nothing. Which is a shame, because plot wise that one is by far the best of the trilogy. TDK did it a little better, but it was still difficult to make out what was going on. In TDKR, however, these action scenes are superb, especially the first fight with Bane in the sewers. It seems as though Nolan realized his limitations as an action director, and just decided to go for a steady camera and longer takes, letting the actors/stuntmen do the hard work instead of being saved by quick edits. So yeah, action, editing etc is all far superior in TDKR. I don't get your complaint about the breaking back scene. Is it because he is a bit higher when he does it then he is shown in the previous shot...? That's hardly a mistake. Yeah, Bane's death was anti climactic, but not always does a villain have to go down with a lot of thunder. I'll agree that Cottilard was horrible, though, but so was Gyllenhaal in TDK.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Am-dq7fx
M (1931)
, Stagecoach (1939)
, Bringing Up Baby (1938)
, Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)
, Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)
, Wuthering Heights (1939)
, The Women (1939)
, The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
, The Thin Man (1934)
, The Roaring Twenties (1939)
, Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939)
, After the Thin Man (1936)
, Libeled Lady (1936)
, I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932)
, Captains Courageous (1937)
, The Awful Truth (1937)
, Scarface (1932)
, Easy Living (1937)
, Stage Door (1937)
, Trouble in Paradise (1932)
, You Can't Take It with You (1938)
, Only Angels Have Wings (1939)
, Gone with the Wind (1939)
, The Lady Vanishes (1938)
, Captain Blood (1935)
, Another Thin Man (1939)
, Dracula (1931)
, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936)
To name a few good ones. This is of course in order from best to least best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
McMacMilk McMacSauce Dumb comparison, since someone over 15 year old could never have your top 10, it is something that says a lot about someone. Ofcourse mainstream movies don't have to be bad, but superhero flicks have no psychology, no emotion, usually subpar acting and a script full of cliche dialogue, which is why they can never be seen as one of the greatest. I do not have Twitter or Facebook or any other social media because they are useless anti-social hypermodern platforms which people use to fill the emptiness of their existence. If you wonder why i do have YouTube, it is because this is still a place to share artforms. Also what is with this weird Mexico statement..? I'm not american so this is not something that has an effect on me. In 1940 there were no mindless superhero flicks, there were mostly Romances, Westerns & Film-Noirs ( which you don't even know the meaning of ). 'the internet doesn’t need idiots like you' You understand the word 'idiot', kid? I don't think you do. Anyway, the internet is full of idiots in case you haven't noticed, it breeds them. 'make people feels horrible' is my personal favorite of this post of yours though, just utterly ridiculous. I make people feel horrible because i write my ( very objective ) facts down on the internet? You take the internet too seriously, kiddo, it has become your life, such is the way for every 12 year old nowadays. Yes you are a child AND immature. If you do not agree don't put up such a pathetic immature list, you were bound to get some comments about that and you know. If you don't understand anything about cinema stick to your minecraft and don't meddle with artforms like movies which you have no place in.
1
-
McMacMilk McMacSauce No i am not, i am an art lover, which is as objective as it gets. The internet is never 'hurtful' kiddo, get that out of your system, it isn't real life, it shouldn't affect you personally. Social media is anti-social because everyone sits in front of a screen or stares at a phone instead of conventional ways of communicating such as talking, which is ofcourse the only social activity there is. Unfortunately critics have been paid off since 2007 and/or have been affected by the smartphone social media age and give crappy mindless superhero politically correct nonsense 10/10 even though that's a joke. Critic reviews are irrelevant since 2007 since critics are irrelevant since 2007. Your dad can think what he wants, average people know nothing about film, so that point is irrelevant too. PG-13 IS a KID rating, and anything under it is well, frankly just for 6 year olds. I think i have about 6 PG-13 movies in my top 100, and 94 rated R. Which is, ofcourse, objectively right. Superhero flicks are rarely well acted, i can't really think of one single character in a superhero movie i was impressed with. Ofcourse, these days the priority is not acting anymore, like it used to, but fights between two CGI creations and pathetic shakycam action scenes. I'm not trying to get you to hate your own films, like i said you are entitled to your own ( dumb ) opinion, but lists such as yours show me how far humanity is sinking into the abyss. Your age is no excuse, i have seen ( VERY few, but still ) kids your age that actually do know how to appreciate art, unlike you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
McMacMilk McMacSauce If you dont want your list taken seriously dont comment, kiddo. World class cinema isnt the place for kiddies like you. Uhm and no, what i give are facts and they are not disputable. You however, are one gigantic source of kiddy subjectivity. Kiddo, you cant even argue with a list like that, it makes nobody take you seriously. Luckily you do actually have the single objective thought of admitting there are better movies than cars. Which is, ofcourse, an EXTREMELY mild way of putting it. There are few worse than cars. Minecraft is either for kids or people suffering from autism, those are also well known facts. Everything i claim is a fact, whereas youre subjective nonsense really doesnt amount to anything. You keep changing the subject because you dont understand anything about cinema. You havent said anything with some substance about movies because even you can admit your list is subjective bullshit. Again, dont meddle in arts with this dumb list of yours.
1
-
McMacMilk McMacSauce You don`t need to be a scientist to understand that superhero movies can never be considered among the all time greats. There are some good ones, sure, like Batman (1989) & Spider-Man (2002). But even those are cannot be put in any objective persons first 150. Like i said earlier, and these are FACTS: Superhero movies do not have any psychological motives, no symbolisms, rarely any sort of emotion and usually cliche dialogue. I picked your comment because your list is the most ridiculous i have seen in this comment section, just absolutely ridiculous. You have some people who put The Dark Knight on their top 10 here ( why someone would do that i will never understand, but anyway...) other movies on it are usually more or less acceptable. Yours, however, is one giant superhero/star wars/kiddy fest with zero artistic value, which is why my criticism is mainly focused on you. 'Don't speak unless you have something nice to say' I am ( correctly ) criticizing your mediocre list, shame on me for having an opinion ( which, by the way, is based on facts, but you knew that ) in this 'free' world, right?
1
-
McMacMilk McMacSauce Like i said, age is no excuse for having a list like that. You still have a brain of yourself, right? If it works, it can create a list like any artist loving adult. Heath isnt a bad actor, but his performance in `The Dark Knight` is nothing special whatsoever, but it is probably because he killed himself after that he got this undeserved critical acclaim for his role. I reckon even every kid these days has seen the older star wars movies, but nothing else made before 2000. Thats just because there are loads of terrible sequels being made right now whereas they should quit making them once and for all because they are getting worse and worse ( The Last Jedi to top that off... what a joke that was ). Look, there are great movies in every decennium, but the 2010s is obviously and by far the worst, so putting 7/10 movies from after 2010 in a top 10 is just a joke. I agree a lot of kids your age will have 9/10 marvel nonsense in their top 10, but they dont understand anything about cinema, do they? So that is irrelevant. You, yourself claim to know things like Casablanca ( I name this one because it is old, Casablanca isnt a very good movie either, but still ) yet your list is still this nonsense, which is really no excuse.
1
-
Julian Johnson Your only argument here is 'entertainment value', which is in this case entirely subjective because it is contingent upon the attentionspan of a viewer. Mass appeal also does not matter to deciding the quality of a film because it is based on purely external factors which have little to do with the creating of the movie itself. To properly place that verdict, one has to analyze the film itself, and not be influenced by trivial external or personal matters. Also, there's no doubt that the Transformers films are more entertaining than the Godfather, so by your logic, this also makes them better, right...? Apart from entertainment, film is also an artform, therefore meaning that something that lingers in your mind for days after having seen it can be a much greater experience than a night of sole entertainment in the form of TDK or any other superhero flick, so it really is incorrect to keep latching onto this notion of 'entertainment' as the sole deciding factor for which one is better. For the record, i don't think The Godfather is the greatest film of all time, and i also don't think that TDK is a film worthy of even a top 300.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Julian Johnson Calling something 'boring' in terms of movies is simply a subjective opinion, and holds no value. You can't say something like that followed by 'period', because it holds no value in objective terms. Something like John Wick is indeed much more entertaining than the TDK trilogy, because it futures a lot more action scenes. It's really simple. I'm not saying it's better, but it's more entertaining. Entertainment is simply not a relevant factor in judging a film. Also, the dinner party scene flawless…? The camera spinning around like crazy for no reason, the camera shaking like a madman when the fight starts, the quick edits, the complete lack of overview.. it wasn't very good at all. If you've been excited by that, you must be excited very quickly. Every fight in the Bourne trilogy has something that is exactly the same. Also, i was referring to the fights between Batman & Bane in TDKR, especially the first one in the sewer. Nolan has finally realized that he is a mediocre action director, and does nothing special with his camera except keep it steady and get rid of quick edits. The athleticism, speed and ferocity of both fighters is shown much more clearly, and you can actually see what is going on.
1
-
Julian Johnson 'A feeling of chaos'... More like a feeling of bad direction. To claim i have no clue as to 'what makes a scene great' is already a significant error on your part, one clearly created by a personal loving bias for TDK. What rules did he break? Also, how is rule breaking equivalent to quality? And yes, Nolan is a mediocre action director. This is an objective take on the matter. Even his fanboys acknowledge this. Look at the chase in Insomnia & Memento, or the absolutely chaotic action sequences in Batman Begins & TDK. It's not the worst, but it isn't very good either ( Thus… mediocre ). Only TDKR has some impressive hand to hand sequences, because he has become self aware of his faults. Also, i know what storyboarding is, and trying to portray me as a cinematic ignoramus will not work, seeing as i have extended experience in the matter. There's no advantage to using shakycam quick edits as opposed to real action like in John Wick, The Matrix etc. It's simply OBJECTIVELY WORSE. It's used to hide a lack of athleticism and choreography faults of actors. TDK is not a 'masterpiece' regardless of your or my opinion. It is adequately shot on average, but it is not a great film. TDKR & Batman Begins are both superior. Also, interest is subjective, thus the argument is useless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
ツArmagedon Like i said, argumentum ab auctoritate is a logical fallacy. Pointing at lists of other people is not a valid argument to prove your claim. What is popular is not what is good. Also, i have given loads of irrefutable arguments, such as the hasty editing, mediocre action sequences, lack of narrative structure, lack of a complex narrative like TDKR & BB had ( TDK is the only entry not featuring any twists, not to mention Bane & Ra'as Al Ghul are much better villains than the Joker ). It's an average movie, and the weakest of the trilogy, let alone other films. I never said John Wick was necessarily better than the TDK trilogy, i just said that apart from TDKR, the action was better. And no, i am not biased and a 'blind hater' if i don't think TDK & IW are top 300 worthy. I am objective if i don't think they are top 300 worthy. See as many great movies as i have and this is a logical conclusion. Nolan isn't a bad director, but he is severely overrated. His movies always depend on dumbed down exposition, a montage-like pace, weak action, bad editing & often times there's also at least one bad performance in it. The only good action sequences are in TDKR. Neither TDK or BB has anything worth noting in that department. Also, Ledger's performance wasn't bad, but not great either, and Bale was definitely not great. Especially those cringeworthy exposition scenes with that forced gravellly voice with the commisioner. It's the movie people pick as their favorites because they do not know much else.
1
-
1
-
ツArmagedon No, Joker doesn't have motivations. Haven't you seen the film? You don't remember when Alfred stated 'Some men just want to watch the world burn' about the Joker..? He's purely out to create anarchy and chaos. He burns money because it doesn't interest him. He has no motivations at all. And no, his dialogue was not amazing by a long shot. It's not taste, it's logic. It has been too long for me to comment on the editing of Memento or Inception, since i've last watched those years ago, and Inception wasn't very memorable anyway. It's no 'small hole', it a glaringly big hole. Constant overuse of exposition, chaotic editing, weak action sequences, villain without motivations, montage pace etc are significant flaws. And no, Nolan does not come anywhere near Fincher or Spielberg. Also i said TDK was average, i didn't say Shawshank was, and don't make this all personal by saying 'ur the only one knowing in movies', i'm simply stating the things that are in the film itself, and i do not look for the validations of the opinions of other people to prove that point, that does not make it personal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
ツArmagedon The quality of the other lines you mentioned is seen in every single movie that is average or above. I'm not biased against anything just because i don't share your opinion, boyo. I haven't seen Benjamin Button, and Alien 3 was indeed not very good, but Panic Room was a very solid thriller. Panic Room is definitely a better film than The Dark Knight. But that's not really the point. Fincher has 1 masterpiece ( Se7en ), while Nolan has none. He has three very good movies, but no masterpiece. Also, Gone Girl & the Game were shit, and Zodiac was pretty good, but nothing special, but that doesn't change the fact that Fincher's quality limit is higher than Nolan's. BP is utter trash. It has no aspects that can be qualified as something else. SJW has everything to do with this. A nonsensical social justice film like this never would have been made in the old days. Quality isn't important anymore, they just want to appeal to the SJW crowd. And no, that's not a lazy excuse, that's the truth.
1
-
ツArmagedon Uhm, it doesn't matter what you found 'boring', since that is always related to the attentionspan of the viewer. Calling something boring as a validation for its lack of quality is subjective, and therefore irrelevant. Particularly the direction in Panic Room is superb, although it's not an amazing film, but still better than TDK. Yeah, Fincher only made two really good movies ( Seven & Fight Club ), but they're still a lot better than Nolan's best, which is my point. Perhaps on average Nolan is a bit more solid, but Fincher has the two better movies of the both of them. In any case, many directors are better than both of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@djjuckah7117 Yes, i do know more than you about movies, boyo. There's only about 2 people in a whole on this comment thread who somewhat equal me in that regard. I have seen more than you will ever see. And you deleted your list, so i can't see the others. But on the Titanic point, that's simply a really crappy movie, which obviously looks like it was written by a 14 year old. And Batman is the worst movie in this top 10, not the best. Besides, i really doubt you've seen all of these. But still, The Dark Knight is far better than Titanic. There is at least that. And look here, kiddo, it's really funny you're trying to act like the one with the superior film knowledge here. 'Never seen something better in my short life'? Lmao, this coming from a Titanic fanboy? Pretty sure i've seen things you wouldn't believe, boyo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dawsondjodvorj2408 What's there to disapprove? Nothing is subjective because everything external exists without perception. Besides which, i never once have heard a single proper argument in favor of subjectivism. But this is all besides the point, since you seem to acknowledge the existence of objectivity, only you merely connect futile merit to the personal aspect when none of it has any. And no, my list is fully objective. That much is quite certain. Post modernism challenges common sense & logic. Close mindedness is just a term for loonies like you so you can act like abstract garbage has value. Why would i feel threatened by it? I am already aware society is irreperably lost due to such ideologies, how could i still be threatened by it? I am already resigned to its dread, but that doesn't mean i will pay obeisance to such immoral drivel.
"Your perceived initial efforts are too great"? This makes no sense. Let us be honest, you're just trying to look smart but you funnily enough don't understand half you're saying, once again. I could school you on the unscrupulous principles of post modernism, but you would never get a cohesive word in edgewise, since you are after all not an opponent anywhere near my level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willkehler first off, this is the argument of authority, which is a logical fallacy and holds no value. Thus, your point about it being on some popular list is irrelevant. Furthermore, most of the people that vote on it haven't the slightest clue on how cinema works, thus a general average rating can be very misleading to true quality. And no, it's not who people agree with more, it's about what the actual quality is, and i am one of the examples of objectivists able to see this quality. So yes, my word is worth more than the general casual moviegoer, because i know a lot more about it. Your corny clichéd insults like 'getzz a lieff!!' Or 'in yo mommaz basdement!!' Don't impress me, kiddo. You're just as uncultured and unsophisticated as the general boor.
