Comments by "Morgan King" (@MorganKing95) on "Top 10 Overrated Movies" video.

  1. +Mohamed Mouzaoui Get out of here!!!
    13
  2. Nope
    8
  3. +Adam Timz Yes, so overrated that it got multiple Razzie nods and is one of the main targets when Michael Bay is being criticized
    8
  4. +Mohamed Mouzaoui That's all you have to say? You insult one of the most acclaimed movies of all time, and then you just stay silent without giving any valid points or arguments whatsoever? You're such a troll!
    7
  5. +AmericanRTV What's your reasoning?
    6
  6. +Stormwatch153 And what are your arguments? Without them, your statement is invalid
    5
  7. +Hugh Bakhurst Yes, it is, so your comment was a waste of space
    5
  8. What's wrong with it? Not enough explosions and action for you?
    5
  9. Well, it was obviously never meant to be a Superhero movie. I already knew that before I watched the movie, because I read an article about it, and I did not get much superhero movie feelings from watching the trailer. And it was obviously not meant to focus on story and message, nor on lots of action and visual effects (aka. Michael Bay style and several superhero movies I have watched). In both film and theatre, there are something called free associations, aesthetics, and the experience, as well as the art of filmmaking or theatre production.  The film references Michael Keaton’s obscurity after leaving the Batman franchise after the second movie (Batman Returns). And just like the Broadway production in the story is probably Riggan Thomson’s last chance to get back in the spotlight, this film was probably Michael Keaton’s last chance to make a comeback as an actor. If you are an actor, you know how hard and depressing it is to feel forgotten and ignored for a long time, and that you wish you could get one more chance to become important and great again. But there is more: playing the role has had such a huge impact and psychological effect on him that he believes the character is haunting him and controlling him, and that he is not Riggan Thomson anymore, but that he actually is Birdman and really has Birdman’s superpowers. Supposedly, he has almost developed DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder). I have also once immersed myself so much in the character I am playing that I suddenly feel like my daily life is strange and unnatural, and that I have lost myself (Not in such an extreme way  as Thompson though) Edward Norton’s character Mike Shiner references both to himself of being very stubborn and difficult to work with, and Method Actors in general; if his character is going to have sex with someone in the story, he really has to do it on stage, and he cannot react to a gun and become afraid if the gun does not look convincing enough etc. I am not a professional actor, but I do practice Method Acting, and Mike Shiner almost reminded me of myself, especially during my last year at High School (I took drama classes there and went a little too far with the realism, as well as being difficult to work with).  Naomi Watts of course represents the fresh Broadway actress who becomes a victim of the brutality of Method Acting, and how much a Method Actor makes his/her partner uncomfortable on stage because it becomes too close to real life (Something previously demonstrated with Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider in the controversial film “Tango in Paris”). Lindsay Duncan’s role as the critic Tabitha Dickinson of course represents the harsh critic who seems to write a terrible review just to ruin someone’s career or other selfish reasons, not because he/she actually thought the performance was bad.  It was also very interesting that the movie was being taken almost entirely in one shot; it did something with the mood of the film, and almost highlighted Riggan Thomson’s condition, as well as to make some of it look more like a documentary. One of my favorite moments is when Riggan Thompson is walking in just his underwear through the crowd on the street; it highlighted the pressure he is feeling about him being Birdman, and what he has to do to top that performance and become important again. In general, I just thought it was interesting to watch Michael Keaton and Edward Norton’s characters because I could somehow to relate to them, and the psychological condition of Riggan Thompson was quite intense in a subtle way, and the hospital scene made my quite dizzy and overheated because it was very unpleasant to watch, and it made me feel kind of lost when I left the cinema and tried to find my way home.  I do not care if there are some things that I do not understand nor thinks make sense in the movie; not everything in life needs to make sense, and some theatre plays and films are not meant to have a clear story and message, and be analyzed and interpreted with that focus. I just thought the film was dramatic, evocative, and atmospheric, I have lots of associations and things I can relate to, I thought it was creative to use that kind of cinematography and direction, I liked the references to Michael Keaton and Edward Norton’s real lives, and I liked the original decision of focusing on an actor’s past of playing a superhero, and his condition at the moment instead of making a movie about the actual character.   
    5
  10. That's not an argument, kid! Don't you know anything about movie criticism?
    5
  11. +Seth pelepchuk Obvious troll is obvious
    5
  12. The Godfather? Absolutely not!
    4
  13. DuzceliCK then you're watching it from the wrong perspective, just like those conservative theatre audiences who criticize avant-garde plays
    4
  14. nah
    4
  15. Technically, opinions are never right nor wrong
    4
  16. Stormwatch153 You're obviously too young to even come up with a reasonable argument
    3
  17. Why? Because it's more post-modern and original?
    3
  18. These are the main reasons I like "The Godfather" so much: - Marlon Brando and Al Pacino's acting and chemistry with each other and the other characters - The complexity of Vito Corleone and Michael Corleone, and the development of the latter - Every scene is well-written and affects the next one - I don't think any characters are misplaced or bland - Its storyline is nuanced and has lots of variation in setting, mood, and conflict - The music, art direction, and cinematography - The conversation with Michael and Don Vito in the garden, and the "Baptism of murders" sequence - It has a great and nuanced depiction of the American Mafia, but the story can also be interpreted as an allegory of capitalism
    3
  19. Would have been better if it was a joke, kiddo
    3
  20. The singing was horrible compared to how the musical is performed on stage
    3
  21. +barihope The Godfather? Get out of here!
    3
  22. +John Young 1. The scenery, art direction, aesthetics, and especially the cinematography are absolutely gorgeous and something I see way too little of in a film. I guess Mexicans really know their stuff 2. Leo had big precision in his physical acting right down to his fingertips, and that includes gestures and facial expressions. Not to mention that it's very difficult to carry such an advanced film with physical acting alone, and it's one of the few performances I've seen from him where he's actually challenged himself and stepped out of his comfort zone ("What's Eating Gilbert Grape" is another one). I think he usually looks too comfortable, while this was something new
    3
  23. +Mohamed Mouzaoui Marlon Brando's acting is trash? Oh, I suppose you're an expert then. Explain to me the following terms: - Viewpoints - The magical "if" - The method of physical action - Inner monologues - Gesture - Subtlety - Dynamism - To act vs to react - Impulses - Expressivity - Pause and inner tempo - Motivation - Reality of doing Based on the "arguments" I get from you, you don't seem to know anything about aesthetic judgment or acting at all!
    3
  24. You call that an assessment? And only a noob would think that the core of acting is the speech! I can see that you neither went to acting or film school. You're a joke!
    3
  25. +Thomas Williams "The Godfather"? Yeah right. Go watch "Transformers" or "The Last Airbender"
    3
  26. +Thomas Williams Why? Because it's subtle, dialogue-driven, and because you have an attention span of 10 minutes? The audience's critical sense and taste have gone downhill lately. Nobody recognizes real quality anymore
    3
  27. +Thomas Williams I was asking you a question, enemy of art criticism and quality!
    3
  28. +Thomas Williams Trying to be funny with me, are you? You discredit the movie and every critic and then you can't even make an assessment yourself? Hypocrite!
    3
  29. +Thomas Williams I'm not crying. I'm criticizing the fact that you're disgracing the legacy of David Hume and Roger Ebert and believe that you're superior to them and know more about aesthetic judgment than any critic, but you can't even live up to your claims! You're not only an enemy of cinema, but you're also a narcissistic troll. What the hell is wrong with you? Have you seen Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel, and Lindsay Ellis for example making assessments? They don't just say that a movie is overrated simply because it's overrated; they actually analyze and evaluate every cinematic aspect and see how it affects the aesthetic product as a whole. You don't do any of these things and still claim that you're superior to them? You're completely out!
    3
  30. Don't try to run away from me! You low-cultured trolls are going to get what you deserve and I will not stop replying until you stop acting like a kid and give me a real assessment!
    3
  31. +Thomas Willers The musical itself is amazing, but the film adaptation makes me cringe every time
    2
  32. It was generally panned though, so "overrated" is not very accurate unless you want it to be put among movies like "Battlefield Earth" and "Gigli"
    2
  33. ***** I am so tired of seeing the fanboys and girls claiming that he is the best actor of all time (or in the world) and that he is the new Marlon Brando, as well as making it seem like it is the end of the world that he has not won an Oscar yet. I loved his performance in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape", but otherwise, I think he does not challenge himself enough or step out of his comfort zone. He may have tried to do it in "Django Unchained", but I thought his performance was too unnatural and over the top, and that he was holding back and refusing to take the cruelty all the way
    2
  34. Hugh Bakhurst You didn't accomplish anything or added anything useful
    2
  35. +Lirianus Lol. Like what?
    2
  36. Super J-star FINALLY someone who understands the "Best VS. favorite" difference!
    2
  37. John Yang I'm talking from a normative point of view here, which is also the basis for these lists
    2
  38. DuzceliCK if you are so smart, then surely you can come up with better arguments than "it's overrated as hell", "it's boring as hell", or "all I got was whining Broadway actors" It is also clear that you have misunderstood a lot if you honestly believed it was meant to be a superhero movie. And if you want to be taken seriously, then use more appropriate language
    2
  39. PrimoCurby Typical juvenile comment. Am I supposed to get offended by that?
    2
  40. jamie mac What's the matter? Can't handle a post-modern movie?
    2
  41. Nah, they were both oustanding movies
    2
  42. Boring isn't an argument. Next!
    2
  43. +def osod The Revenant? Very funny
    2
  44. +Oliver Fletcher So let me get this straight; it's a horrible movie just because a lot of people YOU know hate it? Great argumentation right there!
    2
  45. Do you think this is funny? Do you think it's funny to insult me with your incompetence? Do you think it's funny to disgrace the legacy of David Hume, Stanislavkij, and Brando? You know nothing at all! You know nothing about movies! You know nothing about movie criticism! You know nothing about acting! Why the fuck hell did you even write your comment if you have nothing reasonable to say?! Troll somewhere else! You're a disgrace!
    2
  46. +Steven Reyna So content is all that matters to you, is it? The advanced cinematography, aesthetics, and art direction, as well as the music, the acting, the lighting, the nihilistic themes, the symbolism, and generally Coppola's direction and management of the cinematic elements in such an ambitious project don't matter to you at all? If content is all that matters to you, then stick to reading books. And no shit that it's over-dramatic; if you want it to be completely realistic, then you should just watch a documentary. Movies require to be above complete realism in order to preserve the artistic aspects and make the theme and conflicts perfectly clear.
    2
  47. +James Hodges Boring is not an argument, and it automatically makes me stop taking the opposition seriously. Also a ground rule in my book; if you're not at least half the critic Roger Ebert, Lindsay Ellis, and Doug Walker are/were, I don't care what you think.
    2
  48. +James Hodges You obviously didn't pay attention to WHAT they were talking about, kid. And no, boring is not an argument; it's a personal, internal, and irrelevant annoyance that has no connection to any of the formal qualities in the aethetic object. If you want me to take you seriously, then at least comment on editing and cinematography; those cinematic elements actually contribute to the pacing, only that this stupid current generation doesn't notice that since all they care about is action and special effects
    2
  49. +George Davis At least I'm not saying that it's overrated just because it's boring or because impatient audiences in the 21st century need action and special effects all the time to be entertained. Those are even more biased than what you claim that I am, and it's hard to take them seriously when they have such a juvenile and amateurish mindset. I'm actually trying to touch upon cinematic elements and formal qualities that really can be discussed and evaluated, and I'm dedicated to art criticism; otherwise I wouldn't have been so relentless towards people that take art criticism for granted. I've participated in countless cultural debates already regarding not only art criticism, but also Avant-Garde and autonomous art, as well as the fate of Volksbühne because Frank Castorf is getting replaced and it's uncertain if the theatre will keep its post-dramatic tradition alive. I also regularly watch videos by Doug Walker and Lindsay Ellis because they are one of the few people I've met in recent years who know their craft and take movie criticism seriously. Lindsay has even said that she's determined to be as informative as possible so that people don't have to go to film school to learn something. Also, "The Godfather" is not perfect; it does have a pacing problem and not always the most inspiring cinematography, but it's still a very well-made movie and definitely has advanced formal qualities that contribute to its overall aesthetics. It absolutely deserves all the credits it has received.
    2
  50.  @larsthurgood811  Yeah, I know I shouldn't. My principles just say that I have take any discussion seriously, but I guess there are exceptions
    2
  51.  @yhwachpoetry4205  Boredom is an internal and personal irritation that has nothing to do with the formal qualities, and there's nothing constructive about it or something a movie can fix. If you comment on editing, structure dramaturgy etc. (all which contribute to pacing), then that's fine, but boredom? That's your problem, and it's a highly vague assessment. And don't throw the opinion card on me; opinions are still normative statements that can be filled with fallacies and flawed argumentation to criticize, and anyone who knows anything about movie criticism knows that it's subjective in the sense that it requires a subjective mind to sense and evaluate the formal qualities, but you're still evaluating them based on the normative standard for what makes them aesthetically pleasing for its type if film and who it was designed for. Books have reading levels, and movies have "viewing levels" (if that's even a word)
    2
  52.  @yhwachpoetry4205  I never said "objectively", I said "normative standard". That's two very different terms, and you not understanding what I'm saying and the complexity of movie criticism is not my problem either; that's you not being experienced enough in the field. Not everyone has equal experience in directing and acting for example and nobody gets pissed when they're told that, so why is it suddenly a problem to be told that you're not experienced enough in movie criticism? Arts have standards and require skills and experience, and art criticism is no exception. There have been so many times where I read a review and it turns out that the critic is not experienced at all and have fallacies and flawed argumentation everywhere in his/her review, so how can I be sure that the film is actually of good/bad quality and not that it's just the critic not evaluating it properly? How would you like if you hand in a paper or maybe even a short film project to a teacher and it gets an F just because the teacher uses personal bias and irrelevant criteria? And then it gets evaluated by a different person who obviously has much more experience and developed critical sense and grades it an A. And you still haven't understood that it's not their opinions themselves I have a problem with, but their assessments. I don't agree with everything Doug Walker or Lindsay Ellis for example say, but I can still buy their opinions because they still have amazing critiquing skills. And other people not caring about formal qualities is their loss, because anyone who knows anything about movie criticism knows that they are highly relevant factors to take into consideration. And not everything that's considered "boring" to a lot of people is actually bad. People generally consider "Ulysses" to be a masterpiece despite finding it somewhat boring, and people still consider newscasts to be highly useful and well-made even when it's boring. Have you ever considered that maybe you're just not mature or patient enough to appreciate "The Godfather"? And I know what you're going to say next: "Oh, you're such a pretentious twat!". I don't care! As long as what I'm saying is backed up and approved by the most experienced within the field, then what everyone else is saying doesn't matter to me. And that's not being elitist, that's being critical to the source material. I would much rather take workout advice for example from Jeff Cavaliere than a million random obese people.
    2
  53.  @yhwachpoetry4205  Yeah, in the eyes of people who have little to no experience with movie criticism and have not had their critical sense mature and develop enough. Not everyone's minds were created equal
    2
  54. What in the blue FUCK is a “professional art critic?” Someone who does art criticism for a living, isn’t that obvious? Are you this deluded that you truly believe art can be objectively critiqued? No, I’m saying that some people have the skills to evaluate a film in such an effective and reasonable way that despite it being a subjective assessment, it makes the general audience think “Yeah, that actually makes sense when you really think about it. I can actually learn something from this guy” compared to someone who is so overly subjective and personal that the only response he gets is “Well, that’s your opinion”. You just claim that I say “objectively” because you haven’t researched about normative standards, because it’s definitely the latter I’m referring to, and both my colleagues, superiors, and Ebert, Ellis, and Walker have definitely understood it. Even JelloApocalypse has understood it. You’d rather take the advice of a person in shape about weight lose (loss) that (than) someone who is obese Of course. If I want to learn about getting muscular or generally in shape, I would much rather take advice from someone who has dedicated his life to it rather than a million people who don’t give a damn. I fail to see how that correlates to film critique Isn’t it obvious? I would rather hear the opinion of someone who has dedicated his life to art criticism than someone who takes it for granted, and that again has to do with being critical to the sources just like that people always get skeptical about Wikipedia since it’s written by “normal people” rather than being a site that quality secured and written by professionals. Once you see a movie and critique it, you’ve have experience (Lol, that grammar) Not enough! You kinda need to see many different types of films and be used to them and crack the code for what the criteria are. Everything is a learning process, so that’s why some people initially seem to hate a movie, but after learning more about its form, genre, and criteria, and see many different examples of that film, they get used to it and often change their opinion. That’s part of the reason why so many of the masterpieces today in art were looked down upon in its contemporary time, but have now received their acclaim in retrospect. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE WAY TO CRITIQUE ART, ALL ART IS SUBJECTIVE I never said it wasn’t subjective. I’m just saying that I find an assessment more reasonable and well-formulated when it’s viewed from the perspective of the general public rather than just the person himself/herself. And whose mind in this scenario is supposed to be the more advanced.....yours? No, I highly respect Roger Ebert, Doug Walker, and Lindsay Ellis and have always been overwhelmed by how much they seem to know what they’re talking about, and I’m always working my ass off to reach their level. They have also obviously won the general people’s hearts, so naturally I want to strive to become just like them and consider them way more credible sources for philosophy regarding art criticism than random people. Lol you have to be trolling, there is no way you’re this stupid Why should I care what you’re saying or even believe what you’re saying? What I have been trying to tell people here are supported by Ebert, Walker, and Ellis, as well as David Hume, film historians, journalists, and theatre professors, and those type of people are obviously more worth trying to impress or get the approval of since it seems way more likely that impressing them will make me become big within this field. It’s impossible to please everybody, so instead I have to be picky with whom I’m trying to please. Haters gonna hate! The fact that you're also now calling me a stupid troll makes me question your reliability and credibility even more, and I doubt that impressing people like you (those who take art criticism for granted) will be benificial to me.