1
-
Will Kehler You're a complete moron. Asking a bunch of questions about interviews and smartphones is not relevant to cinematic knowledge, you uncultured bimbo. There's literally no connection between the two. This just proves your idiotic nature perfectly. It's like needing to ask something about the human condition with you asking the question 'Why does a dog bark?'. That's how ludicrous these statements are. Oh, and if you disagree, try and prove me wrong, i dare you, kiddo. No, random persons voting on IMDb do not have lifetimes of knowledge over me, and neither do you, seeing as you're a low IQ individual TDK fanboy. Keep trying though, boyo, your statements are good for some unintentional humor. Especially this connection you manage to make between interviews & smartphones and cinematic knowledge… really prophetic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 Yes, Pyle & the Gunny were indeed the greatest characters in FMJ, but the addition of Animal Mother partly makes up for this, and on a side note Joker & Cowboy might not be the true screen stealers, but their characters are still far from uninteresting or bad, especially considering Joker's struggling grasp on the confliction in himself about war ( Which that general or colonel i believe later points out, about when they talk about why he has born to kill on his helmet ). So especially for a Kubrick film the characters in FMJ are indeed strangely compelling. I also have Lyndon in my top 20 but admittedly it is severely limited character wise, but it is visually quite possible the greatest ever made. About Logan, maybe you have lower standards, but Logan is nothing we have never seen before. And while a film can transcend reality, it cannot transcend ridicilousness such as little kids using superpowers to destroy adults, despite any alleged psychological sub text it might have. Mind you, i don't particularly state that Logan is shit ( i think i rated it a 6 ) but it is nothing special either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Captain Drama Of course, you're allowed to think the opposite of me, but that doesn't mean it's true. In movie criticism there are two things, which are personal preferences & actual objective quality. You can think it has quality writing, but does it really? You can calculate the rarity of the usage of words in dialogue, coherence with earlier and later plot points etc. It's all for a large part measurable. So you can may LIKE MCU's writing, but it really is objectively terrible. The dialogue is that of random 12 year olds. TDK has decent writing, although Batman Begins is much better written, but it has other slight issues. Anyway, i don't really get why people post 'favorites' list, because every person is different. Who cares what someone else has as favorites? Much more interesting to see what one has as objectively the greatest picks, because that is based on something concrete, something of value. Of course, personally, i don't differentiate the two anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 For the hundreth time, i've already answered that. Scroll back, you idiot. You're so thick headed it's incredible. Common sense fails to exist in your mind. Also, i don't have 'taste', like i said, i judge on the facts. Because i do this, a lot of people will agree with me in a lot of picks, because some people do understand facts after all. And no, my logic is not flawed in any way whatsoever. I ALWAYS judge objectively. I'm sure that other people do too, even though they will be few. Modern standards are to rationalize all bullshit art as acceptable, since everything is subjective and therefore equal, but i'm not a post modernist like you, and therefore i understand the disgusting tastelessness of that doctrine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperBrictson Thing is, all these analyses on 8 1/2 are different. Meaning, it's all purely speculation and based on absolutely nothing. Now, there's nothing wrong if a part of that is in your films ( Example, Was Travis's massacre a dream in Taxi Driver, or who is human at the end of The Thing (1982) ), but an entire film of feigned ambiguity is simply complete nonsense. And in 8 1/2, it's the entire film. Nothing actually has any meaning, it's all based on speculation of gullible audiences who are tricked into thinking they've seen something smart, when in reality it's a bunch of nonsense. And Andrei Rublev would have been crap long or short, it's just that it's more agonizing to sit through if it's long. Most Tarkovsky, Fellini & also Bergman films are like this. Empty pieces of nothing, purely reliant on the gullible nature of an audience to actually think it's worth a damn. And yes, spoonfeeding is insulting, but so is acting like nothing is something ( And there you have the definition of the word 'pretentious', so it quite obviously applies ).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ontheturningaway Cardboard characters? What are you talking about? Aragorn, Boromir, Sam, Frodo, even Merry & Pippin are cardboard characters? That's laughable. You're just plain wrong there. Every one of them has a significant arc, all the while feeding off of eachother's development. Exposition? Lmao, that is severely minimalized. Only FotR really had a lot of exposition, but that is to be expected, given the complex world that is displayed. Even so, it isn't a whole lot of exposition. I think you're getting it a bit confused with superhero movies, boyo. It is the definition of artistry. A study on the nature of goodness, keeping in mind that all sorts of goodness need to be combined to defeat evil, since after all, all that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Not that intellectual, perhaps, but that really doesn't matter that much given the complexity of Tolkien's lore and the creativity of his designs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ontheturningaway Alright.. hold on there.. the hypocrisy here really is unbearable. You tell me that i'm boorish for not seeing intellectuality in pieces of nonsense, but you IMMEDIATELY disregard that guys LOTR analogy as nonsense?? What is this shit? And then you make the connection with Lewis because radical left wingers like you obviously dislike him. Yeah, seems like you're definitely not biased here! Let's stick to the facts, boyo. What he said in that review can be seen as concretely accurate. Your existential nonsense reasons for liking crap like 8 1/2 is nonexistent. Acting like nothing is something doesn't make you smart, idiot. And i never said Fellini's shit is boring, it's just terrible. It's meaningless. It's not boring, it's empty, useless. No movie is boring. And yeah, tidying up nothing is art, right? Ahahahahahahah, you really are a laughable clown, you left wing leaning parasite!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 Your first argument is the usual authority argument nonsense. Base something on the facts, not the person. Besides, radical right wingers ( that's EXTREMELY devout Christians, not Fascists as liberals'd like you to believe ) always get censored, and do not show up at post modernist talkshows. What kind of people say something is utterly irrelevant. And yes, Nazis were against democracy & against communism. They were extremely authoritarian ( again, full government control, which is radical left wingism ), so it makes sense they are against democracy, and economically, there are significant differences between communists and fascists, so it also quite makes sense for them to be bickering. When it boils down to it, there's of course little difference, which already makes it illogical that one is supposedly 'radical right' & the other 'radical left'. Communism is radical left, fascism is slightly before that, and the only argument you can give for that is the fact that they still had social hierarchy. That has nothing to do with right wing either however, since every democratic socialist state also has this. And the director of Triumph of the Will was a woman, lmao. So much for this 'sexism'. By the way, what is 'sexism'? It's such a useless subjective word. You also don't seem to understand what masculinity is. Besides the fact that it's not even political ( you're confused with 2019 terms where every left wing man is feminine ), everybody was masculine compared to today. But the salient point here is in the fact that fascism is total government control, jew hate, pro poor anti rich socialist doctrines, abolishment of conservative and christian values, acceptance of atheism etc. A radical right winger, again, is a Christian literally living by every single scripture. That's why there's almost no radical right winger on this planet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 Sorry, boyo, but you've been had completely on this subject by democratic indoctrination. Why did Herbert Hoover sweep the south in 1928 if the south was democrat until 1964? Why did Bill Clinton & Jimmy carter sweep the south AFTER the civil rights act? Why did Richard Nixon lose the south significantly in 1968, 4 years after? The south has only become steadily republican since around the mid 90s, so this civil rights excuse is indeed just a myth. The south also hasn't stayed the same. It has changed significantly. Furthermore, they are more likely to vote a black conservative as opposed to a white liberal. How does this fit in with the myth of party switching? Simple, it doesn't. 21 democrats voted against the civil rights act, and only one of those democrats switched parties afterwards. All quite odd. Furthermore, 1860s republicanism holds nearly the same values as in 2019. I daresay republicans now are actually further to the left even. So yes, the myth of party switching is just that, a myth. It's nonsense made up by democrats to make sure gullible ones such as yourself despise the republicans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MiacDaled For some reason Bergman is considered by many great directors & critics as one of the greatest directors of all time. After having seen The Seventh Seal (1957) and this one i can definitely declare that statement null and void.
There's no doubt the black and white photography and the visual imagery are beautiful, and there is really nothing wrong with Bergman's skills with the camera itself, as he uses brilliant closeups and wideshots combined with great cinematography to create a visually impressive film. But these kind of factors need to be combined with the context of an actual story to truly make an impression on its audience, since simply showing pretty images all the time isn't what cinema is about. It's about a combination of technical expertise and relatable human emotion to create a great immersive experience, but this film only has one of these traits.
I suppose this movie is generally well liked mostly by pseudo intellectuals who think themselves very smart for liking such an incomprehensible film. The first forty five minutes of the film are pretty linear and straight forward, and do not seem to be anything out of the ordinary. Now these first 45 minutes weren't very good either, but atleast it was coherent and it seemed to have an actual plot. It still never made any sense that the connection between the nurse and a mute actress became so strong so quickly and that she would tell her about something so sensitive that she never told anybody before, but atleast Bergman seems capable of telling a story for some part in a film. However, after the 45 minute mark is where it gets considerably worse and its final 30 minutes focus solely on muddled and repetitive dialogue, weird editing & just a complete mess of a conventional narrative structure to make sure you will have no idea what's going on. Totally seemingly irrelevant images of a spider, a nail being driven through a hand, a boy reading some book are seen throughout the film and all of them are designed so the film can appear to be intellectual, while in reality it isn't.
It's easy to say that the film isn't meant to have a conventional narrative structure or an actual cohesive plot because of its ability for pseudo intellectuals to 'Open your mind', because that would make it a whole lot easier to create an actual good film since there is no need for a story, characters, character development or creating a coherent experience in films like this. These kind of experiences are never immersive, because we do not feel connected to the main characters in any way because their connection built in the first 45 minutes feels so wobbly and fake.
So, in terms of visuals and camera work there really is nothing wrong with Bergman's way of directing, but it's the messy plot structure and the disconnected editing and sometimes addition of irrelevant images is what turns this film into a pretentious jumble.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dawsondjodvorj2408 What a bunch of utter hogwash, lmao. Again, the neurotic impulse to somehow act like reviewing a film is a sort of matter of poetic prose. My favorite is ''n a Swedish summer, night is a finger drawn by twilight between one day and the next, and soft pale light floods the room.'' HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, lmao. Again, i have to come to the conclusion that little of concrete use was said here. What have we found out except vain suppositions? This is the point i've already mentioned. Being intentionally vague and tackling general terms results in something being easily interpretable a thousand different ways. It does not make it good. Give me some proper arguments instead of this pretentious mumbo jumbo copied review crap from boyos who think writing a review is akin to writing a poem. A multidimensional character is one who has all the traits of a real person. Tarkovsky characters never have this. But, so as to reply to the only relevant question in your entire hogwash copy and paste of crappy reviewers post, (I love how you put 'professor' before one of your sources to look smarter, too) leaving interpretations isn't a bad thing, necessarily. But amalgamating the general plot with interpretative takes is quite bad. One can leave scenes to interpretation, but not a plot. That indeed makes it devoid of all meaning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 It doesn't matter if you are one. I've dealt with more of them. I know their ways inside and out. They have social anxiety, take things literally, have trouble noticing sarcasm or figure of speech, often become hysterical around many people and can only work solitarily, but all of them absolutely understand the concept of money. That has nothing to do with autism. I agree Brando is better in Streetcar than on the Waterfront, and his yelling scene was very good, even, but he was obviously trying hard. That was very revolutionary in his day, as method acting was scarce. I don't really see how Leigh was overrated. She was absolutely superb, nearly on par with Brando. In any case, i could agree in Brando's case by seeing the character, Hoffman, not so much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reo Io True, i also think that chase sequence in Stagecoach stands out as such a masterpiece due to the simple technique of showing the gunman in one shot, followed by a cut that shows one of the indians getting hit, as to show the consequence of literally every single thing our characters are doing. ( You can also see this constantly in Seven Samurai, as Kurosawa was indeed a great fan of Ford ) This might seem simple, but modern films always have a camera fixed on the protagonist doing 'cool' stuff while no attention is paid to what happens to his opponents. The latter results in a nicely choreographed but pointless action scene, whereas Stagecoach's technique allows one to create a complete overview of the situation and peril our main characters are in. Of course, Stagecoach is also one of the best in terms of character building. Like Ebert said in his review, these characters are a bit cliché nowadays, but this was pretty much the first example of a bunch of random people thrown together having to survive an ordeal, so it is in fact not in Stagecoach that these characters are cliché'd, but what is obvious is that Ford builds character throughout the entire film, using their varying differences as an effective counter balance, creating an interesting bunch. By the way, i saw How Green Was My Valley (1941) from Ford last week, and if you haven't seen that one yet, i highly recommend it, quite possibly his most emotional and moving picture, combined with once again superb photography & characterization.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidos4023 Se7en is actually in it, on spot #48, and as i've said before, TDK features mediocre editing, terrible action sequences, non existent blocking, terrible acting by gyllenhaal & a muddled moral aspect. The screenplay is also riddled with an abundance of exposition instead of clever visual storytelling. It is the weakest entry in the TDK trilogy alone. As for Gladiator, it has superb acting, writing, cinematography, art direction, sound, editing etc... not to mention the most relatable protagonist and one of the most moving pictures of all time. Thus, i don't really get what you're trying to say about that not belonging there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
HulkThorFan18 I'm not picking on you, i'm stating a fact. I know very well that some autists are intelligent, but i also know that most of them are also obsessive, repetitive & restrictive, all of which i see in you. Which is why i said that it kind of explains everything. Also, why shouldn't i state a fact personally? You admit you have it, so why shouldn't i say it? Besides, i don't know you personally, do i? So how could i tell this to your face? If you think i'm afraid of stating anything personally you don't know me one bit, boyo, lmao. Facts don't care about your feelings, and fact is, you have autism, which is part of the reason why you keep obsessively stalking my comments with nonsensical rants, repetitive because nearly everything you write is the same old shit, and restrictive because you call pre-1970 films 'wack' even though you haven't seen a single one. If i'm biased against superhero films as you believe, you sure as shit are biased against older movies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 I don't think you realize what you're even saying this entire discussion. You do realize you're defending an extremely leftist viewpoint, right...? Because if you don't, your self awareness is not at an all time high it seems. Like i said, reality is an absolute, and therefore comedy is an absolute, and is judged BEFORE human perception, thus making it objective. It is the same as a transgender identifying as another gender. They feel that they are another gender, but in reality they are not. This is the kind of demented mentality subjectivists like you have created. Anyway, just because someone says something is funny doesn't make it funny, becauze it's objective, thus there are STANDARDS for comedy. This alone is reason enough to admit it is objective, and i think we both agree that a film and comedy has VALUE, which also means it is objective.
1
-
@taxidriver1019 You see... this is what i mean. You keep ignoring everything i state. What's the use? Comedy works regardless of personal feeling or sentiment. That is why we have STANDARDS. Again, comedy being subjective means it has no value. We both know that it does. What more proof do you need? You really are narrow minded. I'm not denying that people have preferences ( which are subjective ), but that doesn't change the fact that there is an objective standard. Also, this discussion is often times political, which is why i mention it so often, and it has very little to do with my high self esteem. I don't think everyone thinks the same as me. In fact, i know most of them don't, which is part of the reason why i'm an intellectual. I am the definition of a counter-culture, defying the pathetic mainstream culture of 2019. I also do not act as if i were the center of the universe, as i always reason with things external to the human mind, and not with feelings or personal self exaltations. I'm simply stating the obvious. That does not make me a 'narcissist' as you'd call it, because it has nothing to do with glorifying myself as a person. Thus, i've debunked your 'leftist' traits of mine, while yours is still glaringly obvious.
1
-
@taxidriver1019 I never said that, that's just utter nonsense. At this point i'm not sure whether you're trolling or not, because your naive denial is really starting to become ridiculous. What do you mean 'what standards...?' Good acting, writing, cinematography etc. Let's look at it from your perspective... you say it is all subjective. What this essentially means is that it a purely a matter of taste and personal feeling like, say, food. This means you are saying that nothing has any value. A lot of post modernists share this deluded philosophy, because it allows their horrid art to thrive when in reality it is utter garbage. The same is true for nearly everything else, including comedy. It has a standard structure regardless of opinion or personal feeling. Again, in case you misunderstand me, i do not deny that some people have SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCES, but that has nothing to do with the obvious objective qualities something has. It doesn't really need explaining. It's plain obvious. Ask yourself, is there a difference between the sistine chapel and a collapsed cottage WITHOUT considering any kind of personal emotions or feelings? Yes, there obviously is. This already rules out subjectivism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomt-c9610 I never said that The Dark Knight was bad. I don't think it's bad at all, just that it isn't great. Exposition driven, sometimes weakly acted, incoherently edited, action sequences with shaking camera's, pace issues due to montage like speed, villain motivated by nothing other than utter nihilism etc. It has a lot of these minor issues, but that doesn't make it bad. I have praised technical aspects of it such as sound, cinematography, sets & score numerous times. Anyway, again, i don't pay attention to critics or popularity. That's the common argument for authority which means very little, and i have also seen loads of films barely known that are actually world quality.
1
-
HulkThorFan18 Uhm, yes they are simple minded explosion feats. As overrated as they are, only things like Nolan's TDK trilogy qualifies as something more than that, or the original first two spider mans, or Batman (1989). Crap like IW, however, is simply put indeed garbage, and exactly the explosion cgi fest that i've just described. It seems to me like you're in a severe state of denial. Look, it's fine that you like marvel, but you can't say it's worth a damn as a movie objectively speaking. It's fun entertainment, and i enjoy it too when i watch it, but it's instantly forgotten, extinct. The dialogue and the acting is downright laughable to say the least. Not to mention the overuse of digital sets. Also.. i hate to bring up an authority argument.. but you're asking for it... except for perhaps TDK, not a single film buff has a superhero movie in their top lists…. wonder why..? Because it is good fun for mainstream casuals, but people who have seen more movies than them ( Pre-1970s for example… ) recognize the mediocrity and move on.
1
-
1
-
@hazman5528 'it has depth and good writing because it just does'....? And you complain to me that i don't explain anything..? You see the paradox here, boyo? And actually, yes, you DO need to see pre 70s shit to understand a damn about what you're talking about. That's not ridiculous, because the 40s/50s have the greatest screenplays ( that is a script, meaning the writing... get it? ). Also, the greatest actors have been actrive mostly in pre 70s films. ( especially in terms of screen presence.. no actor born after 1980 except perhaps Gosling has any kind of screen presence ). So you see, it IS important that you haven't seen any, because THAT is where writing and acting is generally the greatest. Just look at IW's idiotic infantile dialogue like 'dude, yuz embarassin me infront of da wuzurdsss' or 'whiey is gamorahh' to dialogue like in the philadelphia story, inherit the wind, judgment at nuremberg, the thin man, the lion in winter, sweet smell of success or network ( the latter is post 70s, but it's still genius ), the difference in intellectuality of dialogue and structure is ENORMOUS. So yeah, it does matter. This proves that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
HulkThorFan18 You're not actually listening to anything i'm writing. I've just given you the reason as to why you cannot objectively discuss anything in terms of writing or acting, because you have not seen examples of an era where it is generally done properly. Again, many screenplays from the 40s/50s are intellectually several lightyears above anything MCU can dish out, but you do not know this, because you have never seen the former. Also, your justifying of those pathetic two lines of dialogue is absolutely ridiculous. The 'embarrazzin me infrond of da wizuurds' is fully a (attempt at) comic line, and nothing else. It doesn't tell us anything about Tony as a character, it is infantile comedy. What does he care about 'performing' in front of them? Isn't he trying to save the universe? Also, it doesn't show any reason why they were protectors of the earth, it's a stupid dumb joke, THAT'S IT. There's nothing in terms of depth. Drax might be supposed to be stupid, but his line was 'I'll do you one better, why is gamora?', which is an obvious post modernist infantile joke. The entire dialogue had nothing to do with metaphors, or the understanding of them, so you're completely irrelevant. His english is fine and his sentence forming is fine, so that also makes no sense. The verdict here is that both lines are dumb jokes which are not only unfunny, but also serve no other purpose save for it being a dumb joke. There is no 'secret characterization' behind it, and your explanation makes absolutely zero sense.
1
-
HulkThorFan18 This entire post is full of ludicrous statements... let me explain why: First off, i've already debunked your idiotic conspiracy theory about a 'deeper meaning' behind two jokes. See my previous comment for that. You saying that you know the characters and i don't is not a valid argument to take the moral high ground. We've both seen the same film, and we both know they were just dumb jokes, so quit the pretenses, you haven't proven anything. Also, don't start with me about repetitiveness, since you are the king of repetitive posts. Apart from your latest conspiracy theory 'hidden meaning', everything you state is the same old shit again.
Second, the argument from authority, once again, is a logical fallacy. Thus your statement about millions of people finding idiotic jokes funny is one of no substance, because it is based on nothing other than the validation of other people. What a lot of mainstream post modernist casual moviegoers find funny is not an argument for anything.
Finally, you have to understand the context i'm bringing forth when i put up the pre 1970s thing. You have no prior experience with this, and thus your maximum bar in terms of acting and writing is extremely low. This is why your experience is purely relative to the fact that you haven't watched much of actual quality, and therefore irrelevant. No screenplay written after 2000 is top 40 worthy on an all-time list of screenplays. Anyway, the point i`m making with this is that you cannot distinguish a sub par and good piece of work. MCU has ZERO depth. This is purposely done to appeal to the braindead commercialized massed, obviously. You don`t need to be a genius to see that, yet you do not see it.