    2
  55.  @yhwachpoetry4205  If these people actually were as skilled as Lindsay Ellis and Doug Walker, I wouldn't be as relentless, but they're not. There was also once that I criticized an amateur critics's review and that person just got whiny and salty and said I was stupid. I later criticized a professional critic's review the same way, and do you know what he said? He said "Thank you for a well-written feedback. Maybe we'll become colleagues one day". I once tried to publish an essay in an amateur newspaper and got turned down for being "too formal, technical, and boring". I sent the same article in a professional newspaper and it got published. I even got 2 additional articles published. Oh yeah, a critique is just a critique. So by that logic, a movie is just a movie, an exam is just exam, a singing performance is just a singing performance, and there's no point in having any criteria or standards? That makes total sense.
    2
  56.  @yhwachpoetry4205  You don't see me saying "Boo hoo! You're so mean to me! But you're right, I am such a moron!", do you?. That's already a proof that I don't care what you think. And your insults haven't changed anything, especially when what you think is stupid about me is seen as being intelligent, reflective, and insightful in the eyes of people I actually want to impress and make a good impression on. And tell me this; if I'm so asinine, arrogant, pretentious, and delusional, why have Roger Ebert, Doug Walker, Lindsay Ellis, and David Hume (whom all share the exact same belief as me) received their acclaim, merits, awards, and fame, and still continue to be popular? Why did I get my A's on the take-home-finals about this topic at the University? (the majority of the criteria were based on argumentation, viewpoints, and personal opinions rather than facts). Why did the critic consider me worthy of being a colleague? Why did the newspaper publish 3 of my articles that were highly subjective and close to being political? Why did an independent theatre consider me a helpful consultant for their production? Why did a local theatre call me "the big man" and wouldn't stop asking me what I thought about their latest production? I may not be close to being world-famous or even famous nationally, but that's okay. That just means I have something to strive for, and I still have accomplished more than what most people on my age and within my field and environnent can dream of, and of course I'm confident in my abilities and know that I can be better, especially when my role models have seen my potential. There are naturally some sacrifices to be made, which in this case is to have people like you hate on me, but that's okay since I instead get the approval of people I actually look up to, people that have more merits than an average person, and people that are benificial to impress. Haters gonna hate!
    2
  57. I want to be a critic, dramaturge, assistant director, or consultant, so yeah, of course I look up to those people I mentioned and want to be in the company of those people. If you don't like it, then fine, but the vast majority within this field worship them, and that's what matters to me. Also, an University is not the same as a school, and the whole thing about "grade doesn't matter" only applies if the profession you're striving for is not theory-based, but the profession I am striving for is entirely based on intelligence and theory, so of course it's a good foundation to ace take-home-finals that are entirely based on someone's intelligence and critical sense, especially when it's evaluated by those who have been in the professional field for decades. Also, I wasn't just talking about grades; I mentioned people in the professional field appreciating my abilities, as well as the fact that I have got in touch with professionals since they have seen my potential. Finally, if you think a 23-year old whose colleagues and peers are in their 30's, and whose tests about mental age suggest that he's 30, is a kid, then you must be an old geezer in comparison. And of course I called you a hater; none of the things you have said about me has been positive, and you spend more time insulting me than actually debating, and I'm not responsible for your headache. Take some medication if that helps you out!
    2
  58. if you think my tone is aggressive....lol good luck with life from the standpoint of a film critic. THIS? Is nothing in comparison I never said that I feel hurt, bent, overwhelmed, beaten etc. by your aggressive tone; I’m just saying that it makes you look immature and emotional, as well as hypocritical since you complain so much about my supposed arrogance and immaturity when you’re nothing better yourself. I also just wanted to inform you that your tone doesn’t make you look any smarter or more mature, and I hoped it would make you start acting your age and take things a bit more seriously, but I guess not. I also commented on it simply to inform you that the only way you could eventually bring me down was to actually debate properly. Ad-hominem doesn’t work on me. I’m just like Doug Walker; aggressive comments just nurture me. Also, I never once discredited your “peers and superiors” who think so highly of you You definitely didn’t say anything positive about them or thought that getting their approval or blessing is something to be proud of, so that’s enough proof for me to see that you discredit them. and your assertion that just because a film critics critique is constructive or well formulated makes it any better or more easily fragmented than anyone else’s is still asinine in the vacuum of art critique If that’s true, why is it part of the curriculum when you learn the most basic things about art criticism and something that David Hume, Roger Ebert, Doug Walker, and Lindsay Ellis (all well-established names) go by? It doesn’t matter the scope or lens in which you dissect art, it’s still just a subjective opinion And it’s your opinion that it’s just a subjective opinion and something irrelevant, and it’s not shared by those people I mentioned whom are more acclaimed, established, and respected than what most people within this field will ever become, so again, why should I even believe what you’re saying? And this isn’t a debate, btw. This is a petty YouTube comment thread back and forth It’s not petty to me, and I’m taking any discussion seriously. I’m not dumbing myself down just because we’re on YouTube and not at an official debate. I actually feature on several podcast’ in which REAL debate about varying topics take place and trust, this isn’t how I debate If you’re actually able to debate properly, then I’d glad to see it. If you did and we spoke the same “language”, then maybe this could actually turn into a discussion that’s more to your liking and we’re just exchanging opinions. With the way you’re “debating” with me now, you’re just making me waste my time analyzing and commenting on your fallacies and flawed arguments instead of sticking to the topic. This is simply for my entertainment at this point Constantly insulting someone who tries to take a discussion seriously, not take art criticism for granted, and actually being analytical is entertainment to you? You’re a very strange person. I’ve actually become rather enthralled by you superiority complex If I had a superiority complex, I wouldn’t have admitted that I have role models and there are a lot of people that I consider to be above me and superior to me. You seem to be the only person lost in wonderland, unable to truly grasp the concept of my opinion doesn’t have to match yours I never said it had to, but I’m definitely critical to your assessment and the way you’re arguing with me. Like I said earlier, if you could just debate properly and prove to me that you can write a reasonable, well-formulated, and well-thought-out assessment, then you’d be allowed to disagree with me as much as you want. Doug Walker highly disliked “Shrek” (a movie that I and a bunch of other people really love), but his assessment was so amazing that I thought to myself “Ok, fair enough. He’s still proven to be an amazing critic”. Someone says The Godfather is overrated and you instantly go into hysterics, typing away in an attempt to argue and sway opinion based mediums I’m critical to their assessments and the way they discuss me and come off as impatient children rather than serious debaters. You could say that them thinking it’s overrated trigger me, but if they had argued for their statements properly, then I would have forgiven it, but they don’t, so I’m starting to question if it’s really overrated or if they just don’t know how to evaluate it properly. There is a stark difference between presenting your opinion and arguing it against another’s persons, and shoving your opinion into the realm of fact I would love to have a discussion or debate like Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert had at their TV show or like when I’m participating in cultural debates with my colleagues, but unfortunately, these people won’t debate properly, so I’m critical to their assessment in an attempt for them to speak the same “language” as me, but it’s hopeless! Just like Lars said, I should just let this discussion die, but you still come back with catty comments. Take it how you want it but as I said before; you aren’t as important as you think you are and your opinion about a subjective medium holds no more weight than that of a 10 year old I believe that when I hear it from a credible source.