1
-
HulkThorFan18 Another enormous rant of utter nonsense… again. Let me explain why: You are trying to debunk my statement about it not having depth by pointing to other people, ( even Stan Lee, hahahahahah ) while this is something that does not correlate in any way whatsoever to the depth it might have. Transformers is also very famous and liked by many people.. does that mean it has depth..? Again, this is the argument from authority ( LOOK IT UP ), which is a LOGICAL FALLACY, and not a valid argument. This is pretty much all your argumentation consists of, together with a bunch of terms you do not know the proper meaning of, such as 'good writing, good acting, it has depth and character!!!' ( Again, in the way you mean this, nearly everything can be considered for these empty terms ). You can point to whatever other people you want to validate your claim, but it only proves the fact that your argumentation is completely vacuous. Furthermore, IW's story stands on its own, thus having watched predecessors is not necessary. The only thing that is in any way different in my experience is that i know a little less about the characters, but let's be honest, when all they can do is joke around with infantile kiddy jokes, does this even matter? And yes, i have debunked your idiotic conspiracy theory on those two jokes. They were dumb jokes, that's all. We both know this.
Also, who's in denial…? You're the moron that keeps coming back to whine and complain about the fact that i don't put your favorite superhero movies in a top 250. This is simply a logical conclusion if someone has seen more movies than you and also judges these objectively. I think you're in denial of the fact that your little marvel movies aren't the centre of the world. And again, you didn't listen to my pre 1970s thing. Your viewpoint is relative to your experience, and that is experience is lacking severely. Thus your views on what good writing and acting is is entirely subjective, and therefore irrelevant. I'm guessing you will never understand this, and keep whining about 'NUTZZ ONLY IN DAT TIME WERE WRITING GOODZZ!!', so this will probably not have any use.
I can always appreciate a well thought out opinion, but yours is one of utter bias and nonsensical argumentation. You use the argument from authority, you use words you know not the meaning of, you make up idiotic conspiracy theories as if dumb jokes had a 'hidden meaning', so i wouldn't consider your opinion a valid one. Your argumentation is extremely weak, and whatever little substantial things you thought you were stating are the result of a lack of relative knowledge of cinema. I'm pretty sure you're going to reply with another behemoth post containing only these nonexistent arguments, and that won't impress me, boyo. You're never gonna cook up an argument that's worth a damn if you're trying to defend IW anyway, since it's objective garbage.
1
-
HulkThorFan18 Again, everything you state is based on the opinions of other people. This is not an argument. Read this and perhaps you'll learn something: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority However, In particular, your argument strategy is more of a argumentum ad numeram, which is this link: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appeal-to-Popularity Also, you keep whining on with 'bigot this, bigot that', but you can't call me a bigot just because i have a different opinion than you. That is the equivalent of the reductio ad hitlerum argument which is of course the simplistic delusion that everyone who disagrees with you is either a nazi, fascist or a bigot. This is the only type of argumentation you can provide. No, disagreeing with you does not make me a bigot. You also keep whining that i deny people's opinions, while you're the one yelling 'BIGGOTTTTT!!!' over a different opinion. I hope you can see the hypocritical paradox there, kiddo. You keep making these ad hominem attacks without any substance to back it up, and you keep making something personal that does not need to be personal... for example, when i state the simple fact that the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, you immediately try to combine this with the fact that i think i'm the authority. This is not the case, as the substantial value of the things in the film itself is the authority. Not you, or me, or anyone else. This is why we argue about what is, and not about what other people think. Do you understand now?
This whole 'you watched out of contextzzz!!' is just a weak ass argument because you know you have very little other ones. It is however, another ad hominem argument, and thus also a fallacy. It is obviously set up by you to attack me personally because you are unable to defend anything substantial about the film itself. Like i said, it's just the characters that differ in our experiences. Nothing else. The story is understandable for an 8 year old. And yes, those jokes i have debunked. Again, unless you have some counterarguments on mine when i debunked them, you can also consider that part of the discussion as lost. And yeah, why does IW have terrible acting and writing? Well, perhaps the writing made the acting terrible, that's always something that's difficult to establish, but every single character in IW talks as a regular 16 year old you come across at middle school. Everyone's vocabulary is severely limited, and the dialogue is devoid of any kind of intellectuality or sub text. Everything is exposition driven, and visual storytelling is nonexistent. This is of course, logical, because the target audience of MCU does not want this, but since you don't get it, i had to state it. If you want me to put up a couple of dialogue comparisons between movies that are actually impeccably written and IW, go ahead and ask, i can give you endless comparisons to prove my point. And yeah, there are plenty of good movies beyond the 70s, but that wasn't my point. I just said you needed to watch some of the ones before the 70s to see how superior the screenplays generally were. I, too, understood very little about the limits of writing before i watched those, but that has since changed.
So yeah, your argumentation still consists of authority appeals & ad hominems, and has little to zero substance. It's quite pathetic to keep reading these behemoth posts of yours that in fact don't say anything at all.
1
-
HulkThorFan18 You really are clutching at straws now, aren't you? You know you're constantly writing down utter tripe, and yet you won't admit it. There is a significant difference between your link and mine. You linked a video essay so some other guy could bring up arguments for you, because you are unable to do so yourself. My link is towards the simple fact that your way of argumentation is a farce, and therefore irrelevant. I have no interest in watching other people say things on your behalf, but when you deliberately ignore the fact that your argumentation is based on absolutely nothing, that says a lot about your position in this argument. Oh, and if you claim that my link is also 'ON YUR BEHALFFF', that is false, because this type of argumentation really is officially an invalid one. Look up every source, and this is confirmed.
Your opinion isn't valid, so i call you subjective and irrelevant, yes. See my previous posts as to why your argumentation tactics are utterly devoid of substance. This again, doesn't make me a bigot. Just because i do not share your weak argumented opinionated claims doesn't make me a bigot. Quit trying to take the moral high ground with this crap. Again, you are making this personal for no reason, like i said, cinema is the authority on cinema, and i observe what happens in it without superhero fanboyism bias like you. ( You can't deny this, as for example, you stated pre 1970s films were 'whack', so yes, you're the one that's biased. ) My statement on IMDb also reflects this, as i observe based on what is truly happening in the film itself, thus, the truth of said title. That doesn't make me the authority, that makes the film itself the authority. If a film is objectively good, it need not fear for the sparking of my critic's ire. You keep referring to this context bullshit because you don't know what else to counter me with, yet you are unable to substantially tell me why ( Except that i know less about the characters, which i already admitted myself ).
How exactly am i pulling things out of my ass when i say people in IW talk like 16 year olds…? The why is gamora quote, the dude, yuzz embarazzin me infrond of da wizuurds are literal carbon copy quotes of the general middle school student. Of course, there's also no nuanced or sophisticated tone of voices or intellectual dialogue, which indeed makes the dialogue look like it was written by a 15 year old. If you still don't acknowledge this, you must have been some kind of loner at school that was unable to acquire any friends and therefore knows very little about their manner of speech. Which, given your autism, is not surprising. And no, because a lot people agree with something does not make something valid. Again, you can deny the fact that the appeal to authority is a false argument, but it's simply a fact. It means you are unable to substantially contribute anything to the conversation, and thus have to resort to the irrelevant opinions of the general public. IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL? Also, i have zero substance…? Yet i am the only one who has even attempted to create an objective in-depth analysis on the matter. And don't point towards that idiotic conspiracy theory about that hidden meaning behind those two jokes, that explanation was just completely laughable, and you are still yet to counter my debunking of it.
You shouldn't talk about such things if you know nothing about it, kiddo. This whole discussion is pretty embarrassing for you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
HulkThorFan18 Christ… Just … stop. Even reading this is getting embarrassing. What are you trying to achieve with this gigantic post of crap ( once again )? Let me school you on a couple of things here;
You're debunking me...? Where exactly have you ever debunked me...? You can only link idiotic video essays to prove your point for you, or claim circumstantial nonsense such as 'the acting is gudz!!!", yet you never explain how it is good. This is not 'debunking'. Learn your terms, boyo.
You can stand by whatever you want to stand by, it doesn't change the fact that the majority opinion is not a relevant argument in order to prove anything. It is completely irrelevant. Why is this the case? Do we know how everyone in this majority places their verdicts..? We do not. Therefore, a significant amount of them Judge based on irrelevant aspects such as circumstantial entertainment value, explosions, or dumb jokes. This argument is simply a logical fallacy, and therefore should never be taken up in a debate, so you'd do well to steer clear of it. Also, what 'facts…?'. Do you even understand what facts are? And how are all those people objectively correct? Because you say so…? Don't make me laugh. Come out of your superhero fanboy comfort zone for a minute, please. Cinema being the authority on cinema does make sense, but only if the critic in question is an objective one ( A rarity these days ). Consciousness exists because existence exists. Thus, existence is always a priority over consciousness, meaning that it is not after the human eye sees something that it becomes something. It is already the case before the human eye sees it. So yes, cinema is the authority on cinema, and critics have the job of translating this in an objective fashion, not put up subjective reviews that only depict their personal preferences.
Also, the point of my link was to show your obvious faults in argumentation. It doesn't matter if it's accurate or not, IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT. You claim it isn't the case in IW... so why not? Because you say so..? Very convenient for you, isn't it..? The way everything only seems to fit with you just when you say so. Now, you'd do well to steer clear of this non existent argument for a while, as ticket sales is not an argument for its quality. And no, people like Marvel because it's a fun little experience with fast pace & a lot of action. Sure, a lot also care about the characters, like people care about the characters in Transformers & Twilight. Your point is invalid, kiddo. A few posts ago i explained to you why your hidden meaning behind those jokes is absurd. You conveniently decided to ignore it and deny my debunking it, yet you are unable to counter it. Unless you can counter what i posted, you have no validity in this part of the argument whatsoever. There is NONE intellectual dialogue in IW. Like i said, it's dialogue written by 16 year olds. Hell, even in modern terms this dialogue is utterly ridiculous. Again, the only difference in my experience is i know less about the characters, and this is not something that would have made me miss any of its quality. When i know more about them, my verdict is not going to automatically go up notches, so your point about context is irrelevant. It would have been relevant if the story had been incomprehensible, but everyone who hasn't seen any MCU film beforehand understands whats going in in IW, so yes, you can easily judge it seperately. Oh, and IW doesn't have depth, and knowledge is not required.
Of course i'm referring to your autism. When you behave a certain way, i always try to find out why this is, and it is obvious your plain lack of self awareness or understanding of common modern human behavior is the result of social alienation acquired during your youth. Due to this, you do not understand how humans normally act or talk. Also, you don't really have the validity to call me a 'keyboard bastard warrior', when you're the only moron here talking about 'Beating de livin' shit outta yu!!!'. Yeah, i'm so scared. Who's the little keyboard warrior again…? Keep using tough guy words behind your little computer screen, kiddo, hahahaha. I don't really have any respect for an opinionated butthurt autist such as yourself… so no, i won't 'learn any respect' just because you tell me to, kiddo. Respect is something valuable, and it is earned through great thoughts, deeds or words, none of which apply to you.
And yes, go ahead, keep ranting with all the flawed nonsense that comes out of your mouth, it does not change the fact that you are a MCU fanboy that is unable to objectively analyze any aspect of it. What would be my motive to hate superhero movies…? Do i have a reason to hate them? Do you have a personal reason to like them? Yes you do, as you are a fanboy of the comics. You see which viewpoint is more relevant, boyo? I'll let you figure it out. 'One of God's mistakes...?' Why? Because i disagree with you? What the hell is actually the matter with you, kiddo? You keep using these overexaggerated insults just because i don't share your deluded opinion? Seems like you need some anger management issues, boyo. Again, disagreeing with your fanboyism doesn't make me a bigot, condescending, or one of 'God's mistakes'.
And what the hell is with your last paragraph? I've never in any comment replied to the fact that my opponent has been inactive for several days. It's obvious you're trying to pin anything remotely related to the term 'condescending' on me, but it once again fails miserably, boyo.
Quit this embarrassment already kiddo. Arguments from authority and ad hominems do not prove a damn, and even though you keep writing these enormous shitposts, they're not actually saying anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@izzmond3676 Oh, boyo, it seems you still have a lot to learn... i live in western europa, which is, as you probably know, a shithole nowadays. This place is already lost. People have abandoned reason & purpose. There's no reason to look for a 'solution', it's completely lost. In a perfect world, i wouldn't be a cynic, but this world is already devoid of all purpose of identity or brotherhood. I'm simply realistic enough to see that i alone will never change that. It is inevitable. All great civilizations die, and the west's time has come now. There's nothing to do about it really when moronic majorities keep voting for crap. And even if they didn't, nothing would change. Also, empathy and creating a 'better world' has nothing to do with masculinity. If the world has turned evil, it is better to let it die out, instead of writhing around in its filth endlessly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dawsondjodvorj2408 Some guy jokingly responded to my list something about Endgame and you assumed i had it in there, lmao. What deluded moron you are. Like it or not, i never had Endgame above an 4/10, which makes it about just as good as Andrei Rublev. I have the most telling point against Tarkovsky... and that is that it is meaningless. If it isn't, concretely try to tell me why. You know you cannot, boyo, for it is purely meaningless and only interpretations can possibly come from it. There's this weird propensity for "cinephiles" as you call them, to act like nothing is something. To think that just because something is vague and duplicitious, it must be a masterpiece of complexity. It's like the more post modernists "cinephiles" think about it, the further their brains drops from their heads. It really is quite a laughable business, like those modern art philistines who act like innovation equals merit. It's a deluded philosophy. Furthermore, film "professors" really won't outwit me in any way, because film "professors" are a fallacious occupation anyway. Like one needs to be a "professor" to understand the craft of such a simplistic medium, lmao. I am quite confident in the fact that i am in the right, boyo, and that is yet to be broken by Tarkovsky fanboys.
1
-
Dawson Djodvorj First of all these aren't YOUR points, you just copy and pasted them from somewhere. And my God, this is the most pretentious garbage i ever read. Talk about attaching meaning to nothing, lmao. Not a single concrete point was made here, except a completely irrelevant plea about time, and the generic overthinking of character motivations and themes which one can apply to about nearly every single movie in existence. Calling the ridiculous caricatures of characters of Tarkovsky 'Dostoevskian' is an insult to Dostoevsky's complex characterizations, and the rest of that plea is more based on the latter's superb allegories and complexities as opposed to Tarkovsky's. Really, you (Rather, the crap you copied) haven't made a single point that's concrete here. And yes, i would have just as much validity applying this idiot rhetoric to Endgame as opposed to Tarkovsky crap, lmao. With this ridiculous overthinking and open-mindedness one can think the crappiest crap is a masterpiece. Now, tell me something that's actually concrete and valid.
1
-
Dawson Djodvorj I'm not calling it copied from somewhere, it is factually copied from somewhere. I haven't countered any of your points because there is nothing to counter. I can act too like the secrets of the universe are in a character like Captain Marvel, lmao. It doesn't take any sort of ingenuity to jump to ridiculous interpretations. And what Tarkovsky does by his meaninglessness doesn't require any creative effort. Have you even read Dostoevsky? I mean, you (Not really you, of course) called him ''Dostoevskian'' there, probably without knowing the significance of it. There are indeed multifarious and duplicitious characters there that are full of complexity, richly detailed and developed yet also with undeniable ambiguity, except it also has the concrete depth that Tarkovsky doesn't have. To be as vague as possible and leave many options open isn't ''complex art'', lmao. And yeah, i can make all these abstract and ambiguous points for nearly every character in some crappy marvel movie, because they are so general they can be applied to everything. And these assumptions, lmao, acting like i like SW or MCU because i see Tarkovsky as the mediocrity that he is. Quite funny. On a side note, i got a question for you, boyo, watch this…. let me explain what i like about water to you:
its universality: its democratic equality and constancy to its nature in seeking its own level: its vastness in the ocean of Mercator's projection: its unplumbed profundity in the Sundam trench of the Pacific exceeding 8000 fathoms: the restlessness of its waves and surface particles visiting in turn all points of its seaboard: the independence of its units: the variability of states of sea: its hydrostatic quiescence in calm: its hydrokinetic turgidity in neap and spring tides: its subsidence after devastation: its sterility in the circumpolar icecaps, arctic and antarctic: its climatic and commercial significance: its preponderance of 3 to 1 over the dry land of the globe: its indisputable hegemony extending in square leagues over all the region below the subequatorial tropic of Capricorn: the multisecular stability of its primeval basin: its luteofulvous bed: its capacity to dissolve and hold in solution all soluble substances including millions of tons of the most precious metals: its slow erosions of peninsulas and islands, its persistent formation of homothetic islands, peninsulas and downwardtending promontories: its alluvial deposits: its weight and volume and density: its imperturbability in lagoons and highland tarns: its gradation of colours in the torrid and temperate and frigid zones: its vehicular ramifications in continental lakecontained streams and confluent oceanflowing rivers with their tributaries and transoceanic currents, gulfstream, north and south equatorial courses: its violence in seaquakes, waterspouts, Artesian wells, eruptions, torrents, eddies, freshets, spates, groundswells, watersheds, waterpartings, geysers, cataracts, whirlpools, maelstroms, inundations, deluges, cloudbursts: its vast circumterrestrial ahorizontal curve: its secrecy in springs and latent humidity, revealed by rhabdomantic or hygrometric instruments and exemplified by the well by the hole in the wall at Ashtown gate, saturation of air, distillation of dew: the simplicity of its composition, two constituent parts of hydrogen with one constituent part of oxygen: its healing virtues: its buoyancy in the waters of the Dead Sea: its persevering penetrativeness in runnels, gullies, inadequate dams, leaks on shipboard: its properties for cleansing, quenching thirst and fire, nourishing vegetation: its infallibility as paradigm and paragon: its metamorphoses as vapour, mist, cloud, rain, sleet, snow, hail: its strength in rigid hydrants: its variety of forms in loughs and bays and gulfs and bights and guts and lagoons and atolls and archipelagos and sounds and fjords and minches and tidal estuaries and arms of sea: its solidity in glaciers, icebergs, icefloes: its docility in working hydraulic millwheels, turbines, dynamos, electric power stations, bleachworks, tanneries, scutchmills: its utility in canals, rivers, if navigable, floating and graving docks: its potentiality derivable from harnessed tides or watercourses falling from level to level: its submarine fauna and flora (anacoustic, photophobe), numerically, if not literally, the inhabitants of the globe: its ubiquity as constituting 90 percent of the human body: the noxiousness of its effluvia in lacustrine marshes, pestilential fens, faded flowerwater, stagnant pools in the waning moon.
Am i a genius or an idiot?
1
-
@dawsondjodvorj2408 It's not apologetic, i'm simply asking you if i actually told you a single thing with that ridiculous last essay. I did not, as you did not either in your pointless copy and pastes. Again, there is nothing to counter, you just name a couple of general points applicable to anything. Even when your copied article trues ti go in depth on the Andrei Rublev part it just goes on endless irrelevant ramblings about Russian nationalism and Russian life. Depicting people as they are isn't anything special. Also seems like you're the only one getting frustrated, boyo. It's hard to fathom of course that one cannot defend Tarkovsky, for there is nothing to defend. I bet you don't even read either. You yourself don't know half the shit of the article you linked. If you did, you wouldn't put it before you with such pride, seeing as it proves nothing and only consists of random ramblings about time, characterizations which are very general and applicable to everything, and some weird ass tirade about how Russian life was. Therefore, i say again, you have given me nothing. Instead, try giving me something of the film itself, not half assed general statements and futile connections with Dostoevsky, whom i am pretty sure you never even read.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dawsondjodvorj2408 You can repeatedly exclaim the apparent absurdity of the supposition as you see it, but it won't change the fact that this ad hominem is an erroneous method of argumentation which is merely the result of a general lack of self ingenuity and awareness. I just deduced for you in your mickey mouse language that a director's opinion does not necessarily hold any water, if you still don't understand that and keep persisting in this fallacious manner of declamations, it's quite clear you're a lost cause. Regardless of subjective ad hominems and attempts to justify the argument from authority as valid critical argumentation, you cannot deny the words regardless of my character, for you know that they are true, and that anything you can say in favour of Tarkovsky is purely subjective, and therefore his content is nonexistent, hollow, empty, devoid of soul and life, as are the fading flames of your resistance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnmartel9433 Animal Farm is commonly known to be a critique of communism, not fascism, idiot. Thia is really quite obvious. You could make the case 1984 is critique on both, but not Animal Farm. Hence the emphasis on equality they all have. And none of the themes you mention are actually delved into in Animal Farm, it's a shallow and nice little critique on communism, not very subtle with little no noteworthy characters and with no depth whatsoever. Picture is indeed far deeper than that. Selling one's soul to the devil and seeing their moral corruption gnaw away on a portrait with the dovelike purity on the outside, and the way this is gradually portrayed, not to mention Henry's character, who is far more interesting than anything in Animal Farm, make it quite obviously objectively superior. Whichever way you slice it boyo, Picture is better than Animal Farm, objectively speaking. Animal Farm is overrated anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Major KING Kong Unfortunately, i cannot do that. Of course i do not deny that your taste is what it is, but regardless of that, regardless of personal feeling, it really is nothing more than a mediocre movie. It's lacking in nearly every aspect that matters, apart from technical ones. Substantially, there's just nothing there. It goes from some guy floating into the air to indeed random dance masquerades without any sort of coherence. The same goes for similar crap like Persona, Andrei Rublev, Stalker or La Dolce Vita. You may like them, but objectively, they're quite terrible. There's nothing of external value in them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jakemorris4302 The comics, perhaps, but not really the film. Besides which, boomers, milennials & generation z are all morons. I do not speak like any of them. And your definition of "good" also seems to be easily gratified. And i do not have any sort of superiority complex nonsense. I KNOW i am superior. It is simply the way it is. You can disprove me by providing a source that makes it clear that you've seen shit, but it's clear your cinematic range is quite limited. And no, such a sensation wasn't formed by "Joker", lmao. I simply stated that it is obviously in the top three of the decade, that is without question. But it is the weakest decade in cinematic history anyway, so does it weigh that much? There's 141 movies i consider to be superior to Joker, but there is still no doubt to the grandness of it, especially for a modern film
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@7500forever Instead of the typical relativist nonsense of 'That's like uh your opinion, man!', why don't you try countering with something constructive? It's not my opinion, it's a plain statistical fact that the dialogue uses so many obvious slurs & childish conveniences that it looks like it was written by a 10 year old. It's not a matter of 'taste', no matter how much you try to push that irrelevant point. And costume design? Lmao? Seriously? Literally every film until the 1960s already has superior costumes, the acting was terrible ( especially winslet, though dicaprio was also garbage ). And again, nobody cares about a bunch of teenage girls who understand nothing about cinema. Their opinion isn't really valid, as it is based on nothing. And yes, mine is worth more than yours, because i am actually well versed in these matters, unlike you. Besides which, the love story was nearly as bad as Twilight's and if you truly want a good film of the Titanic tragedy A Night to Remember (1958) is by far the better film.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Theblackspot Lmao, Titanic isn't considered Cameron's masterpiece. Aliens & Terminator 1 & 2 are far more acclaimed. Titanic is just the most famous, and did you seriously just use the box office as an argument for its quality…? By that logic, Transformers is also one of the all-time greats, not to mention crap like the Phantom Menace. And James Cameron has been mediocre ever since 1991. This is commonly known. You keep saying 'famous this' famous that', like that's some sort of argument to prove your point, but all that relies on is a bunch of fleeting connection between audiences who understand nothing about cinema. What is considered trendy and cool doesn't mean it's good. And yes, Winslet & DiCaprio were horrible. There is no charisma whatsoever between these two. The oscar moron point is just ridiculous. Everybody knows oscars are moronic, and you're seriously still using that as an argument...? Lmao. By the way, everyone with even an ounce of knowledge of cinema generally despises Titanic, so don't act like this is some minority voice. Titanic only has 75 metacritic and 7,8 on IMDb. It is nowhere considered as a 'great' film. Also, it is no ego that my conclusions are worth more than yours, it's simply based on the fact that i actually know great cinema, unlike you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Theblackspot What a bunch of pretentious twaddle. You're acting like Titanic is deep in some way, lmao. Alright, look, not even considering the fact that it has a romance that is on level of Anakin & Padme, there is nothing complex or deep in terms of themes about Titanic whatsoever. It does not speak of any 'hope', 'love' is nonexistent, for an obviously lacking romance, and this social distinction & social opression crap? Lmao. Yes, rich bad, poor good! Takes so much imagination to come up with that, doesn't it? The rich are so hilariously stereotyped it also becomes quite ridiculous, especially the one played by Billy Zane. And again, if you want a proper depiction of the tragedy, A Night to Remember is far better than this melodramatic low IQ trashfest, plus it omits the horribly irrelevant and uncharismatic romance. The face thing is nonsense. Every character is a stereotyped cardboard creation based on overexaggerated class biases. As for your last sentence… so you've seen many ''good cinema''? Enlighten me, please, by giving me examples. I can't really take you seriously when you say Titanic is one of the all time greats, and people that claim so usually have no idea what they're talking about, so the assumption is only natural.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rmd1743 I know better how to judge a film's greatness than directors and critics because i am not biased. There is no doubt both of these categories are somewhat educated in cinema terms, but if they place their verdict based on prejudiced subjective opinionated claims, this doesn't matter. Really, just look at how many times the word 'boring' is used in a critic review, which is the epitome of subjectivity. Citizen Kane is a good film, but it is nowhere near the best all things considered. Subjective viewpoints like its influence do not matter. Once again, Citizen Kane is a critic favorite because it is important, influential and other useless subjective arguments which hold no value. If we are truly looking at the acting, writing, cinematography etc there is no doubt Citizen Kane is good, but not nearly as good as hundreds of other films.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 Can't say i'm surprised at your uppermost part there, boyo. You probably only hang out with leftists, so it is no surprise that you should only meet third wave feminists. But, on society as a whole, and that really is more relevant than your immediate vicinity, nobody of even slightly relevant stature takes third wave feminism seriously. Women already have everything, why are there still feminists? It's treated as a laughing matter literally everywhere. It's a small elitist group of morons who don't even know why they think what they think. And yes, there is difference between men & women in intelligence. 36% of women are pro trump, while 53% or men are pro trump. This tells you all you need to know. Women are over emotional messes who should never be trusted on to either lead or make big decisions about something. It doesn't matter if you have one that doesn't fit that bill. On a whole, as a society, this is a simple fact. And if one supports women's voting rights you're never a radical right winger. That's also quite indisputable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@izzmond3676 Like i told taxidriver, individual women can be intelligent, but never intellectual. But that's besides the point, as the collective is what matters. And on a whole, they're irrationality is obviously confirmed by voting statistics. If you give women the right to vote, you increase the number of votes for left wingers. This is just the way it is. Same thing with allowing young kids to vote. Most male kids until 40 today are as emotional and imprresionable as women, thus the general voting should also be at an increased age. Again, statistics confirm this. Kids always vote for agitprop nonsense because they're overly emotional ( especially today ) and easily manipulated. And morality is objective, and thus if a movie has an immoral message, the movie becomes immoral, and thus an objective crapfest. But that's hardly the only reason of its failure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maazmalik8083 You aren't even of the age to grow a beard yet, kiddo. And your insults aren't very original either. Let me reiterate; older movies, that is to say, pre 1970s for example, are generally superior to modern ones, largely this is due to their superior screenplays, general professionalism (any moron can make a movie nowadays), often times in technicolor movies more luscious and extravagant sets, more varied colour patterns (or, in black & white, intricate usage of contrast to enhance a moral dilemma) & safer acting (method acting can create better performances but is also easier to do wrong).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Winter Soldier Lmao, another dumb generation z kid that thinks because some people accept a certain thing that it becomes fact. Now let me give you some evidence here that actually proves something;
The Manifesto (published in Il Popolo d'Italia on June 6, 1919) is divided into four sections, describing the movement's objectives in political, social, military and financial fields.[2]
Politically, the Manifesto calls for:
Universal suffrage with a lowered voting age to 18 years, and voting and electoral office eligibility for all age 25 and up;
Proportional representation on a regional basis;
Voting for women (which was then opposed by most other European nations);
Representation at government level of newly created national councils by economic sector;
The abolition of the Italian Senate (at the time, the Senate, as the upper house of parliament, was by process elected by the wealthier citizens, but were in reality direct appointments by the king. It has been described as a sort of extended council of the crown);
The formation of a national council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made of professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a general commission with ministerial powers.
In labor and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:
The quick enactment of a law of the state that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;
A minimum wage;
The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions;
To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;
Reorganization of the railways and the transport sector;
Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance;
Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.
In military affairs, the Manifesto advocates:
Creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities;
Armaments factories are to be nationalized;
A peaceful but competitive foreign policy.
In finance, the Manifesto advocates:
A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging a “partial expropriation” of concentrated wealth);
The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;
Revision of all contracts for military provisions;
The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.
These early positions reflected in the Manifesto would later be characterized by Mussolini in the Doctrine of Fascism as "a series of pointers, forecasts, hints which, when freed from the inevitable matrix of contingencies, were to develop in a few years time into a series of doctrinal positions entitling Fascism to rank as a political doctrine differing from all others, past or present."[3]
Now, please explain to me how this is right wing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@albynorthwest7383 There's probably many people who can play instruments as well as Beethoven. But that's all irrelevant. What matters is composing. This is kind of like saying a top athlete is an intellectual genius because he has talent in something. So it is with rockbands. Most of them are dumb as rocks. The only relevance for quality is intellectual talent. Anybody can write any rock song. They're repetitive mainstream crap fests for people with low attentionspan. That someone can play a guitar well is irrelevant. Besides, there's so many who can, and it requires so special brain functions to do so. To create music by transporting one to a mental state of a composer however, as is the case in classical music, requires unending sophistication, intellectuality & genius. Classical is really the only artistic form of music. Post modernistic music hasn't the slightest artistry, since it is solely brainless entertainment. Bunch of fairies who can put their fingers on some spots well. Grand job, boyo. Besides, playing a guitar, or drums, or singing (as most rockbands do) are really all things in fact nearly everyone can do well with enough practice. But alas, this is all irrelevant, as it requires no intellect anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Al by Northwest You're not really in a position to call something a ''musical masterpiece'' when you seriously think rock songs can be masterpieces, lmao. You don't seem to know a whole lot about music, it seems. And again, the effect would be the transformers metaphor i just named. It would be pointless for me to listen to it. And just because YOU cry about everything your little boyband plays, doesn't mean something has emotion in it, boyo. Guitar solos are fun, but they're not much else. All these examples you name seem to be based on a lack of general knowledge, by for example saying that rock can create masterpieces, or that guitar solos can be emotional. Neither can ever be the case. Therefore, i name those things irrelevant, because they are based on subjective judgement by an individual who doesn't understand a whole lot about music.
1
-
@albynorthwest7383 Yeah, music isn't only classical but classical is the only relevant genre, except baroque & romanticism if you want to put a time label on it, but today these are all considered classical. Nothing else is artistic in any way. It isn't searching for a soul exaltation or for a transformation to a state of mind, it is searching for entertainment. Only classical exceeds this, as it was seen as a way of getting nearer to God. Have you ever seen someone say their soul has been exalted by listening to rock? No. With classical music however, this has been said countless times. I mean, the former isn't even made with a goal higher than simple entertainment in mind. How is this even needing to be discussed? And no, emotion is objective. It is objective because it is created by something. Something that is created is objective. And i'm not speaking of myself necessarily as a connoisseur, but let's be honest, every high IQ individual connoisseur of music knows classical, baroque or romanticism are the superior periods in time. It's just a simple observation. And that review in which i mention garfunkel and shitmon was made in my hippie era, long gone by now. Of course, they are not very good either, especially compared to classical. That makes them quite the joke.
1
-
@albynorthwest7383 You could not make the argument that rock shows were created for art because the audience of rock are always simple minded hippies wanting to be entertained in some concert dump. This is quite different from a performance in a live opera hall, with impeccably sophisticated crowds, whose goal is to have their souls exalted, and not merely to be entertained. And no album you name is artistic, for rock is never artistic. It matters not whether i listen to it or not due to the Transformers example i named. You just LIKE those albums, and they're probably good fun, but being art is something else, boyo. And come on man, you don't need any attentionspan for rock, lmao. It's made for low attentionspans. You're kind of ridiculing logic with this argument. Rock isn't art, classical is, end of story. Everybody knows this.
1
-
@albynorthwest7383 Entertainment isn't the first goal in mind for classical composers, boyo. As i said, it was seen as a way of getting closer to God. To say this of any rock song is borderline ridiculous. Wimp Foyd isn't art, it's entertainment. It was never made with a higher purpose than that, you can confirm that with anyone if you still don't understand that. And i already told you, rock is by its very nature not artistic. It's an escapistic rhythmic beating, come on, boyo, how can you even consider calling mere beats an art? You don't understand a whole lot. Thus, again, classical can be art, and rock can never be. It's quite simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 Simply because no film made after 2007 has been anything special. This is because of a lot of things, some reasons why this is happening is because of terrible scripts, dumbed down dialogue, over emphasis on full dialogue exposition, easy technology making directors lazy (CGI abuse), and of course, unsubtle in your face SJW propaganda in nearly every single one since then. Not to mention that this is always met with critical acclaim by idiot critics who only pay attention to how many minorities are in something.Don't believe me, look at Black Panther 88 metacritic, Get Out 84, Moonlight 99, BlackkkKlansman 83, Us 81 which are all racist anti white movies, and are all of course garbage. On the other hand, a documentary by an intellectual individual such as Dinesh D'Souza (Death of a Nation) last year scored a 1/100 by these left wing extremists. So, why try to create a story or characters worth a damn if you can just make black people likeable and white people unlikeable and make a ton more money?
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 Look here, my extreme leftist friend, FMJ has a message. However, that message is a lot more subtle than in the comparisons i gave you. This is the entire point. Do you think i agree with FMJ's slight anti-vietnam war stance? Of course i do not. However, it is simply objectively a fantastic film. This can be the case if a message is secondary. In modern movies, this message is primary. Again, your attempt at trying to portray me as biased will never work. 2001 and Strangelove make perfect sense to be full white casts, because they are a MAJOR MAJORITY. That is not racist, but an accurate depiction of society. Casting only blacks in a 76% white country however is an obvious and pathetic attempt at creating a piece of minority propaganda for the weak minded. This is all movies are good for today. 12 Years a Slave is also anti white by the way. It's obvious you're a selfrespectless self loathing and self destructive post modern conformist, and therefore you are unable to accept these simple facts, as you are also unable to grasp the reality of objectivism. I'm not sure if you were joking earlier with your alledged 'Conservatism', but you're an extreme leftist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@woll3480 No, that's not a solid comparison because of the following: TDK is built in quite a realistic world ( The city doesn't exist and there is a lot of over the top crime and corruption, but it is still fairly realistic nonetheless ), which is why some guy in a bat costume beating up criminals comes over as quite ridiculous. LOTR is entirely otherwordly and surreal, and thus there is very little ridiculousness in wizards or elves or ents, because that is quite normal in that respective world. Now i'm not saying that's something why a batman film can never be good, i'm just saying it can't be around the best of the best with that concept. How is the exposition a whiny complaint...? Movies should only explain what they have to explain via dialogue. Visual storytelling is much more impressive, but it is obvious most of it in TDK solely comes from dialogue. The villain was not perfect at all. He was well acted by Ledger, but his character is weak. He has no motivations, nothing seems to drive him, just plain nihilism and nothing else. Writing a villain that is not driven by anything except mayhem really isn't much of a compelling villain at all. Bane & Al Ghul were much better, because they had some complexity in their morals, whereas Joker has no morals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 Listen, pal, let's be honest here, i know more about film than you do, those are facts. ( the simple fact that you think TDK is top 10 worthy material proves this ) therefore i also know enough about the objective nature of film, and thus i cannot ever take your lecture seriously. I think it is you who needs lecturing on your subjective little delusion. It is really simple for the let's say, non simple minded among us: Acting, script, cinematography, moral dilemmas or humanitairy themes are all purely objective traits. Music & art direction are about 98% objective traits. Thus cinema should always be judged objectively, because art and cinema in general is objective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Juan Garcini Look, pal, Hollywood might contribute a lot of shit but they also undoubtedly have the greatest motion picture collection there is in international cinema. Denying that with pretentious Tarkovsky mentions is just plain ridiculous. I have seen Solaris, Stalker & the Mirror from Tarkovsky and except for Solaris none of them have any characters, character development or narrative. You claim Stalker has a narrative but this is a bunch of nonsense. It only asks questions and never answers, and covers up its worthless dialogue with a bunch of poetic mumbo jumbo which means nothing, unless ofcourse you are one of these types of people that think a painting with two yellow lines has symbolism and depth. Also for some reason you state here that 'and if at the end you’ve watched all kinds of movies and prefer taxi driver and the dark knight', but i specifically stated that i do not believe TDK anything above average multiple times throughout this entire post. Anyway, poor narrative & poor characters do not make a piece of 'art', they make a severely lacking bunch of pretentious nonsense. Also my good man, you state that i am being 'disrespectful', but i am entirely entitled to criticize your favorites with sound criticism, there is nothing wrong with that. It seems more to me like you are pissed off not everybody shares your pseudo intellectual opinion.