    2
  59. No opinion is wrong
    1
  60. Nowadays, it seems like a movie is considered to be overrated if it is: A. Focusing on story and character development instead of lots of action and visual effects (for example "The Godfather") B. Containing cinematic techniques and elements that are common in most movies today, but was really groundbreaking and revolutionizing at the time (for example "Citizen Kane") C. A movie where the focus is obviously meant to be on how the movie is made, the aesthetics, and the technical parts (for example "Gravity")
    1
  61. +Kelly Angel Burn Story isn't everything, especially not in post-modern movies
    1
  62. Yeah, yeah, yeah, kid; go watch "Transformers" or Marvel if you have such short attention span and little knowledge
    1
  63. Hahaha, troll
    1
  64. I agree. I got so annoyed when my class at High School constantly praised it and neglected the stage adaptations. The concerts for example have way better singers than in the movie
    1
  65. only if you're someone with bad taste in movies and know nothing about cinema
    1
  66. +Jesse Deliberti so you didn't like the movie because reasons? ok, that makes total sense
    1
  67. Jesse Deliberti You don't give any real reasons or arguments for disliking them. You just say they suck or that they failed to grasp your attention. That's not reasons, that's more statements
    1
  68. Jesse Deliberti Because you don't mention anything that supports your statement. Saying that it doesn't amuse you is just another statement that needs reasons. You could at least have mentioned things like pacing, acting, story, or direction, and your statement would become more valid Seriously, this is basic argumentation
    1
  69. Boring is not an argument
    1
  70. Why? Can't handle post-modern movies?
    1
  71. People are just unable to come up with a reasonable argument, so they instead blame all the things on the most obvious aspect to criticize; running time Not a very good assessment, if you ask me
    1
  72. +Thalia Magnifique You only think it's overrated because you take cinematic techniques for granted
    1
  73. Stormwatch153 Still no arguments, I see. Why do you never reply to me? Are you afraid of having a mature discussion?
    1
  74. Stormwatch153 I usually don’t discuss with people who can’t think of better arguments than ”Because it’s a piece of shit/crap”, but I’ll make an exception with you. First of all, I’ll explain the plot and conflict, because you seem to have missed the point completely. We have 5 Mafia families (a reference to the 5 families in New York) that have a rivalry and control different areas of crime, but have mostly lived in peace. The Corleone family is at the top, and problems start when an associate of the Barzini family (Sollozzo) offers Don Vito Corleone drugs to sell, but he refuses because it would ruin his political contacts and because drugs is a bad life style in general (Sollozzo probably knew that and tried to sell the drugs as an attempt to weaken the Corleone family and strengthen the Barzini family). Sollozzo attempts to assassinate him, but fails. When Michael Corleone (Vito’s son) finds out about this, he suddenly changes from becoming a family outsider into having lust for revenge. He successfully assassinates Sollozzo, but also his bodyguard, who is a corrupt cop, so the entire thing can trigger a war between the families (which happened). The war continues until the son of one of the other Dons dies and Sonny (Vito’s eldest son) dies in return, and Vito calls for peace even though he is unable to stop the drug business. Everything seems to be peaceful, but Don Barzini still knows that the Corleone family will remain strong, especially now that Michael has proven to be the perfect successor to Vito, so he plots to eliminate him, but thanks to Vito’s advice, Michael is able to think one step ahead and has his “soldiers” murdering the other Dons while he’s attending a Christening. This victory leads to Michael being the new Don of the Corleone family. So you see, the entire plot and conflict can be seen as an allegory of war and capitalism, and there’s always an important plot point in a scene that affects the next. The movie also shows the development of a Mafia family outsider who initially wanted to be a politician, but after the events of the film changed into becoming the head of the family. The movie also references Frank Sinatra’s alleged association with the Mafia in order to get big movie roles, and it’s shown throughout the entire film that every time someone is disloyal towards Don Vito, they meet their downfall, and when he makes an offer, nobody can refuse it.   
    1
  75. +Vicente Mariani Oh shut up, you know nothing about art criticism
    1
  76. +Ralzaly Chhoeng your opinion. Ideal critics and people with good movie taste would definitely disagree
    1
  77. Boring is not an argument
    1
  78. HindsightPOV​ No, it's not, because that feeling is based on a personal preference, and that's not something a movie can do about, and that doesn't make it bad. A friend of me for example personally hates drama films and tragic plays and has the same attitude towards anything that fit those categories. Does that make drama films and tragic plays bad and affect their formal qualities? No
    1
  79. I'm just saying how it would be most fair to give an assessment. I mean, let's say you were a director or film student, and you made a film that actually excels in every single aspect of its specific type or genre, but the critic or your professor gave it an F just because he thought the film was boring or it handled a theme he thought was uninteresting. Would that be fair? I at least believe there's a difference between favorite (or least favorite) and best/worst movies. But hey, I guess it doesn't really matter, because it's apparently impossible at this bloody website to seek a debate/discussion without being called pedantic, pretentious, condescending, or a know-it-all
    1
  80. HindsightPOV​​ Geez, I'm just trying to have a serious discussion, is that a crime? And how is me having a wide vocabulary and taking argumentation and movie criticism seriously making me all the things above? I was not even criticizing you as a person, I was criticizing your argumentation. What the hell do you want me to do so that I can look "normal"? I'm so sick and tired of all you people insulting me and looking offended just because I want proper arguments and because I'm looking for a serious discussion around the topic. And P.S. I'm was only talking about the "boring" part because I can live with the criticism of performances being forced (although more in-depth of it and more mentions of the other aspects would be nice), but "boring" is too subjective to be taken seriously
    1
  81. +Vicente Mariani Your English is giving me cancer soon, and don’t you use that “English is not my primary language” excuse, because English isn’t my primary language either. You already lost your credibility by saying “I don’t like classics”, and you obviously don’t realize that it’s the normative standard and consensus of several critics that determine if a movie can be considered a classic and a masterpiece. In other words, if 99% of all critics, magazines, and top 100s rank it as #1 or at least top 5, then it’s obviously not a bad movie at all and you just probably don’t have much critical or common sense. I will also be so courteous to enlighten you about the intrigues of “The Godfather”: Here we have an accurate and well-thought representation of the Mafia business; everything from explaining the hierarchy with a consigliere (“advisor”) and Don (Mafia boss) to bringing up the rivalries and competition between the different families, which again is meant to be analogies to capitalism and wars. What separates this Mafia story from other stories is that in a world of guns, drugs, casinos, prostitutes, and murder, the biggest crime is loyalty, and it’s disloyalty towards Vito Corleone that lead to people’s demise, while those who stay loyal and listens to him get rewarded. We also have a main character whom initially was seen as a family outsider, but because of his love and loyalty towards his father, avenges him and develops into a new powerful head of the family. “The Godfather” is also a great example of a movie where every scene is well-thought and affects the next one.
    1
  82. Vicente Mariani​ First of all, why are you talking to Matei L when I was the last one to reply? Second of all, my opinion is that the movie is a masterpiece and that you have bad taste, but you don't respect that apparently, so stop being a hypocrite. Plus that you can have an opinion, but still don't have a critical sense or decent argumentation skills. Only a select few critics can be called "true critics", and those select few has acknowledged it as a masterpiece. Who cares what you think? You're one single person who can't even write properly. Third of all, speak English! Forget about getting cancer, I'm getting AIDS from reading your lack of grammar.
    1
  83. Vicente Mariani That's irrelevant; there's a huge difference between favorite movie and best movie. Even critics are not 100% subjective; they base their judgment on what has been satisfactory for the average audience, but the subjectivity comes when they argue how well the movie handles its elements. I'm sorry, but I don't think a random Brazilian teenager with hardly any English competence and argumentation skills can affect its status as one of the greatest movies ever made. You're even a noob when it comes to movie criticism!
    1
  84. Vicente Mariani Started since Terminator? How fucking old are you? 8?! That's it, you are a disgrace to the entire film community; you can't write properly, you can't do movie criticism, you can't write anything new, and on top of it all, you're ignoring me! You are the most worthless and disgusting filmgoer I have ever discussed with. What the fuck is wrong with you?
    1
  85. +Vicente Mariani For the last time, it’s “writing WORDS “, not “worlds”, it's not supposed to space between the coma and the preceding word, you lack a capital I, your structure is awful (and so is your grammar), and you lack punctuations. And yes, when you make a statement (even if it’s an opinion), you have to justify and argue for it. That’s basic argumentation, and anyone educated should know that. But of course since you can’t even write English, your country most likely has both a retarded education system and lousy economy as well. And just like Pierre Bourdieu said, anyone with poor taste and an inability to make aesthetic judgments is low-cultured and has a low status in society. The reason you dislike “The Godfather” is because you’re low-cultured and are unable to sense the formal qualities in it and make aesthetic judgments. Consequently, you’re just a juvenile troll.