1
-
Juan Garcini Tarkovsky isn't necessarily bad in potential, as i actually like Solaris quite a bit, but most of his other crap has absolutely no characters/character development or a narrative structure. And it is extremely easy to say a film doesn't need this because this means you can easily put forth some poetic nonsense dialogue without any context. The toughness of creating a motion picture ARE creating the characters, a gripping narrative & creating relatability for them, and Tarkovsky generally fails at this horribly, which in turn makes him quite a limited director with limited capabilities. Go watch Kurosawa instead for a director that manages to create morally ambigiuous, full of depth films that DO have characters & a fantastic narrative. In the end, this means that my opinion is not just my 'opinion', but more or less the objective truth, since i am not prejudiced by anything. A movie is about characters, and Tarkovsky barely has these. Cinema is not about different cultures, you idiot, it is about expressing human emotion through its art, and it doesn't matter where it is from. it is just facual that Hollywood has the greatest collection of them, even though there is admittedly also a lot of crap. Perhaps i will watch that one you suggested sometime soon, but i really doubt it holds a candle to Taxi Driver, since that is nearly impossible ( TD is my #7 all time film, and my list is EXTREMELY objective ). Anyway, i do like something like Come and See ( Which is also one of my all time favorites ) that manages to be so powerful in its honesty and brutality that it will literally change the way you look at things. But ofcourse that is also a film that had some kind of a 'story', unlike Tarkovsky.
1
-
1
-
Juan Garcini Yeah, there is truth to some of the things you say. I have watched loads of Japanese films for example, especially from the 50s & 60s, and most of them are remarkable pieces of cinema. But that still means there are certain countries that are simply better than others in terms of cinema, so not every country brings forth memorable titles. Japan, Germany, Italy, France etc etc have many great titles but this still doesn't change the fact that Hollywood still produces the most of the great ones. This is also because it is such a big production ofcourse, and i am not a particular fan of Hollywood, but it is still the truth. The difference between Hollywood and international cinema is generally that Hollywood productions tend to be overly melodramatic at times, but because their quantity of films is so high they still produce so much quality content.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whaddup Pimps Well ofcourse your friends are unknowing casuals in movie terms and pretty much every relevant term for that matter if you're an adolescent. It is even quite rare to see one such as yourself that has seen 2001, since most of them are too busy playing with retarded selfiesticks or drinking themselves stupid like the brainless neanderthals they are. ( Imagine one trying to watch 2001.... they would fall asleep within seconds ) Anyway, i too view films more as art than as entertainment, but a bunch of nice visuals and pretentious narrative ( Kubrick is always a bit limited in his narrative, but directors like Bergman or Tarkovsky really take the cake for this, as their movies are always a bunch of pretentious pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo. ) doesn't mean that it's art. The same thing with idiots who believe abstract 'art' is real art because it is supposedly there to 'enlighten' your mind. While in reality it is a bunch of ugly kids nonsense which means absolutely nothing. Thus, true art in cinema terms also come from a fantastic narrative structure & compelling characters, and even though 2001 is lacking in this, it still manages to put forward a reasonably coherent plot with an in depth narrative, even though the characters are somewhat wooden. This is what you would call 'Substance', and 'Art' without substance isn't really art, but a pretentious piece of wannabe art.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GammaPool15 Like i stated in the other thread, this is why Infinity War is a shit film:
Since i am not a little boy that has an absurd kind of fondness for Marvel comics & thus its movies, i am able to judge them objectively without being prejudiced by a couple of adults flying around in capes. And with this knowledge, it is quite obvious that Infinity War is indeed objectively a terrible movie.As stated before i am admittedly not a Marvel fan, and i did not care to watch any of its predecessors before this one. It ofcourse should never be a requirement to watch about 18 films in order to comprehend this one better, but to be honest you really don't miss anything during Infinity War's simplistic narrative if you have missed all its previous films, except for maybe knowing the characters in it. But judging from what i have seen none of them are even slightly relatable even when having watched previous films. So even if you have watched previous films, a connection with these characters is impossible since they are so terrible written and often times poorly acted.First off, i cannot fathom enough how terrible the screenplay is. A couple of characters try to be funny and come up with lines of dialogue a 8 year old could have though of, such as: 'Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards' or 'Why is Gamora', or the discussion about Thor's new haircut. The plain stupidity in its dialogue and writing is basically an insult to the audience's intelligence, and thus it is a very dumb and low IQ motion picture due to this. The acting is mostly terrible, except by perhaps Josh Brolin ( Which is saying a lot, since he was a pure CGI character ). Especially Robert Downey Jr, Chris Pratt & Tom Holland all hand in absolutely atrocious and horrendous performances. All of them try to be funny and joke around in serious times, but it is never funny, instead its terrible pretentious attempt at creating wisecracks results in loads of cringeworthy scenes that will make the audience embarrassed to witness. Although in the three actors's defence, the abysmal script didn't help their performances either, and they are only partly to blame.The only interesting character in the film is Thanos, and while it does help a little bit that he has the most screen time of all characters by far, he still seems to be a victim of the cliché fest that is Infinity War since his reasons for wanting to take over the world are hardly original ( Sacrifice the few to save the many kind of motivations, which we have all seen before ), and can probably be found in the 'Standard Hollywood villain rules guide book' anywhere. None of the 'Good guys' are relatable because their dialogue is so ridiculous and since the only intelligent person in the film seems to be Thanos, as everybody else seems to be lacking in self awareness and self consciousness on every level ( Especially all the times people who know what Thanos is capable of keep attacking him like they think they have a chance, what a joke that is ).There is once again a lot of sub par plastic cinematography with many artificial backdrops, especially in Wakanda. None of it seems particularly natural, and thus the film also has this visually artificial kind of feel that further decreases your immersion ( Although the characters already decreased this pretty far down with their terrible dialogue ). There is no depth or real sub text in the film except perhaps Thanos showing little Gomora his knife balancing which symbolizes his view of a world in balance, but that is pretty much all the cleverness in it. It also has a lot of melodramatic scenes ( Especially with Vision and that redhead woman whose name i forget ) between characters that you cannot relate with, and the only thing that i wanted to see happen was Thanos killing them all, as he was the only individual with even a slightly bit of depth or character, thus making only him, the villain, relatable. Ofcourse as is standard in modern films Infinity War is also very politically correct in that it uses a lot of women warriors fighting like men against eachother in order to negate gender differences like there are none, which further enhances the notion that this is ultimately an irrelevant film.Admittedly the only strength this film might have comes from Thanos's character, and everything else seems irrelevant due to terrible acting & writing. In the end, despite that a lot of characters meet their demise, it still feels as though nothing is really at stake because all the characters are frequently making unfunny jokes & dumb decisions, which in turn leads to the question: 'Why should we care?'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GammaPool 15 As i suspected, you are a teenager. This is not very surprising, as teenagers these days are known for being brainless abominations to society with no attentionspan to speak of. To tell you the truth, i did expect you to be even younger, but this is still a very logical age for your ridiculous behavior. Weird thing is, i have shown absolutely no sign of immaturity yet you somehow absurdly assume i am 'Silly & immature?', which makes no sense at all. My maturity is far greater than you and anyone even remotely close to your age, as i was gifted with an objective brain. Why don't you tone down the kiddy profanity a little bit so we can have a civilized discussion for once? But then again, i really doubt you to have the intellectuality for something like that. Anyway, if you think Infinity War is among the greatest of all time this already proves your ridiculous immaturity and childish nature, because it is simply that. A kids movie. And not a kids movie in the sense of something like Azkaban that is brimming with technical cinematic expertise, but one created by a talentless hack with no clue about how to create characters or write a screenplay.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hazman5528 Once again, my opinion is superior to yours because you are subjective due to your little comic book fanboy brain. Comic book films are dumb escapism entertainment, and infinity war is the same. Lord of the Rings is an in depth epic mosaic of legendary proportions in its scale, cinematography, art design, fabulous screenplay & superb acting. Infinity War's characters do not feel like actual people, and the melodrama is shoved down your throat which makes it a laughable film at best. The definition of 'cringe' is sitting through the embarrassing dialogue in Infinity War. Take a look at that one idiot that thinks he's invisible.... you're telling me you think that shits funny...? You must be even younger in mind than in body. Or the guy that says 'dude, YOU EMBARAZING ME IN FRONT OF DA WIZARDS!!' Or when that other guy imitates a lower pitched voice. It's so childish and poorly written. None of the dialogue except perhaps a few spoken bt Thanos has any depth. You see, why would i admit Thanos is a good character if i was biased against it? You make no sense, boyo. I am never biased, i judge purely on actual quality. This film tries so hard to be funny but it isn't. The only thing the comic part of this film does is make the viewer take the serious parts less seriously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
GammaPool15 You do realize you have lost the little credibility you have left when you stated: 'the avengers is a cinematic masterpiece'... right? I mean, this is such an absurdly stupid sentence i don't even know the words to describe its absurdity. 'Black Panther is also game-changer too' ……..Jesus christ you are an absurdly moronic little child, aren't ya? Both these films consistently insult the audience with their overblown melodrama and idiotic exposition. In fact, Black Panther is in my top 10 worst movies ever made. ( Yes, i have seen shit like the Room and Twilight, and it is STILL in there ) I get that you're a little kid so you think the humor in Marvel is 'THE SHIT!!', but perhaps you will realize as you grow up that it is extremely childish and cliché. In fact, every marvel film ( Yeah, the three i have seen ) are cliché fests that constantly copy shit from superior action films ( Let us not forget the blatant LOTR & Star Wars ripoffs in black panther towards the end ). Nobody gives a shit about marvel characters. The kids that do like marvel like it because of its idiotic explosions and they like the sight of grown men and women flying around in capes. NOBODY LIKES IT BECAUSE OF ITS CHARACTERS BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS THEY ARE SHIT. Yeah man, Tony Stark is such an interesting character. Has such a better character arc than Frodo, Aragorn, Gollum, Sam, Gandalf etc... Jesus you don't even understand half the shit you're saying, man, get real. I am a film expert, and superhero films are nice escapism entertainment for kids once again, but they are never anything to be taken seriously.Oh, and i also have to point out that you mention that Marvel shit has great music scores while LOTR's is shit. Just.... just stop right there, man. You are delusional. Howard Shore's score for LOTR is one of the greatest ever created, and marvel nonsense scores do not come close to this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Onix2003 I'm not saying there are no differences in opinions. Obviously there are, but this is really purely due to how subjective the viewer/audience is. There is an objectivity in every film, and some viewers acknowledge it and some ( subjective ones ) do not. You can easily recognize this when you look at which arguments for liking/disliking a film are subjective and which ones are objective. Arguments such as 'boring' or 'too long' generally mean that that person is unable to place an objective verdict on something due to their personal preferences, which means they are subjective.
About your point on 'The Room', it is obvious there are a lot of people who rate that one higher than a 1, but why? This is simply because of the overdone utter garbage that it is has turned it into such an unintentional funny piece of work that it actually becomes likeable. This is why, despite the fact that the Room is #1 on my bottom movies list, it is not an agonizing experience of any kind, because its stupidity actually makes it funny. If i judged that one subjectively it would be much higher. It is, however, still the worst film of all time i could possibly think of and thus has to be #1 on the bottom list. There really is no denying this, as even people who rate it higher acknowledge that it is absolutely terrible, albeit in a likeable way, but that is not an objective argument to rate it any higher. I agree that between utter masterpieces there can be no proper objective distinction, but everything below it can indeed be distinguished with objective argumentation.
1
-
Onix1003 Look at it this way: Film itself is obviously objective, since everybody sees the same thing. I do not agree with your statement about humans being unable to judge something objectively. I believe that is very much possible. However, you do need to limit your views towards only the real cinema lovers here, because everyone that just watches a movie because of a certain genre or a certain subject is always extremely subjective. There are however a lot of people that actually love the cinematic aspect of it and thus a lot of them are able to judge without bias and without prejudice. Sure, every objective moviegoer has a couple of subjective ratings among them, but for those who actually love films this is really kept at a minimum.
Perhaps there isn't any substantial argument for explaining why acting is objective, but for one you cannot tell me that Tommy Wiseau is a better actor than Marlon Brando and expect me to take it seriously. I mean, somebody could say it, but that is just objectively wrong. This means there is objectivity in it. In general even when people dislike a certain liked film when they are cinephiles they are usually still sensible enough to state that 'the acting was good' or something of the like.
Oh, and just because i do not particularly like superhero films does not mean i judge them subjectively. I actually rated some in Nolan's trilogy quite highly for example, but objectively speaking there is still not much in them that would suggest anything special. I guess this is primarily because all of them are so full of unnecessary exposition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Izzmond The first hour wasn't too bad indeed, but the latter half is utterly ridiculous. It looks like it became Sovietesque propaganda for the uninitiated. What's the point of that ridiculous abortion scene? I get that they're radical left wingers that support that murderous nonsense, but what's the point of it besides that political messaging? Nothing. Same with the pandering on the relationship between those women and their servant, as a very unsubtle Marxist pro working class message. What ''nonverbal expressions''? She was a wooden plank, and that's it. Same for the servant girl. They can't act. It's pretty difficult if only one person in your movie can act. And what '''Nuances''? Come on man, the writing is atrocious, you are constantly inherently reminded of the modern political climate by everything that happens in this piece of crap. It's nonsensical leftist pandering, that's all. And what's so special about the color? It's a very crisp image, again, but what is shown is hardly anything special. Many unremarkable closeups with shot/reverse shot techniques and a lot of bleak architectural backdrops. Oh, and what i meant about that Orpheus point was also in the fact that the lead seeing her in that last scene basically defeats the purpose of the entire reference. Come on, boyo, wake up, at least don't put it at #3 of ALL-TIME, lmao.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@izzmond3676 Yes, it has a purpose, and that purpose is brainless political agitprop propaganda. Ask yourself what the point is in the depiction of the servant... you can only come out on an answer by claiming that it is a ridiculous metaphor for class consciousness while promoting women'a "right to choose". If that's your idea of an enlightening experience you can just look up a random antifa or pro death rally on the internet. And no, she didn't know she was there. It even states this in dialogue. That you see a convenient speculative interpretation that doesn't coincide with the facts doesn't matter. What's special about the bonfire scene? Lmao. Absolutely nothing. Again, besides the crisp image which is merely time related, it's not a very special movie in the technical sense, although it isn't bad either, but definitely nothing special. And no, i did not even care for the lesbianism so much, but glorifying abortion? A moral message that is thus depraved is an inherent stain on anything, but let's not act like it was brilliantly written either anyway, lmao.
1
-
1
-
@izzmond3676 The only significance of Vivaldi's piece in the final scene if because it reminded her of the protagonist, not because she thought she was there. That's quite clear. Besides which, it would again defeat the purpose if she purposely didn't look, because isn't she already living off of memories? What difference would it have made at that point? In the final scene in the house it made sense, but not there. And what gorgeouss architecture except for the opera house near the end? Where? And what blocking and framing, lmao? Most of it was just a bunch of shot reverse shot techniques with absolutely zero artistic expertise. And colors, lighting? Lmao, no. Nearly every 50s color movie has superior color patterns, the lighting is pretty good in darkness, but again, most of it is superficial, because there's too many unremarkable closeups anyway. It's not like Leone ones where you can feel the tension coming off the brows either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 That's not refuting my claims, since it's irrelevant if the point was to show them helping the servant, since i could ask the question of what was the point of that too. In the end, it all comes down to the fact that it's a pathetic unsubtle political message, and it has nothing to do with being offended, as i am never offended. It has to do with having self respect, which i have, and you have not, and furthermore since morality is fully objective, a wrong moral message is an objectively crappy point, especially when it's as hamfisted and unsubtle as this. No, it's a crappy movie for dumb people, and that's about it.
1
-
@taxidriver1019 Yeah, the director's words confirm what i've been saying. Heavy handed left wing messages. And this is pretty much all the second half of the picture consists of. It has nothing to do with bias. Creating left wing political messages requires little creative intellect, and neither does this movie. And like i said, it might not glorify the getting rid of the child, but it does glorify her right to do so, and that is indeed still glorifying abortion, and thus murder. Point seems indusputably proven. If you think films with this kind of lazy propaganda writing are masterpieces, go ahead, but as for me, that's not gonna happen, as i can recognize an objective mediocrity when i see it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tõrta D. Katsoh Oh, i see. So i reckon you're the same kind of fellow who likes going to modern museums to stare at the god-ugly paintings with a couple of stripes added to them? Because they are so 'deep' and 'mysterious', right? Don't make me laugh. ridiculous. Art can never be abstract, which is also made obvious by this simple reference. Unless, ofcourse, you actually believe these modern paintings are 'art' (Which i believe you do). Furthermore, you are using prejudiced and irrelevant insults to a person that opposes the terms. 'attentionspan of a baboon?'... clearly you haven't the slightest clue of who you're talking to. My attentionspan is extremely high. I also never said that i was bored by Tarkovsky or Bergman, so these are really just vacuous assumptions. You're just triggered like a little snowflake because someone doesn't share your deluded opinion. Not sure what you're implying with your boyo speech, boyo. I do not base my statements on what year i am living in, so this is once again you clutching at irrelevant straws. Also, not doing commentary has something to do with not having enough balls? So, by your logic, it requires balls to commentary on videos? Jesus, this is really deranged logic you're using. I hardly consider all those choirboys that commentate on this site to have 'balls', but have it your way.
1
-
Stan Schmidt The Mirror cannot be understood. It's just people thinking up ridiculous speculations about what is and what could have been. It doesn't have anything to say for itself. It really is incoherent up to the point where it becomes ridiculous, not to mention pretentious. Your speech about the psychological/emotional audience response is all fine, but examples like 'The Mirror', 'Stalker', 'Persona', or any other nonsense of this sort do not create any kind of response. First off, there are no characters to care about. There is thus also no character development. There is barely a narrative structure ( And yes, there are a good many films with non linear structures, but those are actually coherent, unlike Tarkovsky, Bergman etc.). These are all SIGNIFICANT flaws. If you cannot see this, it is obvious you do not want to see them. Again, this is all done as an excuse to cover up the flaws these filmmakers have. It's not depth, and it is nothing psychological. It is nothing. The Godfather, on the other hand, is extremely immersive, has character depth, development, and obviously the things i stated in the earlier post. And yeah, there's nothing wrong with something that makes you think, but let's be honest here, Tarkovsky's films are CONSTANTLY like this. There is never any single concrete thing in it. Thus, why should one care about it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JDP2104 Why wouldn't they? The motives of the academy for picking films are leaning heavily towards a certain side. Titanic was the perfect subjective appeal to them, which is why they like it so much. It's empty reasoning. If you're a slightly different person than an academy snob, their entire motivation becomes meaningless. This is why only objective merits matter. And yeah, admittedly, Return of the King & Ben Hur are both some of the greatest ever made, fully deserving of them, but that's not because of the 11 oscars. Titanic however, is poorly acted & ESPECIALLY poorly written. It is a technical spectacle, but it has no substance. Sub text is filled with cliché classes distinctions ( rich being evil, poor being good ), romance is fueled by absolutely nothing. There is no charisma, there is no poignant dialogue. The dialogue is nearly on par with MCU in terms of their lowly quality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shataniksarkar7382 Uhm... no, he isn't. Telling me to 'just accept it' only proves your utter ignorance. He's not top 50 worthy in terms of directors. Granted, he's still a good director, but comparing him to actual greats like Leone, Kurosawa, Scorsese, Kubrick etc is just pure nonsense. He is nowhere near them. This isn't 'hate', it's common sense. Oh, and i'm 22, although you will not find anyone my age with my cinematic knowledge, thus making my mental age quite a bit older.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kuala nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen
Und freudenvollere!
Freude, schöner Götterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!
Deine Zauber binden wieder,
Was die Mode streng geteilt;
Alle Menschen werden Brüder,
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.
Wem der große Wurf gelungen,
Eines Freundes Freund zu sein,
Wer ein holdes Weib errungen,
Mische seinen Jubel ein!
Ja, wer auch nur eine Seele
Sein nennt auf dem Erdenrund!
Und wer's nie gekonnt, der stehle
Weinend sich aus diesem Bund.
Freude trinken alle Wesen
An den Brüsten der Natur:
Alle Guten, alle Bösen
Folgen ihrer Rosenspur.
Küsse gab sie uns, und Reben,
Einen Freund, geprüft im Tod;
Wollust ward dem Wurm gegeben,
Und der Cherub steht vor Gott!
Froh, wie seine Sonnen fliegen
Durch des Himmels prächt'gen Plan,
Laufet, Brüder, eure Bahn,
Freudig, wie ein Held zum Siegen.
Seid umschlungen, Millionen,
Diesen Kuß der ganzen Welt!
Brüder! Über'm Sternenzelt
Muß ein lieber Vater wohnen.
Ihr stürzt nieder, Millionen?
Ahnest du den Schöpfer, Welt?
Such' ihn über'm Sternenzelt!
Über Sternen muß er wohnen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 You're not facing any facts, boyo. You're denying them. Furthermore, i never said opinions can be 'right' or 'wrong', i just said that they can be 'good' and 'bad'. There's a difference between them. Good is in fact a defined trait. Sometimes the good is mixed with the bad, and it becomes all confused, which is perhaps what you are referring to. However, the standard virtue of 'good' is an absolute and therefore measurable in an objective degree. In short, some opinions are better than others. This list is objectively terrible. A list like that Sam Oppedisano guy for example, and while i don't agree with everything, is mostly objectively a good list. We've been over this, but it seems you're too brainwashed to understand it.
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 For example, let us take human decency and human barbarity as an example. I reckon you're also deluded enough to deny the existence of good and evil, but i'll try to explain it to you all the same. Murdering innocent civilians, stoning women to death after being raped, beheading people for islamic reasons etc is FACTUALLY WRONG AND EVIL. It is inhumane, barbaric, primitive and goes against everything we have created a civilization for. That is evil. Good, for example, can come out of simple acts of empathy, brotherhood, friendship etc. To stay on topic, there are numerous movies where this is the case, so perhaps they can teach you something? Unfortunately a lot of movies these days also have anti-heroes, which do not quite fit the bill, but i would suggest something more along John Wayne lines or Tolkien's works for a clear moral difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 Look, what is happening here is the following: Imagine me telling you that a zebra is black and white. However, you keep denying this, because 'there's no such thing as black and white! Everything is relative!' This is what you keep doing here, and i'm not very impressed by it. At this point i've already realized that argumentation with you is impossible, as you will simply deny everything. Again, you can prove that something like The Godfather is better than The Room, so your nonsense has no value. You can conveniently ignore this all you want and keep ending your posts with 'i won!!!', 'End of story!!!', 'You lost!!!', but that changes nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 The argument is ABOUT POLITICS. The fact that you don't even understand this proves what a moron you are. You are declaring objectivism as 'wrong', which is political. Anyway, this discussion is pointless because you consequently refuse to listen to my statements and always only reply to small parts of them. Unfortunately, i will not admit that cinema is subjective because it isn't subjective. It is objective. Artforms are all objective. Nearly everything in this world is objective. It is the bias of a person that makes something subjective, but that doesn't mean that that something isn't objective. Everything exists outside the mind, boyo. Feelings don't matter, it's the substantial things that count. Anyway, we both know why the godfather is better than the room, so i simply won't keep repeating that, and yes, the quality difference is entirely external to the human mind. Technically, acting & writing wise, it is no equal contest. Again, this is not PERSONAL, so it is NOT subjective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 Fine... you really are ridiculous and you already know what i'm going to tell you, but you keep insisting on the obvious. As a comparison between Brando & Wiseau, Wiseau is supposed to play an American, yet he has a polish/french mixed weird accent straight out of hell, combined with the most wooden mannerisms and facial expressions and horribly monotonous line delivery. This is objectively terrible acting. Why? Because we are no longer taking this person serious as a character. His absurd overacting and wooden mannerisms make sure the viewer can never be immersed by this horrid acting, thus it is OBJECTIVELY TERRIBLE. Brando, on the other hand, has it all. In his role as Vito, the mannerisms (stroking the cat nonchalantly for example), the facial expressions and his emotional range of voice are all superb as a patriarch of a mafia empire. This is someone that seems like a real person, thus his acting is OBJECTIVELY GOOD. And for all the fuck all arguments you have given me, how could you possibly prove that a verdict of this kind is personal? I don't have any kind of financial shares by stating this, so it makes no sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gamergeek2040 I explicitly stated DEATH of a Nation, not BIRTH of a Nation. Read properly. It is the lowest rated title on metacritic because critics are filled with personal bias. It's not even a conspiracy theory, it's just blatant logic. Look at the kind of personal subjective nonsense they write in these reviews. Also, no, Black Panther is one of the worst movies ever made, and Moonlight will never reach a status as one of the GOATS lmfao that's laughable. Look at every new picture depicting blacks as good guys and whites as bad and look at their metascores. Coincidence? No, they're pushing an agenda instead of judging objectively. Also, critics have bashed The Mule (2018) because it is too 'politically incorrect', lmao. One critic said that it was racist against mexicans because mexicans were depicted as drug dealers, henceforth the message is that all mexicans are drug dealers according to this deluded critic. Again, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's logic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 You can't call yourself right wing when the fundamental principles of objectivism elude you. You have some mild right wing leanings, but that's about it. You're still a leftist. You justify rapists, murderers, god awful paintings, ugly architecture, shitty movies & pop culture in general by stating that all things are subjective. This makes you a leftist. You don't see the contradiction in your beliefs here, which is why you consider yourself to be right-wing, but that is a fallacy. Again, by your logic, there's no definite way to define 'proof', so how do you 'prove' anything? That's also subjective in your eyes, thus anything has the potential to be a fact. This is the hypocrisy in you people, but you don't realize it. Who says statistics are proof? Because they are numbers? Have you checked the way they measure the numbers? Have you been with the people who checked them 24/7? No, by your logic, NOTHING is a fact. You can keep going forever with this deluded ideology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 Except Dern's character isn't portrayed unsympathetically, boyo. That's also not a surprise by the way, lmao, she probably won the oscar for the assault on Judeo Christian values speech alone, knowing the academy. What a joke. No, Marriage Story is garbage, created for morons with a very limited view on what humanity is really like. And yes, it justifies divorce & assaults Christian values. Not very un-left wing to me, although of course nearly every film today is left wing. As for the latter part, that speaks for itself. White males are simply superior to other people in terms of most aspects in cinema. Thus they are sometimes forced to give them something. But when something is closer, like the score, there's no doubt the non white male gets the edge because idiotic diversity ravings. All of this still doesn't change that white males are simply better, and sjw's have a hard time accepting that fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oneiroagent There isn't any information to extract that could ever possibly be better than simply terminating them right away. The new one, Rise of Skywalker, also does this laughable recurring theme, with the stormtroopers capturing heroes and immediately afterwards given the order to exterminate. Why even capture them first? And so it is every time. Stormtroopers seem to be very conscientious and seem to have a morally hard time killing people. What a joke the "villains" in the entire series are. And SW would be PG13 with ease today. There's very little blood, LOTR probably even has more and that's excluding the black blood of Orcs. And skeleton ruins? Lmao, what? If that's so, the intro in the mines of Moria in LOTR would have been enough to warrant an "R" rating there too. No, i think you need to analyze what R & PG13 are. The original trilogy would obviously be PG13 now. And yes, Luke showed no emotional reponse to his aunt & uncle's death. He just stands and immediately asks Obi Wan that, in a tone so devoid of emotion it really quite becomes laughable. Seems like Luke got over their deaths pretty quickly, lmao.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oneiroagent That only holds for Gandalf, no one else, and i didn't even mention his death, which was, by the way, probably the best death scene of all, obviously far better than anything SW dishes out. Not to mention the fact that he was never human. The protaginists in SW however are all human. And Yoda, Obi Wan & Vader all three have meaningless deaths. They live on just as well anyway. Significance is, again, non existent in SW. This is simply fact. All main characters who die live happily on by the force, so what does it matter anyway? Not to mention how their deaths are handled, without an ounce of emotion, generally speaking. Again, it's all still quite logical because they're movies for young teens who cannot grasp the significance of death.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bruh3128 ...? It's no use trying to act like the big old mature man, kiddo. Everybody here can see that you're incapable of forming coherent sentences and incapable of creating compelling argumentation, not to mention your little fanboy kiddy harry potter top 10. With all this information, one can easily conclude that you are about 14 years old, while i am obviously matured. So you see, acting like you're the old boy doesn't make much sense, since you haven't given me a lot of reason to believe you're anything more than a fanboy hp kiddo. I will assume that role now, though, but in my case it is fitting, since i am older than you. Thus i will tell you that you might understand when you get older, although i truly doubt it. Fanboys do not love film, they love an imaginary concept.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vosikthearchpriest4395 Yes, they are. The only proper form of reasoning is on a standard criteria. Neither the idiotic personal experience and feeling of empiricism nor the deluded ideology of rationalism which, by its very existence, cannot ever have any criteria, are valid logical deductions of reality. You could say a bit of rationalism is alright, slightly to the extent that one knows that there is objective truth in the world without conceiving it. Like a character said in aforementioned novel: “I can see the sun, but even if I cannot see the sun, I know that it exists. And to know that the sun is there - that is living.” but rationalism goes beyond that, and eventually adheres to a contradictory doctrine, promoting subjectivism and the nonexistence of all things, because it rejects an almighty entity, and thus rejects the existence of all things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FreedomCinema88 Nolan's screenplays great..? Come on man, haven't you ever seen the likes of The Lion in Winter, Sweet Smell of Success, The Third Man, Double Indemnity, Sunset Boulevard, The Hustler or the Philadelphia Story? Those are some examples of some of the greatest screenplays ever written. Nolan's films however do not compare to this. Memento obviously has the greatest screenplay of all of his films, but i do not really see anything in it that makes it stand out above those, particularly the dialogue being inferior. You also mention editing, which is odd since i thought that one of Nolan's weaker points. His editing is much too fast paced which gives his films a montage like speed, decreasing any kind of immersion an audience can hope to get. As for performances, yeah there are some good ones, generally also because his casts are nearly always good, but not a single one of them being anything out of the ordinary. While most of the time solidly crafted as you said, none of his films are very special in any kind of aspect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hazman5528 Very well, let's go again... That's not arrogance, i simply pointed out that the 'Argument from authority' is not an argument. If you doubt this, i suggest you look up the meaning of the term. And again, i don't hate superhero films, that's something you cooked up. You on the other hand, are a massive comic film fanboy and look, that's fine, don't get upset over me denying you this, but it does mean you are not shall we say, very objective about the matter. Anyway, i replied to your comment here because you were instantly using profanity as a counterargument, like you are automatically triggered if someone doesn't share your opinion. It isn't about the other debate we already settled quite clearly.
1
-
@hazman5528 I don't deny anyones opinions, i simply tell it the way it is ( They're subjective ones). And again, this is nothing against you personally, so don't feel attacked, but you don't really have the validity to say that a superhero movie is top 200 worthy, because you barely know any others, and if you do, they are generally all 2010+, which is the weakest decade of film since sound was invented by a far margin. Again, there is nothing you can bring forward to prove that i am biased against superhero films, for that is simply untrue. I liked Nolan's TDK trilogy, and i gave IW a full three stars instead of one because it has a couple of slight good points. In theory, a superhero movie could possibly be top 200 worthy, but there hasn't been a single example of that yet. This is indeed primarily because they are good fun entertainment, but nothing more. I only really hate one single film (Piranha 3D), but nothing else. And no, it is irrevant what critics say. The argument from authority is a fallacy. It is not an argument.
1
-
@hazman5528 It's obvious there are still a lot of things you have to learn. Critics are morons who only rate films based on their virtue signalling delusional ideologies, especially now. Acting, writing, cinematography etc is not important anymore. The only important thing is if it depicts white people as evil and others as good, which is the only thing they're looking for. This is why an absolute garbage film like Black Panther got 88 metacritic. Forget about the terrible acting, the horrid screenplay and plastic cinematography, since we have a lot of leftist liberal virtue signalling going on!!! I do not watch movies for political messages, but for showing a creative side of the human spirit. Anyway, this is beside the point, because the only reason i claimed critics opinions invalid is because you are referring to the 'argument of authority' ( meaning a person of some authority, a critic, says something, therefore you think it must be true ). It is NOT an argument, it just shows you lack any substantial claims to back it up. And again, you do not really have the validity to claim anything about superhero films, since you barely know anything made before 2000 ( and yeah, star wars, godfather & jaws don't count as '70s i've watched', lmao. Everyone has seen those ). I admit you're not wholly subjective because you distinguish between superhero films, but again, you don't really have an actual basis to compare it to. Before i watched a lot more older movies i also had superhero films in my top 250, but as i watched more i realized this wasn't the case anymore.
1
-
GammaSymbiote Exactly how am i making this up...? And how exactly is there no evidence for this? I advise you to take a look at the reviews from critics on Black Panther, and i guarantee you each and every single one will state something like 'A refreshing all-black picture in a time when this race is so belittled!!!'. Every single one of the reviewers mentions the disgusting identity politics of that film. It is really just plain to see. Also, don't forget that a pro-Trump documentary got a metacritic of 1/100, lmao. That says enough about the validity of critics. Biased radical leftist morons. Jordan & Boseman gave an absolutely terrible performance, especially Jordan. A fantastic villain…? Jesus Christ, is this a joke? Every single line this guy speaks is ultimate cringe like you're watching some kind of milennial YouTube blogger moron. Boseman is of course not helped by the fact that he has to speak in this horrendous african accent, which makes them look like ghettoboys, but nevertheless of his abilities his performance here is simply horrible. Nobody except for Andy Serkis knew how to act properly in Black Panther, and that is quite evident. Anyway, the latter part of your post is utterly irrelevant, because the only reason BP was made is to invest in liberal brownie points by showing a superior black nation. A theme is quite an objective reason for lowering a movie score, and if a theme is solely based on the simplistic sympathy of idiotic race related matters, this is indeed an extreme negative. It is leftist virtue signalling at its finest, which was obviously given priority over creating something of some actual value. Like i said in the review, suspension of disbelief is fine implemented in a film, but not when it comes to a point where it becomes ridiculous, and the entire situation of Wakanda is that ( Why was this film created, a technologically superior black nation..? Think about it... and try to find an answer that doesn't include 'spreading nonsensical virtue signalling propaganda' ). If anything is racist, it's this moronic movie, for being anti-white.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Izzmond Because #1, #2, #4, #7, #10, #15, #16, #18, #20, #21, #22, #23.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chantellexoxoxo3485 It's not a opinion. This list is objectively terrible. I am merely pointing this obvious fact out. Thus, the truth does seem to upset you. You can criticize an opinion, because some are objectively better than others. The truth is, in terms of films, your opinion is pretty terrible, which is what i am pointing out. I could also give you loads of arguments as to why your list is garbage, but instead of replying 'why?' When i stated 'this list is garbage', you replied with a moronic response trying to deny someone fair criticism. Anyway, the truth is, your list is garbage. Now i'm not denying your right to have such a list, that's a ridiculous assumption, but it is simply a bad list. Again, if you want arguments for this, just let me know instead of the generic 'NOONE ASKEDZ FUR YUZZ OPINIONN'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 You're looking at the objectivity issue with much too simple a mind. For you, if it cannot be proven by DNA or fingerprints, you automatically conclude that it is subjective. What you fail to realize is the consequences of such a conclusion. You have to actually listen to what i'm typing sometime. Now look, when we go by your logic that everything is subjective, a consequence of this is that ultimately, everything is worthless. It means that all things are essentially equal, with the only difference coming from 'human taste', but that is in itself also worthless, because it is based on emotion, rather than reason. Again, is the difference between Tommy Wiseau & Marlon Brando a matter of pure emotion..? A matter of 'taste'? Of course not, it is a matter of objective reason. So you see, this is what i meant by you don't even need to explain objectivity, it is a synonym for common sense. The difference between good and bad isn't a matter of 'taste', and by believing in this nonsense ideology of subjectivism, we are getting more and more crap in terms of everything these days, and you are one of the contributors to this, so be proud of yourself for being a moron, boyo.
The anime discussion was never a serious one. I simply refuse to call it animation because there is no reason to distinguish the two. When you state that 'animated' is non-japanese & anime is japanese, you're correct, but that still doesn't give me a reasont to refer to non japanese anime as 'animated'.
I have to admit, i didn't think about any damn comics by that coin flip thing, since i do not interest myself in this kind of kiddy behavior, so yes, it was probably first in the comics, but No Country was earlier in cinematic terms, which is what i based my statement on.