    1
  86. Vicente Mariani SPEAK ENGLISH!!!
    1
  87. Vicente Mariani And those who don't give a reason are either fantards or regular retards
    1
  88. It received mixed reviews, so it's not that overrated
    1
  89. DuzceliCK Well, I meant everything I said in my analysis of the movie; I really thought it was an interesting movie. I just prefer to have discussions in the style of a professional critic (reviewing a movie from an objective perspective) instead of simply saying "I hated the movie" or "I loved the movie" Ok, I realize that my "if you're so smart" comment was dumb; I guess I got a little carried away
    1
  90. ***** well, they managed to create the illusion, and I liked it very much
    1
  91. +Bruce Green there is a difference between personal preference and objective reviewing
    1
  92. +Bəərs Come on, a person can't be loved by everyone. For the record, I don't hate him, but I think he's overhyped
    1
  93. Chris P​ Ok, that's just incredibly shallow of you. What the hell is wrong with you? So, you're gonna just watch an actor and think "Eh, he's too ugly, so his performance sucks"? Of every moron I've seen who criticize an actor for something superficial, you're the worst of the bunch
    1
  94. daan Just ignore him
    1
  95. No, it doesn't
    1
  96. +PrimoCurby Juvenile assessment from someone who doesn't understand aesthetics or post-modern movies
    1
  97. Andre Sampaio Like I said. I don't get offended by juvenile comments
    1
  98. PrimoCurby Oh, I won't eat literal shit. But calling "Birdman" crap just shows how little you know about movies in general, especially since you cannot even argue for your statements. And why are you so weak that you have to talk behind my back instead of speaking directly to me? I won't listen, but at least you show some maturity
    1
  99. Andre Sampaio​​ Just give up; your juvenile insults don't affect me at all, you only make a fool out of yourself Why don't you make a good example and argue for why it's mediocre? And I want real arguments
    1
  100. Andre Sampaio Silly boy; of course I can write better aesthetic assessments than it seemed. I just asked you to write an assessment to give you a final chance to prove that you’re more than some childish troll who cannot write a single comment without profanity and biased “argumentation”. But you bungled it and made an even bigger fool out of yourself. Your “assessment” consists entirely of statements after statements without reasoning, reflection, and analysis, and they come off as biased, oral, and emotional. And you don’t even mention any of the cinematic elements and techniques, which post-modern movies focus on and highlight; they’re not supposed to focus entirely on story and message, but on aesthetics (atmosphere, music, art direction, visuals etc.) and free associations. Coupled with the fact that you continue to directly attack me instead of the topic, you’ve lost all of your credibility. I give you a little plus for actually writing the assessment though. I write to people based on the way they come off as and respond; if they act neutral, humble, and sophisticated, I comment in a friendly way. If not, then I criticize them and their comments. Your little friend could have humbly said “I don’t understand what the hype around ‘Birdman’ is and why it’s considered to great”, or simple had written “The movie is so incredibly overrated, in my opinion”, and I would have ignored him entirely. But no, he had to act childish and write “Oooh, the movie is such crap! Fuck that movie! And fuck everybody who praises it”. You don’t expect me to take that seriously, do you? The worst thing is that such assessments sometimes actually get printed in newspapers and websites. As for you, bucko, you could have just stayed neutral and given me mature criticism, but instead you foolishly attacked me in the same way as him, and it doesn’t bring the discussion any further. And you didn’t even have to reply to me; you could have just left the thread and moved on. Now it’s my turn: “Birdman” is a semi-biographical film about Michael Keaton’s period as a washed-up actor after leaving the renowned “Batman”-series. He is represented through an equally washed-up and emotionally stressed actor named Riggan Thompson (played by Keaton), whom used to be famous for playing the superhero Birdman in a movie of the same name, but now lives in the shadow of his former glory and is close to suffer from D.I.D. He makes a final attempt to retrieve his glory and relevance by directing a Broadway play, but his internal pressure, disturbed mind and inner conflicts, and the conflicts during production affects his motivation properly directing the play.   Thompson’s inner conflicts and disturbed mind is illuminated by the use of a relatively unsaturated color scheme in the art direction, the “spirit” of his own performance as Birdman controlling his life and putting more pressure on him, and the illusion of a movie being filmed in one shot; it’s awkward, yet mysterious and intense in a subtle way. The madness reaches it peak when Birdman’s spirit directly shows up and when Riggan Thompson imagines himself flying like his own character, and when he attempts to shoot himself on stage.  Riggan lives in a world where he is unable to shake off his own character and performance, where his lust for relevance and glory and feelings of being washed-up overwhelm him, and where people either sees him as a nobody or the famed actor he no longer seems to be. In addition, the film contains signs of satire through the characters; Riggan represents the washed-up actor whose character mentally controls his life and makes him unable to think clearly, and gets destroyed by his own inner conflicts and intrigues and disturbed mind. His co-star Mike Shiner represents an exaggerated and caricatured method actor, who wants to have every prop and action real, and also takes advantage of his fame to not cooperate properly. The reviewer Tabitha Dickinson represents the stereotypically biased and unreasonable critic who lets personal problems get in the way with actual assessments, and abuses her authority to butcher the play before she has even seen it.  It may seem too exaggerated to be considered realistic, but it strengthens the comedic elements of the film  
    1
  101. PrimoCurby​​ "The movie is still boring, because it is just boring and nothing more". Oh yeah, such good argumentation, and boring is not even an argument since it's based solely on personal preferences and not the movie itself. I appreciate that you actually try to discuss the movie though instead of attacking me; it gives you more credibility. There’s also something called "target audience", and if I were you, I would have looked at how it hits the target audience and how it handles its elements for its specific type and genre; not judge it for what it's not. I can respect that it's not your type of movie, but that doesn’t make it bad for those who analyze it from a technical and critical point of view. After all, post-modern movies are meant to focus on its technical achievements and appeal to the audience's free associations, and not focus entirely on story and message. In fact, they usually take a clichéd story and give it a new life through an original and aesthetic direction. "Movies are about entertainment". If you really think movies like "Requiem for a dream", "Apocalypse Now", "Schindler's List", "American History X", "The Pianist", and "Pink Floyd: The Wall" for example are meant to entertain the audience, then there’s something you have misunderstood. Comedies, thrillers, and action movies may have the objective to entertain people, but war movies and drama films for example are meant to move the audience and use the film medium as a way to talk about and/or criticize a serious or horrible topic, and post-modern movies like "Pink Floyd: The Wall", "Birdman", "Gravity", "Boyhood", and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" are meant to highlight and worship the art of filmmaking and be open for interpretation. 
    1
  102. PrimoCurby I consider them to be moving, shocking, intense, intriguing, and/or thought-provoking, and they're also some of my favorite movies. "Entertaining" for me seems more fitting for movies that make me laugh or feel amused and excited. And for the record, "Birdman" is not on my "Top 10 favorite movies" or "Top 10 best movies list", but I still give it high remarks for its cinematic achievements. At least you've redeemed yourself a lot more, so that's good
    1
  103. You're trolling by using the word "boring" in an assessment
    1
  104. Hahahaha... NO!
    1
  105. I have seen 3 different stage adaptations, and I'm starting to get tired of it. Still a good musical though
    1
  106. +Nenad Marinkovic the singing performances are nothing compared to the anniversary concerts
    1
  107. It's not that overrated; it received mixed reviews and was barely nominated for any awards
    1
  108. jason grace overrated means that something (or someone) gets more acclaim and praise than it (he/she) deserves
    1
  109. jason grace​ I didn't say that. I just said that an overrated movie is not the same as a movie that gets too much attention because of an incident But I don't think it belongs here because of what I said in my first comment. If it had a real high RT rating and was nominated for lots of Golden Globes (or Academy Awards) then maybe yes
    1
  110. +Mitternacht Angel Another juvenile assessment
    1
  111. +Strawberryknight Well, well, well. Isn't it the little kid who hates on "The Godfather" and "Birdman" and hasn't even learned simple argumentation?
    1
  112. TheNewRiflemanBob Just because you find it boring doesn't mean it's overrated. Heck, "boring" is not even an argument
    1
  113. +kmzstube you think "Raging Bull" is overrated? Get out of here! And in case you're going to say "It's just so boring", then it's not an argument
    1
  114. Your childhood? What are you? 12?
    1
  115. Chris Boring isn't an argument
    1
  116. AussieMan And I suppose you know so much more than them? There's something called "niche" and "art movie", you know
    1
  117. +MrMicroOxyde Why? Can't handle movies with some depth and discussions around moral philosophy?
    1
  118. you have a weird movie taste
    1
  119. But the actors are nothing compared to the actors/singers in the 10th and 25th Anniversary concert when it comes to singing talent
    1
  120. What annoys and bothers me is that Jim Carrey's comedy films overshadow the films where he shows his true potentials and skills as an actor: - Doing Time on Maple Drive - The Truman Show - Man on the Moon - The Majestic - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
    1
  121. +Paul Smith Why? Because you find it "boring"?