Moonlight & 12 Years are made by leftist hollywierd morons. You think something like 12 Years could be made during the segregation..? Of course not. It is obviously historically accurate that whites owned black slaves, but a film is a metaphorical experience, and coupled with modern anti-white societal norms, it is just another nail in the coffin for whites to keep hating their own race and their own history, since that is what the director is trying to tell the audience. It is virtue signalling at its finest. The same goes for Moonlight. The focus is on a black community, in order to undermine the white community. Again, such crap would never be made during the segregation. No doubt that dems will love both though.
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 Like i said, you need to listen to what i'm typing about consequences, and again, you haven't done that. It's impossible to discuss anything with you when you don't even listen. You put it behind you by stating the simple minded 'So yuu kant provess it???' ONCE AGAIN. I've anticipated this reply, which is why i specifically stated to listen to what i wrote. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like you're ever going to understand the objectivist part of the discussion, so in order to avoid further simple mindedness on your part, you might aswell leave that out. Also, no, 12 Years a slave is not an accurate depiction of slavery. Epps is ridiculously sadistic. That's pure hollywood fan fiction for you right there. Slavery was nowhere near as bad as dems like you make out. And no, Schindler's was an ACCURATE depiction of historic events, unlike 12 years. I was only wrong about the Chigurh thing, the anime was as i stated not a thing i am taking seriously. Jesus christ, again, you haven't actually read anything in depth in my previous post, have you?
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 You're doing it again…. bringing the same simple mindedness to the table. You're so predictable. You haven't read or understood anything i wrote, because if you did, you wouldn't say you've 'proven' something. You're denying something, you're not disproving something. Your point has no arguments, except substanceless denial. It's not very difficult to understand. It doesn't even need to be proven in large paragraphs, because like i said, objectivism is a synonym for common sense. Brando is better than Wiseau, The Duomo of Milan is better than an average seaside cottage, The Rocky Mountains is better than two lines painted on something etc. It is all a matter of reason, and not emotion, therefore making it objective. But i'm pretty sure you either won't read or understand this again anyway, since you're not a person with a very high intellect. Of course there were people that were sadistic during slavery, but why did 12 years pick out one that stretches the limit of human capability in being evil…? Because that is the message they were trying to send. White people, bad, black people, opressed and good! Also, orange man bad.
1
-
@taxidriver1019 Christ... i really can't expect you to understand anything that isn't spelled out for you, can i? Not sure if you're trolling or simply plain stupid. IT DOESN'T NEED EXPLAINING, IT'S SIMPLY COMMON LOGIC. By the way, this incessant denial of yours is also not getting anywhere. Why is it subjective...? Can you genetically prove that feelings, and ONLY feelings are involved in judging something? No you can't, therefore it's objective! ( Yeah, by your logic, that's proof enough anyway ) and again, you don't listen to anything. I said, the reason why a character such as Epps is brought up in the first place is to show us how vile and evil the straight white man is. It might be historically accurate, but why is a character like that brought up...? Because whites are colonial evil people, and an blacks opressed race! And that is the message of the entire thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Izzmond Well, femininity consists of the ability to show empathy, gracefulness, attentiveness, caring & sensitivity. Masculinity consists of courage, heroism, strength ( both physical & mental ), authoritative, leadership, stoicism etc. Both are as important as one another, and both belong specifically to one single gender. It's all biological, it's not formed by social contructs. This is something that is set in stone, which is why it is utterly unbelieveable to have a female character displaying only masculine traits. It's not a very subtle way the director is telling you to 'accept that gender is a social construct!!!'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 What the hell is this emotional incompetence apologist shit? You really are a disgusting leftist aren't you? Do you think men cried for nonsense 100 years ago? Do you know the term 'stiff upper lip'? When male hormones weren't being replaced with feminine ones due to products like soy, we had men who could only show courage and stoicism in the face of adversity, because biologically, that's how they were made. Now, when this is being messed up by these products, we have emotional incompetence in men everywhere. Crying about every little thing, failing to take any kind of responsibility, lack of self respect & confidence etc. This is not just an opinion, boyo, this is a biological fact, again, due to products like soy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hazman5528 No, the fact that you haven't watched anything made before 1970 DOES mean that you are in the end an irrelevant moviegoer. You probably don't know names such as Leone, Hitchcock, Wilder, Kurosawa, Huston, Hawks, Ford, Kobayashi, Tarkovsky etc. Thus, you don't know anything. The 2010s are terrible in terms of cinema, and there is only one film of this decade that is worthy of any top 100 list of all time, and that is Drive (2011). Some others like Blade Runner 2049 & 12 Years a Slave come close, but certainly not any simple minded marvel film. For anyone with an ounce of cinematic intellect ( those that have actually seen the more complex pre-1970s films ), this really is a laughable matter from your side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hazman5528 Like i said, LOTR isn't my passion, movies are. Thus your comment makes no sense because i am not a blind fanboy of it. I don't like it because of elves or hobbits or whatever, but the cinematography, score, scale, editing, writing, characters etc. This is really where the difference lies between us. You are a comic book fanboy, and i'm sure you know a lot about them, but you don't know anything about movies, which is my department. Oh, and the minecraft thing seemed very fitting for someone your mental age, thus why i mentioned it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GammaSymbiote Could it be..? Are you finally able to come up with some sort of maturity after all these posts? None of these words are probably yours though, most are probably indoctrinated by some of these infinite 'video essays' you are obsessed with. Anyway, look, cinema (That is, films) are not meant to be part of a series of 23 films. That is what TV Shows are for. Furthermore, a sequel of some sort should always be able to stand on its own if it is to maintain any solid quality (Like T2, Aliens or Blade Runner 2049 have). Relying on twenty three earlier movies is just plain laziness influenced by cash grabbing motivations. So, my point is, there would really be no difference if i did watch every single marvel film prior to watching IW. I'm sure it has a lot of character depth and emotional weight to you, but like i said, you cannot possibly judge this properly because you have not seen the older classics that do actually have these merits. If you do not know any better, this is a logical conclusion for someone like you. Again, yes, marvel is for kids. This doesn't necessarily imply that it is trash, but you cannot truly deny this. It was meant for milennial audiences, and not for the older ones among us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theknight9292 There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men, LOTR, Drive, Eastern Promises, 12 Years a Slave, Prisoners, The Departed, Tge Wolf of Wall Street, Der Untergang, Oldboy (2003), Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Training Day... need i go on? Because i can think of a whole lot more that blow Interstellars acting out of the water.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GammaSymbiote Yeah yeah, it's a 'GammaSymbiote fact', sure. Unfortunately i do not really care for 'GammaSymbiote facts', instead i focus more on the real facts. You're not the voice of authority here. 'I don't have a say in this or that', says who? You? Again, you are not going to influence me whatsoever with your subjectivity. Neutrally speaking, one can easily judge IW seperately, since the story is very simplistic, and characters one dimensional. There are only two scenes that aren't complete tripe in it, and that is the part where he throws that green woman down a mountain and the entrance of that Hemsworth guy in that ridiculous african nation. And don't give me this 'You didn't get it' 'you don't know the characters' 'It's complex ONLY if you see previous films!!', we both know that is not true. Again, you like it, that's fine, good for you, but as a neutral moviegoer, i unfortunately cannot do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@irtezaahmed4554 Judging a movie's quality by the number of flaws isn't really relevant either. Movies aren't about being flawless, they're about being impactful. Besides, flaws are such a subjective term. You think different accents are a flaw. That really isn't something that negatively contributes to anything in the film. That's purely personal. It matters what a film does to create the greatest experience possible. And yeah, the Godfather has better acting, but that's probably the only thing that's better than LOTR. LOTR however, has significantly superior sets & cinematography. Indoor sets in the Godfather are often times far too dark. I get that they're trying to depict the shadiness of the business, but it sometimes went over the top. Besides which, LOTR is simply emotionally far superior to the Godfather. It doesn't create a bond with the audience the way LOTR does. Again, it might be logical considering it is about a bunch of bad or at least morally questionable people, but the overall impact is severely lessened. It's not personal, because the film creates this itself through concrete value. LOTR is objectively better than the Godfather. That's no shame. Nothing is better than LOTR.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 Yeah, i meant when you were holding 4 fingers up, something which you undoubtedly understood yet you nit picked at it anyway. In any case, you're not in a position to deal with absolutes. You believe it is all subjective, and you think that is not your opinion, but an objective fact. Objectively everything is subjective. So.... how do you measure everything is subjective...? You can't... therefore your reasoning is a contradictory error that makes absolutely no psychological sense. Your deduction also means that the difference between endgame & godfather is PURELY personal. Now i really don't need to tell anyone with half a brain that that's nonsense. You can like endgame more, sure, but it's objectively inferior. The difference in that regard is quite clear. You can distinguish the structure, blocking, acting, cinematography etc as all being superior in the godfather. They work regardless of opinion, and will always do so. Differences between movies with such a gap in quality is definitely not subjective.
1
-
@taxidriver1019 And again, like i have said many times, that theory doesn't work. I look at it from your point of view, but quickly find that it is simply a faulty one when i compare stuff like Godfather & The Room. It cannot be measured in numerical terms, sure, but you can't with a straight face tell me that the only difference between those two is based on feeling. It's lunacy. There is bad, and there is good. This is simply the way it is. You can really just observe that without bothering with the specifics, just as you can see without measuring that an elephant is bigger than a mosquito. Although, if need be, substantial aspects such as writing, structure, acting, cinematography etc all work regardless of personal taste. It has no involvement in them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 So you're objectively saying that everything is subjective…? You see, this rhetoric makes no sense, for the obvious following reason; Definitions are created by humans, and especially in your eyes, this is fully aligned to the human mind, and not outside of it. In other words, this definition is based on subjectivity. Thus, you are being subjective when you state that something is an opinion. To state anything else is self contradictory. You are simply stating an opinion when you preach this subjectivism nonsense. 'Definition' isn't a thing outside of the human mind. So, really, the best you can do, is say that it is YOUR OPINION that things like movies are subjective, because when you try to apply that externally, you become hypocritical and nonsensical. Obviously you don't understand a whole lot about philosophies either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 Alright, look... clearly i'm by far the most intelligent person on this thread, and this is something i've already known for a long time, but how increasingly clueless you have become in your last 5 posts or so really pushes the boundaries of utter stupidity. There are plenty of small conservative circles today where women do not wear pants, and have a merry time. I don't care about emancipated 'women'. They aren't even women. And no, it has nothing to do with technology, it has to do with modernism. Women had to be the same as men, thus they should also wear pants. It's just another idiotic feminist trick. And women voting should be abolished, obviously. Women are too emotional to think rationally, and while there are intelligent women, there are no intellectual women. Society shouldn't rely on the whims of emotional wrecks. This is why we have so many retarded election outcomes. And let me emphasize here that you DO NOT hate feminism. You hate THIRD WAVE FEMINISM. Feminism is bigger than the nutcases of today, boyo. True conservatives hate FIRST WAVE FEMINISM, the one that gave women voting rights.
Also, did you just seriously call me a fascist? WHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHA, jesus christ. This is just as pathetic as all those similar opinionated lefties crying 'NAZI!!!!" if they disagree with something. Fascism is a left-wing disgusting modernist doctrine. If you actually knew anything about it, you would know i despise such a moronic authoritarian socialist state. The truth is this; You are not a conservative, you are a liberal. I am a conservative. This is the way it is.
1
-
Larry Legend is a GOAT 'Sexist' is a modernity word. It has no meaning. The same is true for 'racist', 'xenophobe', 'homophobe', 'islamophobe' etc. None of these words have any value, they mean nothing. But if we truly look at the definition the 'word' is supposed to have, i am actually anti-sexist, as i promote area's where women are strong, and despise them trying to take over the role of men. To quote a great man; 'Feminism is mixed up with the muddled idea that women are free when they serve ther employers but slaves when they help their husbands'. Of course, this refers to first wave feminism, which you do not hate. You only hate third wave feminism, but nobody takes them seriously anyway. So no, you don't hate feminism, you're a little soyboy unable to understand anything
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 Jesus, what a bunch of leftist drivel once again, First off, as everyone knows, Fascism is a radical left-wing ideology. I didn't say it was liberal, i said it was left wing. Authoritarianism is also left wing. Extremist government control is a socialist/left-wing doctrine. Right wingers prefer smaller governments and less government control. Therefore, the entire definiton of a socialist fascist superstate with one party is INHERENTLY LEFT WING. Most private properties people have is also really a facade since you're pretty much forbidden to do anything with it. Everything is controlled by the state. It is leftism gone extreme. It has NOTHING to do with conservatism. Fascists are pro socialist, and pro modernity. Obviously you don't have a clue on what you're talking about, seeing as you're just a kid. You think because Wikipedia calls fascism 'far right', that it is far right, lmao. Wikipedia... the same source that calls every rational thinking right winger a 'conspiracy theorist'. Do me a favor, and do some research, kiddo. This is embarrassing.
Also, yes, not every woman is just as emotional as the other, but as a whole, biologically, they are generally more prone to judge based on emotions as opposed to reason. They are easily manipulated by agitprop propaganda and the like, and one only needs to work on their emotions to create a result that is beyond reason. This is how civilizations fall. Thus, by letting women vote, we are getting a view on society that is based on a nonsensical utopia, one which is always doomed to fail ( As proven in history by numerous idiotic socialist & communist superstates, leading to mass genocide ). I don't give a damn about who i offend, i'm proudly politically incorrect, unlike you. And no, i hate to break your utopian ideas, but you're not a special snowflake, kiddo. You're not 'different'. You're a sheep, ready to be lead to the slaughter without a word of complaint. The world is bigger than running the risk of offending people, lmao.
1
-
Larry Legend is a GOAT You're very naive, boyo. Let me tell you the facts of life; First wave feminism wasn't about equality. Men and women are different. They are good at DIFFERENT THINGS. First wave feminism wants to turn women into men, in terms of society. Therefore, feminism is actually the ideology that is sexist, because it is based on the principle that the original position of women was inferior to men. Hating women's rights isn't hating women, this is also another fallacy you are making. You are automatically connecting the two without understanding what they mean. Women's rights are denouncing the actual position of women, again, so if anything, women's right are AGAINST women. And yes, i would tell them that they had no right to vote, because that is simply not something women are good at. It requires a clear mind, based on rational observation and not emotion. And the last part of your post doesn't even make any sense. You make a random connection to wife beating without any sort of context. Obviously, you don't really have a clue on what you're talking about.
1
-
TaxiDriver 101 No, Fascism is extreme left wing. Quit reading left wing sources and look at my arguments for a second. The only argument you can give that fascism is 'right wing' is because it is somewhat positive about capitalism, but again, the state eventually still controls all, so that also is a fallacy. Besides which, it is a fact that Fascism has more left wing points than right wing points. Seriously… just look up what it actually stands for, do some research, moron. Also, what 'historians'? If they are left wing historians, there's your answer, boyo. Lefties call fascism right wing because it serves their purpose. But if you'd actually dig a little deeper than that, you'd know fascism is primarily an extreme form of authoritarian leftism. And you base the assumption that i'm mentally challenged on what? That i'm spouting facts? That i don't agree with your sheep-like view of society? Oh, boyo, you still have a lot to learn about the world. And no, women are not more intelligent than men, and even if they were, rationality would still be lower when deciding what to vote on, thus the more objective votes can only come if we were to abolish women's rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MikeDeeco11 Again, there are plenty of conservative circles where women wear skirts or dresses. Only in hypermodern atheist communities is this never the case. The latter is irrelevant. They are beyond help. A fallacy in your rhetoric is that you think i actually want to universally change anything… but you fail to understand that i'm a realist, and know such a thing could never happen due to the ridiculous individualism today. But that doesn't mean i'm just going to 'get with the times' and accept ugliness like women wearing pants. Never will i do such a ridiculous thing.
Women shouldn't be single. They should get married and have children. If you're still single by the time you reach 30, you're hopeless. And again, i don't give a damn about these 'empowered' women that choose for such a thing. They're nonhuman, unpersons, irrelevant.
Yeah, and why shouldn't everyone have pepperspray in case a bear attacks someone on the street…? Idiotic argument about the 'running', boyo.
And i already explained why women's rights are created to mold women into men, and are therefore opposed to the biological areas in which women are strong, such as caring for children. Feminists rather have them caring for their employer. Thus, it's factually true. And yes, when you quote me on something that has nothing to do with that, it is an ad hominem. It's attack against the validity of the character.
Here, again, you fail to understand the fact that biologically people of the same gender or race are generally simply more similar to one another. Women are factually more emotional. It can be that one particular woman is less emotional than one particular man, but that is irrelevant. The collectivist idea is what counts, and that is that on average, votes counted by women are going to be influenced purely by emotion 80% of the time. Therefore it should be abolished. That's like saying we gotta let illegal immigrants in even though 99% of them become criminals because there might be one good one in there!