    1
  122. +Paul Smith Kiddo, if you're going to argue with me, then you need proper argument. "Boring" is not an argument, and critics praise the film because they're actually paying attention to the formal qualities in it. You're entitled to your opinion, but your "assessment" only makes you look like a juvenile troll, so nobody cares what you think.
    1
  123. +Paul Smith Why did you comment in the first place if you're such a lousy reviewer; you won't accomplish anything. Nobody cares about what the audience thinks; they're spoiled and low-cultured and have an attention span of 30 minutes. In comparison, I've worked as a dramaturge, participated in multiple cultural debates and published a handful articles in the local newspapers where I live, and went to Berlin to not only participate in seminars about aesthetic judgments, but also in a debate concerning Schaubühne and its directors Frank Castorf.
    1
  124. +Paul Smith My point is that I have some experiences and credibility within art criticism and you don't. I have better things to do, but I decided to take a few minutes to point out how pointless your comment was and how you were a waste if space. Why do you even comment if you know nothing about movie criticism?
    1
  125. +Paul Smith And we may be snobs, but at least we're not low-cultured children like you
    1
  126. Let me guess; you're one of those impatient and low-cultured teenagers who complain that the films are "boring" and "don't have enough actions"? And now you're gonna give me an assessment that's juvenile and on a way lower level than the movie you're hating on, right?
    1
  127. And why is that? I would prefer to hear better alternatives for the certain type of movie or certain direction methods than something as vague as for example "It's just boring as hell"
    1
  128. Well, it'd nice to just hear a simple reasoning. People often think something is overrated because there are better alternatives for its "category".
    1
  129. +LaughWithLucas No, but he directed Aliens
    1
  130. +Darian Caplinger The cast from the 10th and 25th anniversary make the cast from the movie sound tone-deaf or bored (except Samantha Barks since she appeared in the 25th anniversary concert), and I don't understand what makes "Chicago" and "Les Miserables" so much different from other musical adaptations that make them Best Picture worthy.
    1
  131. +THE GAMEZ The reviews have been mixed to negative, and I think that Halloween, A Nightmare On Elm Street, and even Scream have overshadowed it
    1
  132. +Deborah Rolski The singers were awful
    1
  133. +Salvador Candelario I didn't know movies were literature
    1
  134. Hahaha, I remember watching it with some friends and laugh and mock at the clichés
    1
  135. +Seth Turek What's the matter? Can't handle a post-modern movie? Hahaha
    1
  136. +Seth Turek I don't care what your background is. You're not Roger Ebert, Lindsay Ellis, or Doug Walker, so that "background" means shit
    1
  137. +troywin45 "A Streetcar Named Desire"? Get the fuck out of here!
    1
  138. +troywin45 I haven't seen the other movies enough to give a full analysis (though I don't agree with you), but I know "A Streetcar Named Desire" like the back of my hand, so if you think it's a bad movie, then you should get your brain checked. And btw, any noob knows that "boring" is not an argument. I've written countless freelance articles in the local newspaper where I live, participated in God knows how many cultural debates related to art criticism, and worked as a dramaturge, so I should know.
    1
  139. +troywin45 Oh, I don't know, maybe: - Marlon Brando revolutionizing modern film acting in terms of viewpoints, gestures, establishment of character and space, reacting rather than acting, and basing his motivations in the moment and the impulses he's given rather than leaning on contemporary conventions. - A deep and complex story of a former Southern Belle (Blanche) suffering from bipolar disorder who lives in an ideal, perfect, and aesthetic "fantasy world" where she virtually plays a character in order to shove away her inner conflicts, and also always is escaping her past and running away from her problems, but gets overwhelmed and broken by the harsh reality represented by Stanley Kowalski and modernity. Vivien Leigh had to act like she was acting on top of making the bipolar disorder look convincing. Not to mention that she was playing a fading Southern Belle. - A woman (Stella) being abused and mistreated by her husband (whom lives after the Napoleonic Code from the 40's) and tries to stand up for herself, but gets manipulated by Stanley due to his sexual charm and false sympathy and apologies. - A man (Mitch) having a dying mother and is determined to make her last wish of him settling down come true, and also is the only man in town that Blanche considers a true gentleman, but her inner conflicts once again gets the better of her and Mitch is also a social outsider. - The symbolic images of the Kowalski apartment getting more and more snug to represent Blanche's mental breakdown, the summer temperature symbolizing strong passions and conflicts, and a metaphorical streetcar literally taking her to a place full of desire, lust, manipulation, betrayal, and mental illness. - Stanley feeling challenged because he has always been the "king" of the household, a man in a male-oriented world, and someone who has always been able to keep Stella in check due to his role in society and sexual exterior, but now feels patronized because Blanche obviously grew up in richer environments than him and indirectly says that Stella is not the right woman for him even though he claims that women are just a trophy for him. - Alex North' jazz score and the film's cinematography - Elia Kazan's work with the actors and ability to handle such an ambitious project.
    1
  140. +troywin45 That's your response to me?! Well, isn't that typical? Somebody tries to discredit Tennessee Williams, Elia Kazan, Vivien Leigh, Marlon Brando, and me, but then comes with bullshit argumentation. Are you trying to be funny with me? You're just like an old man in the city where I live who tried to discredit Robert Wilson, but then turned out to know nothing about Avante-Garde theatre on top of being shit at argumentation. The critics in a student newspaper were also horrible at art criticism, and both the editor-in-chief and cultural editor couldn't debate properly with me at all! Based on the "arguments" I've been given, I don't think it's the film that's overrated, but that you're just a bad audience member who can't grasp the formal qualities. But I won't leave you alone until you give me a real response
    1
  141. +troywin45 I don't have a problem with someone's opinion as long as his/her argumentation is good. I wouldn't mind the old man's opinion or the student critics' opinion either if their argumentation was good and they gave me some new perspectives, but they turned out to be shit at arguing for their statements. And you're discrediting a bunch of artist because your criticism of them is on a far lower level than their artistic abilities, so who are you to say what's overrated or not?
    1
  142. +troywin45 I received A on every take-home final related to art criticism, have written countless articles in the local newspaper where I live related to art criticism, worked as a dramaturge, and participated in multiple cultural debates both in my country and in Berlin. Not to mention that a lot of people in my environment claimed that I had the final word, and a local theatre wouldn't stop asking me what I thought about their performance. I think I have more than enough experience and merits. No, I expect you to give me a real analysis. I wouldn't be satisfied with "it's a masterpiece" either since that's also just a statement completely void of proper arguments.
    1
  143. +troywin45 If you're going to give me an analysis, then at least do it properly! And I talked about more than just Brando, and I can also say with confidence that his performance has aged well. And more importantly, I actually used real terms unlike you.
    1
  144. +troywin45 Check out Roger Ebert; this is how you write a real assessment: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/a-streetcar-named-desire-1993
    1
  145. +troywin45 I asked for a real assessment! And his performance gave birth to an entire generation of actors that would continue to be influenced him in years to come
    1
  146. +troywin45 I never mentioned money, and me analyzing the depth of the story and complexity of the acting and the characters should give you an implication of what I think, and Brando's formal qualities are certainly relevant even today. Since you never give me a real assessment or even a proper response, my verdict of you is that you're just a troll
    1
  147. +troywin45 Brando barely had any movie roles before "A Streetcar Named Desire"; it was his breakthrough performance, and considering that the movie was highly driven by dialogue and character work, his performance being strong is a huge plus. Yes, you gave me an "analysis", but it was so poorly written that it doesn't even count, so I'm still waiting for a REAL analysis from you. I only mentioned my merits because you tried to discredit me. And yes, I'm white and proud of it
    1
  148. +troywin45 And I based my analysis on the result; I have no idea how the process went. You're just too low-cultured to see the aesthetic value in the formal qualities and can't find a better argument than "boring" (which isn't even an argument)
    1
  149. +troywin45 You said "who are you to say my criticism is on a lower level?" Who cares about my opinion? Obviously everyone in my environment and my professors back in college since I've already accomplished so much and people won't stop asking me what I think, and I can say with confidence that I know way more about art criticism than you do. No, I don't expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to a write a way better assessment than you gave me. If you think the movie is overrated, then you're doubting the critics' competence, so surely you should at least be able to write on the same level as Roger Ebert. If not, then my verdict of you is that you're just another hater just like the old man who tried to discredit Robert Wilson.
    1
  150. +troywin45 No, you're a hater of those specific movies and those specific performances
    1
  151. +troywin45 Well, isn't that typical? Instead of finding a good counter-argument, you resort to ad-hominem. Great argumentation, kid! If your goal was to bend me, then you failed. And you're specifically hating on "Gone With The Wind" and "A Streetcar Named Desire". I don't care what you think about "It Happened One Night" and "The Godfather" in this debate.
    1
  152. +troywin45 How am I a racist just because I'm proud of being white? All of my closest friends from my childhoid were black or Asian! And I'm saying that since this conversation is about "A Streetcar Named Desire", then what you say about that movie is relevant here, and it also doesn't matter to me if you hate that movie and like "The Godfather" since we were not talking about the latter film. You're just using ad-hominem now and have become emotional because you ran out of arguments.
    1
  153. +troywin45 Being proud of someone's race is to not to be racist; it just means that I'm satisfied with my ethnicity. What do you want me to say? "No, I hate being white! I wish that I was black". And being proud of someone's country is to be patriotic. I can say that I'm happy to be white if that sounds better. How you're hating on "A Streetcar Named Desire"? Our entire conversation has been you criticizing it and discrediting it and doubting the aesthetic values of it!
    1
  154. +troywin45 Boring is not an argument, and I never use it in aesthetic judgments. Pacing and dramaturgy are way better aspects to reflect around
    1
  155. +troywin45 Still too vague
    1
  156. +I Stan Kid's movies can still be well-executed and have layers. I mean, look at "The Lion King", "Hunchback of Notre Dame", and "Lilo and Stitch". There's always a standard
    1
  157. +Richard Harris Is this a bad troll?
    1
  158. +TheSharkLord Just because it's popular doesn't mean that it's actually good; the average moviegoer's standard has been considerably low this century
    1
  159. +TheSharkLord It's only the most success movie of all time because of a pragmatic and low-cultured perception the modern audience has about art, and there isn't much Avatar provides that mediocre movies like Michael Bay's flicks and 90% of every superhero film also provide. If I want to see something artistic, I will rather watch "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "Birdman", "Apocalypse Now", "The Godfather", "Fight Club", "Gravity", "Last Tango in Paris", "Citizen Kane", or any movie by Ingmar Bergman
    1
  160. +TheSharkLord Yeah sure, just go around and support the pragmatic and low-cultured philosophy and the perception of movies being literature. A philosophy where the cores of filmmaking are neglected in favor of an overpraise of non-cinematic elements because modern moviegoers are not intellectual enough to grasp and sense a film's formal qualities and complexities. Pragmatic moviegoers make me sick!
    1
  161. +TheSharkLord Entertains the low-cultured audiences, you mean! I see nothing entertaining about those kinds of movies
    1
  162. +TheSharkLord What's the matter? Ran out of "arguments"?
    1
  163. +TheSharkLord There's a difference between aesthetic judgment and personal preferences!
    1
  164. +TheSharkLord I already am involved in theatre! And aesthetic judgment applies to any art form! (Including movies)
    1
  165. +TheSharkLord Hey! Don't turn your back on me, I'm not finished with you! You don't offend me with your ignorance and pragmatism and expect to just leave!
    1
  166. +TheSharkLord Still ignoring me? Yeah sure, just act like an immature kid instead of handling the topic seriously. Great argumentation, kid!
    1
  167. +TheSharkLord That's what I'm talking about; immature and afraid of debates and conflicts. Typical juvenile thought process
    1
  168. +TheSharkLord Somebody's not experienced with aesthetic judgment and David Hume's "standard of taste"
    1
  169. +TheSharkLord Still no real response? Alright, then my verdict is as follows: You're a selfish, ignorant, and immature fake moviegoer who doesn't respect cinema, nor do you respect everything the forefathers have fought for and accomplished. You're blinded by low-cultured and disrespectful movie directors' exploitation of the misconception about what a real movie is supposed to look like. All you care about is watching poor imitation movies that doesn't respect the core of cinema, and on top of it all, you're completely unable to even defend your actions and understand basic concepts within movie criticism. Conclusively, you shouldn't even be allowed to watch movies, because people like you are threatening quality and real movies' chance to grow. And you're not bright enough to understand that you should be embarassed and ashamed by yourself. Case closed!
    1
  170. +TheSharkLord - You only speak on behalf of yourself instead of the cinematic community. Do you really think you're some elite critic who knows more than those who have dedicated their lives to aesthetics judgment? - You're immature because you never give me any real responses and instead offend me and ignore me and then turn your back on me. - You're a fake moviegoer because you only care about movies that are by definition and from a formalistic and essentialistic point of view not real movies, but for some reason entertain people and earn money because of low-cultured audience's ignorance and misperception of movies. - No shit that everything is your opinion, but there's a difference between personal opinions and movie criticism (this list bases itself on the latter). When making a favorites list, sure you can be as biased as you want, but when judging the BEST movies, then it's about evaluating how the genre and the formal qualities correspond with the normative standard of what makes something satisfying for the average moviegoer. And the normative standard is that mindless and over-the-top flicks like Avatar are bad because there's no depth, no real aesthetics, and no thoughts put to the formal qualities; they're just there, and the movie wouldn't be any different if it was an empty black background. Learn some basics about movie criticism before you question the competence of me or the normative standard of why Avatar is overrated!
    1
  171. +TheSharkLord And there you go again ignoring me!
    1
  172. +TheSharkLord 4 days passed and still ignoring me. That's why you're so immature; you offend me and doubt my experiences and then just walk away pretending that nothing ever happened
    1
  173. +Petty Jane This video is from 2014
    1
  174. +Robyn Glover What? Can't handle a post-modern movie?
    1
  175. +Robyn Glover The opinion card is no excuse for poor taste and bad assessments. If you're going to doubt the critics' competence and taste, you should at least be able to be somewhat better than them. Based on your "assessment", I think it's you there's something wrong with, not the movie.
    1
  176. +Robyn Glover Here we go again; the opposition just tells me to fuck off just because he/she is too lazy to come up with real arguments
    1
  177. Yes, you made a comment, but it was a waste of space since you obviously didn't accomplish anything due to your complete lack of argumentation and willingness to even make points for your opinion. "You have your taste in movies. I have mine. They are differnt. Not everyone will agree with you. Not everyone will agree with me. That's just how it goes". That only applies when talking about favorites/least favorites, but you said "Pulp Fiction" was overrated and that critics were dumb, which means that you're trying to view this from a critical, technical, and formalistic point of view, and you obviously have no experience with that. Move critics are overrated? No, it's the audience that are overrated; they always claim critics are so dumb and pretentious, but when they're trying to give an assessment themselves, it's incredibly poor and the equivalent of calling an athlete skinny when you're only skin and bones. You claim critics are overrated and stupid, but you can't even give an assessment yourself or even analyze the critics' argumentation. What a hypocrite! If you also knew anything about critics, you'd know that the most acclaimed and competent ones are those who base their assessments on the normative standard of what makes something aesthetically pleasing for the average moviegoer. And no, I'm not unhappy in my life. In fact, I've accomplished more in my life than anyone my age can dream off. My life is wonderful, and art criticism is one of my biggest passions. Unfortunately, there are too many ignorant people like you who view certain movies as overrated or critics as dumb when they don't know anything about how movie criticism works.
    1
  178. You called "Pulp Fiction" and critics overrated, ultimately implying that you're doubting the critics' competence and the movie's merits. Ergo, you're calling critics dumb and pretentious. And we're not talking about fashion here, so your analogy doesn't work. "I have a mind of my own to decide". That's good, but you're still awful at movie criticism. "I didn't like the movie". That's fine, but when you're doubting critics' competence, it's no longer about liking/disliking something; it's then about aesthethic judgement. "What about that do you not understand?" That you doubt critics' competence and a movie's formal qualities when you can't even do simple assessments or argumentation. "And what about me simply saying , "it wasn't my cup of tea" confusing to you?". Again, when talking about something being overrated, it's no longer a matter of preference, but aesthethic judgment. "Do YOU agree with EVERYTHING critics say?". No, there has been an entire local newspaper in the city where I live that has such awful critics that I don't even understand why they're even reviewing art. However, the critics were spot-on about "Pulp Fiction" "Hypocrite?". Yes, you're a hypocrite when you think a movie is poorly made and critics are overrated when your assessment on the matter is even worse. "YOU didn't even ask me WHY I liked it or not. YOU just automatically jump to the conclusion that I was lazy and have no taste and have bad judgement". Any educated person would know that a statement is not valid without proper arguments, and I also did ask you why, but you're only response was "still sucked! Waste of my time", and you also just shoved away my arguments and threw the opinion card on me instead of bringing up a real counter-argument, and that's just pure laziness. "YOU said critics were dumb, not me". You said critics were overrated, and you implied they were dumb when you viewed "Pulp Fiction" as overrated. "Why are you being an ass about it?". It's called taking art criticism and argumentation seriously, and ad-hominen (calling me an "ass") doesn't work on me. "oh, wait, because you view me as a simple human with no experience or education, or anything worthy to say". You didn't say anything relevant about movie criticism here nor did you display any reviewing skills, so why did you even bother to comment? "Pssssst, my world and milions of others' lives don't revolve around you". I didn't say it did either. "If you're such a high and mighty "art critic" why are you trolling on frikin youtube?". I'm not trolling, I'm pointing out the stupidity and flawed judgment of people who always hate on critics and on art, but can't bring up any assessment themselves. "By the way. I watched the Shinning (wrong spelling) finally. What's all the hub bub about. For ME it was so long and boring". Another bad assessment with no real arguments whatsoever. Something tells me that there's something wrong about you, not the movie. "Again, just movies that didn't appeal to my stupid mind". You're not really much of a critic though, and I remember this old wanker who tried to hate on Robert Wilson just because he couldn't understand simple experimental/visual theatre, and he even went as far as publishing a news article where he claimed that the critics were dumb since they gave the performance 5/6 stars rather than 2/6. Me and a colleague published an article each in the same newspaper where we bombarded him with criticism and pointed out his flawed judgment.