And trust me, boyo, my self awareness is superior to yours. You were actually missing something, and that is a brain that works by itself, not by following popular media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JDP2104 Yes, it's also because they have no emotional response to the concept of human morality. Without emotion, morality would be completely nonsensical. Who would care? It's always generated by emotion, just like comedy. And again, both are objective, but you can't just use the fact that it's an emotion as a point to prove there is no value. Your only argument on morality is your surpreme being, but can you measure the existence of God? Can you infallibly proof He exists? No, you cannot. Therefore, by your logic, morality simply cannot be objective. You also seem to be only basing this fact on what is generally accepted with people. Most people think murder is bad, so it's objective. Most people don't think the same things are funny, so it's subjective? This argument of authority possesses no real argumentation whatsoever, and is once again quite contradictory in nature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chloewilde3670 There's actually plenty of people, mostly highly intelligent ones, that claim 2+2=5. It is not a fact because it is based on definitions which were made by the faulty creatures known as humans. Such basis are irrelevant, as are definitions, since they are alterable based on time. It's irrelevant that there's no measuring rod, there is still good and bad, and it has nothing to do with feelings. You haven't actually proven anything. And you never will, because it is unprovable. What you're doing is merely concluding something you know nothing about because human minds cannot comprehend all secrets of the universe. It doesn't matter why or how, there are differences in quality in everything, which is why a pile of dog shit will never be as beautiful as the sistine chapel. To deny the existence of this objective fact is utterly ludicrous. It doesn't matter what people watch movies for. Their subjective opinions are irrelevant. What i'm saying is that quality is external, and has nothing to do with subjectivity. And you can see my list by the link on my channel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abrahamlincoln7912 This might be hard for you to accept, but objectivity exists. Even more so in film. They do not neccesarily have to be biased and a matter of taste. It isn't wholly 'subjective', that's just utterly false. For example, you can easily make out that the Godfather is better than the Room. This isn't a matter of taste, that is just the way it is. Furthermore, if you believe film is subjective, why the hell are you telling me my list is terrible? Isn't everything a matter of taste in your eyes? Thus, no list could ever be 'bad' or 'wrong' if you truly think it is subjective. And no, i am not a LOTR fanboy, again, i put LOTR as high as i put them because they are the greatest pieces of cinema in existence ( objectively speaking of course ). Again, my list is not based on personal sentiments, but actual cinematic quality. The only subjectivity in film is ranking two pitch perfect films in front of the other or not. Everything else is in fact quite objective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kuala Sand might be bad, but water is good because of
Its universality: its democratic equality and constancy to its nature in seeking its own level: its vastness in the ocean of Mercator's projection: its unplumbed profundity in the Sundam trench of the Pacific exceeding 8000 fathoms: the restlessness of its waves and surface particles visiting in turn all points of its seaboard: the independence of its units: the variability of states of sea: its hydrostatic quiescence in calm: its hydrokinetic turgidity in neap and spring tides: its subsidence after devastation: its sterility in the circumpolar icecaps, arctic and antarctic: its climatic and commercial significance: its preponderance of 3 to 1 over the dry land of the globe: its indisputable hegemony extending in square leagues over all the region below the subequatorial tropic of Capricorn: the multisecular stability of its primeval basin: its luteofulvous bed: its capacity to dissolve and hold in solution all soluble substances including millions of tons of the most precious metals: its slow erosions of peninsulas and islands, its persistent formation of homothetic islands, peninsulas and downwardtending promontories: its alluvial deposits: its weight and volume and density: its imperturbability in lagoons and highland tarns: its gradation of colours in the torrid and temperate and frigid zones: its vehicular ramifications in continental lakecontained streams and confluent oceanflowing rivers with their tributaries and transoceanic currents, gulfstream, north and south equatorial courses: its violence in seaquakes, waterspouts, Artesian wells, eruptions, torrents, eddies, freshets, spates, groundswells, watersheds, waterpartings, geysers, cataracts, whirlpools, maelstroms, inundations, deluges, cloudbursts: its vast circumterrestrial ahorizontal curve: its secrecy in springs and latent humidity, revealed by rhabdomantic or hygrometric instruments and exemplified by the well by the hole in the wall at Ashtown gate, saturation of air, distillation of dew: the simplicity of its composition, two constituent parts of hydrogen with one constituent part of oxygen: its healing virtues: its buoyancy in the waters of the Dead Sea: its persevering penetrativeness in runnels, gullies, inadequate dams, leaks on shipboard: its properties for cleansing, quenching thirst and fire, nourishing vegetation: its infallibility as paradigm and paragon: its metamorphoses as vapour, mist, cloud, rain, sleet, snow, hail: its strength in rigid hydrants: its variety of forms in loughs and bays and gulfs and bights and guts and lagoons and atolls and archipelagos and sounds and fjords and minches and tidal estuaries and arms of sea: its solidity in glaciers, icebergs, icefloes: its docility in working hydraulic millwheels, turbines, dynamos, electric power stations, bleachworks, tanneries, scutchmills: its utility in canals, rivers, if navigable, floating and graving docks: its potentiality derivable from harnessed tides or watercourses falling from level to level: its submarine fauna and flora (anacoustic, photophobe), numerically, if not literally, the inhabitants of the globe: its ubiquity as constituting 90 percent of the human body: the noxiousness of its effluvia in lacustrine marshes, pestilential fens, faded flowerwater, stagnant pools in the waning moon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taxidriver1019 Films ARE factual. Opinions such as this OP kid are simply subjective preferences, but that in no way means there is no objective truth, because there is. For example, you can state Titanic is better than Lord of the Rings, which is ofcourse something that is simply objectively wrong, but since that's a subjective preference, it is quite an irrelevant opinion. Also, my mindset is obviously far more mature than yours, since you seem to take people seriously with these kind of favorites. What are you, some pacifistic justice warrior? Grow up, boyo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JDP2104 Obviously i agree with your first point, but the point isn't any different from objective beauty. You can easily disregard objective morality as many people have different senses of right and wrong, because this is also the argument you're using for beauty, which somehow isn't objective, lmao. That also means that you seem to disregard God's creations of beauty, because a true Christian believes in objective beauty too. Even some Catholics do this, and they are hardly real Christians. But what you're doing is making comparisons between two good looking women to prove your point, but comparisons have nothing to do with it. You can't deny that both of them are good looking, regardless of opinion, external of human perception. That comparisons are hard to make hardly makes any difference, because by itself, there is no doubt that one is either good looking, ugly, or somewhere in between. The first two never fit together, obviously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@izzmond3676 Yes, Twilight has superb acting too. Come on, man. Don't be such a ridiculous fairy. It's just an absurdly stupid movie. Oh, and i checked, and i rated it a 2, not 1, so get your story straight! 'Questions the nature of connection' ahahahahahahah that's laughable. What's so profound about that anyway? I swear, you pseudo critics always try to find things that aren't there in films. And yes, that movie with the long name deserves that rating. It's a good movie, but it has little coherence. It goes from one place to another with little to connect it. But visually it is quite good, though. I'm not harsh, it shouldn't be any higher.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jhonny ashes What the hell are you even talking about..? I never said all fictional stories are bad because they are fictional. In fact, fantasy is often times a better artform than reality. I am also a firm believer of the fact that movies should not resemble reality, but should instead be a metaphorical experience in order to bring out the greatest emotions in its audience. Suspension of disbelief, however, ceases to be that when it is used to put forth an idiotic & factually wrong political statement. People getting executed for owning a koran is the nightmare fantasy of the general liberal moron. It will never happen, can never happen, and it is only put there to forward the corrupted ideals that crap like v for vendetta brings us. It isn't bad because it's all fantasy, it's bad because it doesn't understand how governments & politics work, while creating an incredibly dumb political statement on it. It's dumb anti-christian propaganda for the liberal masses, it's not anything that has any artistic or entertainment merit. It is indeed something that wants to control your mind. A vain naive film for extremely naive people, that's all it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Colostatrel What a little hypocrite you are... Here you are trying to be some kind of justice warrior, but unknowingly you are trying to force me to act a certain way for no apparent reason, THAT is opression. Furthermore, some opinions are indeed better than others, and if you quit being a little child for a moment i could also explain to you why your list is terrible if you so desire. This is a free medium, and i can disagree with and criticize whoever i damn well please. By the way, if people are dumb, i call them dumb, it really isn't hard to understand. It doesn't have anything to do with disagreeing with me. It has to do with putting up dumb idiotic lists. A list doesn't have to have exactly my order to be acknowledged as great by me, so that's nonsense. Fact is, most morons on here have simply put up terrible lists, and yours is not quite an exception to this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leesamichelle1796 I beg to differ. You're constantly referring to the argument from authority, which means very little. What critics, institutions, and especially the general public says matters very little. This isn't an argument. Using people as an argument is an invalid one. You can objectively discuss aspects as acting, writing etc without referring to these irrelevant factors. Thus, i believe your argumentation to be invalid, since it has no context. By the way, yes i defended the Godfather in another thread, because it is a superb film, but it is just not as good as Goodfellas, which is the point here. If it looks like i am bringing down the Godfather, i apologize, since it is still a definite top 40 film for me and a sure masterpiece. Anyway, Goodfellas's superiority has little to do with more simplicity or a faster pace for young people. I have watched loads of films requiring great attentionspans. The character development is just that little bit better, the narrative structure is better, and the visceral and emotional power of the overall picture is just a little bit better. All of these substantial aspects easily beat the defeasible argument from authority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JDP2104 You do realize definitions are created by people and change over time, right? First off, these definitions are meaningless. They rely on the same kind of credibility of morons who say nazis were right wing. That is, the idiotic argument from authority. Definitions aren't infallible whatsoever, boyo. Besides which, let us also not forget that the definitions of these specific two terms differ. These two terms encompass all of reality, and all of subconscious reality, and therefore it must be one of the two. Were quality subjective, however, would entail that everything is equal. This would mean that nobody has any special talent over anybody else. This is obviously not the case, as is self evident in human nature. But even if you still don't agree with all this and choose to believe that left wing relativism, it changes nothing, because for example an acting performance can be compared to people in certain emotional situations, and therefore ascertained how closely to that one acts. This way, even in a relative sense, a clear distinction between good and bad is visible. No, there is no argument to support that quality is subjective. At least, i've never heard one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lalaland-pc6er
Tokyo Twilight (1957), the Human Condition Trilogy (1959-61), The Big Gundown (1966), Early Summer (1951), Random Harvest (1942), A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945), The Big Clock (1948), Lonely are the Brave(1962), Odd Man Out (1947), The Sword of Doom (1966), Heaven Can Wait (1943), Samurai Rebellion (1967), The Bad Sleep Well (1960), Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948), Night and the City (1950), The Roaring Twenties (1939), El Cid (1961), The Heiress (1949), Late Spring (1949),
The Great Silence (1968), Sanshô the Bailiff (1954), Kaidan (1964), Le trou (1960), Stray Dog (1949), The Big Country (1958), The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947), To Live (1994), Mrs. Miniver (1942),
Rocco and his Brothers (1960),
The Miracle Worker (1962)
& Wuthering Heights (1939) are all examples of fantastic films primarily only known to movie aficionados.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ricky B I've already explained to you why it isn't a subjective matter. And ranking movies is objective. This really is just the way it is. LOTR is factually one of the all-time greats. You can only say 'it's subjective!!!" because you can't counter it. That's the problem with subjectivists. This 'beauty in the eye of the beholder' crap is only there so people can pretend that utter garbage is something more than that. It's an insult to true art, and a plain insult to intelligent people, like me.
And i'm not only arguing that it should be universally accepted as the GOAT, it is ALREADY universally accepted as one of the greats. The most famous and prominent source of movie ratings, IMDb, literally has Return of the King as #7 of all-time. It's higher than Forrest Gump, any Star Wars flick, Saving Private Ryan and nearly every other one you've named already. Now, i don't think all of this means a whole lot, but you apparently do, and you should know that this information is factually not in your favor.
And yes, Saving Private Ryan is objectively one of the greatest war films of all-time, like you say. It would take an utter moron to dispute that, but again, i've seen far more movies than you, boyo, so the fact that it isn't in my top 10 isn't saying a whole lot. I can give you a larger list if you so desire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@quantumhype9839 Yes, we're both repeating ourselves right now, which makes sense as you're still getting triggered and calling people 'LOTR fanboys' without having any argument to back up why LOTR shouldn't be in a top 10. I've already given mine, so i have the validity to repeat asking this. However, you haven't given a single meager argument yet, yet you keep complaining about LOTR. If you were to actually put your opinion into words we might not be having to repeat ourselves, boyo. I'm still waiting. And if you have a top 10, why shouldn't you have a top 50? Put it on, boyo, let's laugh at your mediocrity a little bit. And the reason experience makes you more of an 'expert' in distinguishing quality is the simple fact that you have seen all pinnacles of cinematic history. Have you seen Harakiri, The Human Condition Trilogy, Come and See, Samurai Rebellion, The Leopard, Rocco & his Brothers, Ace in the Hole etc, boyo? I bet you haven't even heard of them. If you've only seen kiddy batman and mcu movies, you indeed are not very relevant in your judgment.
1
-
@quantumhype9839 So what the hell are you even arguing about? What's the point of calling people 'LOTR fanboys' if it's all subjective? You're such a hypocrite, it's quite incredible. But my list isn't even an opinion, it's not based on feelings. It's based on actual quality. Therefore, it is indeed quite absolute. And you thinking it's all subjective is unfortunately for you just an opinion, kiddo. One that's hypocritical by nature and utterly nonsensical, but i've already taught you that. In any case, since you think nothing holds any value, since it's all SuBjEcTiVe, there's really no point in arguing, so you must be trolling. Now, go live in your little fantasy dream world where everything is equal and everything is a matter of 'taste', boyo, while i stick to the real world and use the facts to distinguish actual quality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikedeeco11 Stating "no" isn't showing any forms of agression whatsoever, boyo, so it makes no sense to say i "attack" kids. You're acting like it is somehow personal too, yet i am merely making it clear that the lists themselves are crap. And that's not negativity, that's sound truth. Give me a good list and i'll be positive. Obviously the omniscient thing is satirical, working on the easy to trigger nerves of most kids in this comment section. Though it is true, of course, that i am by far the most intelligent on this thread. It is also common sense that a superior group enslaves an inferior group, NOT the other way around, that's just an absurd illogicality. So yes, through differences in years of hard work in creating societies, whites have been the superior race. "A real man does shit" seriously...? You're 14 years old, what do you know about "a real man"? Work is just another form of slavery. If there is another way of making money, one will easily accept it. This has little to do with masculinity, unless one has a family to take care of. And the pants suicide rates thing is an indirect link. It's one of the many nails into the coffins. It's one of the things making women more masculine, resulting in a decrease in marriages and an increase in unhappiness. The statistics all confirm this. So again, these points are all common sense.
1
-
1
-
MikeDeeco11 The point i made with ''no'' remains when i say ''garbage/shit list''. They are not forms of agression. They mean the same thing, that the list is crap. Again, it's not even a personal insult, as it is based on the list, and not the person in question. If they decide to take the unpersonal personal, i'm not responsible for their idiocy. One can't pay attention to what idiots might think when writing something.
And yes, superhero fanboys are morons. As Scorsese's & Coppola's rants have shown, REAL directors also acknowledge this. Schools are indeed not relevant as they test more the ambition and practicality of the student, and not the inner intellect. There is a significant difference there.
And Jesus Christ, are you stupid or what? I never said they SHOULD enslave an inferior group, you analphabetic thrall. I just stated that if there is slavery, it is done by a superior group to an inferior group, because otherwise it would be impossible. And yes, the group is superior. The greatest in art, architecture, literature, painting etc is all dominated by white males. Statistically, again, this is quite obvious.
I already admitted it was except when a male had to take care of a family, so what's your point? This isn't the case with me, so it's irrelevant. Your point is therefore also a nonsensical rant on a nonexistent delusion. And again, ( Saying again a lot, because you don't understand a lot ) if a bunch of islamic foreigners profit from welfare checks, i'll be damned if i won't. Work so we can pay taxes to that scum? Not gonna happen.
But.... the greatest of this entire nonsensical post is the latter part. You're ridiculing me for thinking clothing is relevant in the femininity or masculinity of a person.. while it is really common knowledge that plays a very significant part. Why the hell do you think women wore dresses or skirts anyway? It was to compliment their femininity. Crinolines, for example, were also made to compliment the figure of femininity. Clothing always does this. Never heard someone say ''he dresses like a man/woman?'' By your logic, that's impossible. To be honest, you really are rather stupid. You attach yourself to the cause of progress and 'our younger generation' from enthusiasm. You are one of the numerous and varied legions of dullards, of half-animate abortions, conceited, half-educated coxcombs, who attach themselves to the idea most in fashion only to vulgarise it and who caricature every cause they serve, however sincerely.
1
-
MikeDeeco11 They create a list, a list that is seperate from their personality for ones observing it as soon as it is posted, and if that list is shit, i criticize it. That is criticizing the list that they themselves seperate from their own personality by posting it. The list could be influenced by their personality, and it could not. It doesn't matter. The point is that the list is crap. Whatever else exaggerated conclusions they attach to it is quite irrelevant.
Of course Scorsese & Coppola won't publicly state that marvel fanboys are morons, but let's be honest, they both think this. One can't make any other conclusion. If the films themselves are just a bunch of mindless cgi fests, what does that make their fanboys?
And intellect has nothing to do with ambition, at least not of the practical kind. It just means you have the power and mental knowledge to know certain things. But since that there are many things, it really rarely correlates precisely with an education. The specific interests usually lie elsewhere. Thus, an intellectual might be ambitious, but rarely so with an education.
I didn't say whose lives are more valuable, i just stated what is the superior race due to obvious societal impacts. It is quite clear. And that really is the salient point here.
Why, welfare checks, obviously!
Yes, clothing has a lot to go with gender identity. That's why you have seperate sections for men and women clothing…. Jesus… even a child of 5 understands this. And who says jeans are more comfortable than dresses? You've ever worn one…? It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the post modernism fashion putting jeans up front, to take away all feminine forms of attire and '''equalize'' men and women. ( Of course, that just means molding women into men, which is also all that feminism was good for ) The last speech is directed at your very nature, and the nature of all progressivist post modernist like yourself. Going with the flow, following new ideas not looking at whether they are good and moral or not. You'll figure out its meaning someday.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@albynorthwest7383 Oh, but that's not just my viewpoint. Literally everybody well versed in music knows this. Classical beats all. This is really a point that's quite indisputable. You might not like it the most, but it is the best, for reasons i already gave. And yes, all rock follows that pattern. All other music genres also follow that pattern. There's the same beat and the same chorus. Every single one of them is like that. It doesn't require any real intellect to write such things. It works better on the attentionspan of younger people, hence why you like it better. But again, on its own, there's no question classical is superior tk everything. And yes, music is very much objective. If it wasn't, why the hell is it even wrong to play out of tune...? That's just a ridiculous way of avoiding conversation. Music is objective, and some genres are better than others. Although classical is of course in a league of its own. But rock, pop, rap, hardstyle and all that crap? Don't make me laugh. They're inherently inferior in every aspect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Parafraxus12 Soufflé, that's Breathless, right? The one where some guy randomly kills a police officer and starts mumbling consequent random nonsense while constantly asking "why this, why that" of his American girlfriend? Both of whom, incidentally, care nothing about the guy having shot a cop and do not even mention it anymore. And the scene in her apartment was laughable, lmao. What the hell was that dialogue? Looks like it was thought up by a 6 year old, although it was of course all ad libbed, which explains why it was so terrible. No, those are precisely the soulless characters i was referring to. And in Mepris, lmao? Birgitte gets mad for no apparent reason, and all we do afterwards is see her pathetic husband try and find out a non existent reason why with horribly repetitive dialogue. My favorite is the intro, lmao, when she's asking him if every part of her body is nice. Real insightful writing. And i've only seen Exterminating Angel of Bunuel, but he indeed seems to be one of the worst. Characters are what is most important in film. Bresson also didn't understand this when he kept making closeups of donkeys in Au Hasard Balthazsr, ahahahah. Human characters is what i refer to, of course.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1