    1
  179. “Just because I don't agree with the critics, I view them as stupid and pretentious and I don't view them as credible and movies unmeritable?”. You do it when you doubt their competence and don’t come with any good reviews yourself or even pointing out their flaws. “Their degree in criticism doesn't delegate my viewing”. So that means would walk into a fitness center for example and ignore any advice from a PT? “Why can't someone JUST not like something without having a degree-worthy-pick-apart-reason to?”. You can, but it’s pointless to bring it out in public and doubt a critic’s merits when you’re obviously not near as experienced or skilled as them. “Wow. Judgement to it's (its*) finest”. Yes, everyone thinks that a movie is bad, but there have been a lot of cases where it’s the person viewing who is bad due to factors such as lacking experience, not having enough knowledge about the type of art, and not having strongly-developed senses.
    1
  180. +Cathy Colicchia Well, the idea was good, but the live-singing was poorly executed and didn't make the movie any better.
    1
  181. +Cathy Colicchia I guess, but it still proves that you don't have much experience in musical singing or even movie criticism. If you take these tone-deaf actors from the movie and compare them with the singers from the 10th and 25th Anniversary concerts, there's just no contest. (though Nick Jonas from the latter concert sucked as well, while Samantha Barks also appeared in that concert and sounds great in the movie as well, so I'll give her a pass. I'll also give Colm Wilkinson a pass)
    1
  182. +Cathy Colicchia "I have been involved in music since the day I was born" And I've been stuck with supposed acting "veterans" who constantly spew out misconceptions and false information around method acting until I wrote a bachelor thesis and proved them wrong. Not to mention that there was an old geezer in the city where I live who had attended a local theatre festival for 45 years, but still knew nothing about Robert Wilson or experimental theatre and still felt the need to try to discredit him. I had to write an article in the local newspaper to bombard him with criticism. Bottom line, I don't care how "experienced" you are; you still have awful taste, and you probably know nothing about aesthetic judgment. Do you even know what aesthetic judgment is? No, I didn't think so.
    1
  183. Note that she said "excessive use of close-ups", which is actually a good point. Close-ups work the best as a way to see how a character feels inside and how he/she expresses it with only his/her face in focus, or it can work as a way to highlight how beautiful (or ugly) a character is in the face. However, you don't need to use multiple shots that are close-ups and they don't need to be almost a minute long either. Nuance is key, and wide shots are also effective since we can see how the character feels with his/her entire body, highlight empty spaces, and see how the character reacts to his/her environments.
    1
  184. +Thiên Phúc Nguyễn Đình The Force Awakens didn't exist yet
    1
  185. +Oliver Fletcher What's your reasoning?
    1
  186. +Oliver Fletcher Haven't you learned that when making a statement, you have to argue for it?
    1
  187. +Oliver Fletcher Still no response? Why did you then bother writing your comment in the first place?
    1
  188. +Mohamed Mouzaoui No? I guess you don't have a clue then
    1
  189. +Mohamed Mouzaoui Apparently, that was too much to ask from you!
    1
  190. +Mohamed Mouzaoui Hello? I'm still waiting!
    1
  191. +Mohamed Mouzaoui I said; give me a proper argument! Stop acting like a clown
    1
  192. +Mohamed Mouzaoui Give me a real argument this minute!!!!!
    1
  193. +Mohamed Mouzaoui What part of "real argument?" don't you understand?!!!!! GIVE ME A REAL ARGUMENT NOW!!!!! Stop acting funny!!!
    1
  194. +Mohamed Mouzaoui STOP IGNORING ME!!!!!
    1
  195. +Mohamed Mouzaoui What's the point of you commenting if you're an awful debater?
    1
  196. +Mohamed Mouzaoui Now I'm convinced that you're just a troll.
    1
  197. +Mohamed Mouzaoui Couldn't even answer my simple question of why you won't give me a real response. You're hopeless! Allahu Akbar!
    1
  198. +Mohamed Mouzaoui That you still haven't given me any arguments. All of that is still just a bunch of statements
    1
  199. +NOxxieKaye It's a good movie, but to be considered great, a movie should stand out from its competition
    1
  200. +Do It! Nah!
    1
  201. +Steven Reyna Why?
    1
  202. Wow, what a great argument... not
    1
  203. +Connor Webb That's still bad argumentation
    1
  204. +Thomas Williams Thought that I had forgotten about you? Well, I haven't. Unless you can actually give me a credible assessment, your opinion is invalid
    1
  205. +James Hodges LOL, such an amazing "critic". Doesn't even respond to a simple comment
    1
  206. +George Davis Um...kid I’m 23, so don’t even attempt to act like some veteran unless you’re 60 or something there is also more to film than just editing and cinematography Yes, but those elements are some of the most important and essential ones and contribute to the pacing and nuance, as well as highlighting an atmosphere, bringing out a scene’s subtext, and strengthen up every other element. When people are bored by a scene, it’s usually because a shot lasts for way too long and doesn’t have enough nuance, or if the editing, cinematography, and even music don’t flow with the atmosphere, subtext, and what’s going on. And there are so many people who think that story and acting are the core of cinema when you can find those elements in mediums such as theatre, radio dramas, and even storytelling. The camera work is what defines cinema and separates it from other mediums. there are a lot of sci-fi movies nowadays that have great cinematography but do not keep the attention span of modern moviegoers Yeah, modern moviegoers, and who are those people? It’s clear that they’re not the most intelligent people or those who are experienced with film science or film language, so one may ask if it’s the movie there’s something wrong with or the audience. Believe me, I’ve spent a long time dissecting other people’s assessment, and from an argumentative point of view, it’s clear that they have no idea what they’re talking about. boring movies typically have pacing problems Yes, but at least comment on the cinematic elements that contributes to this instead of just saying “this is boring” don't try to harp on someone for disliking the godfather when this movie is not exempt from constructive criticism What constructive criticism? The only thing I’ve gotten from these people are “This movie is boring”. How is any director supposed to learn anything from that?
    1
  207. +James Key You could say that I'm provoking people into giving me an actual analysis of why the film is so overrated, but so far I'm only getting vague assessments, whiny comments, juvenile complaints, and amateurish movie critiques that are being taken for granted, which just further proves my thesis that it's not always just the product itself there's something wrong with, but the person reviewing it. "The Godfather" is an advanced and mature movie that requires a lot of experience, a very strong and developed critical sense, and a special sense for subtlety and extra details in order to give a fair assessment. It's not aimed at impatient teens and amateurish moviegoers.
    1
  208. Also, I wasn't always crazy about the film. It required a lot of rewatches, a reading of the novel, and some more insight in filmmaking and art criticism for me to really see its beauty, but when I did, I immediately understood why so many people praise the film.
    1
  209.  @yhwachpoetry4205  And again, insulting and attacking me don't get you any points here. And unless impressing you leads me to getting a job within a prestigious newspaper or theatre institution, I don't care what you think
    1
  210. Do you remember when I asked "Why should I believe anything you say to me?"?. Well, I'm asking that again, because if my choice is to believe you or believe my idols, I definitely choose the latter, and you're also not David Hume, so that definitely challenges my ability to see you as a credible source
    1
  211.  @yhwachpoetry4205  I find it enjoyable that every response from you is you being catty, emotional, aggressive, spiteful, and offensive, and everything is targeted at ME rather than the topic. If you want me to take you seriously, then at least keep your cool like any serious and mature person would do. My superiors can handle it just fine in any debate, but apparently not you. Saying that someone is retarded is definitely not a good counter-argument, and I expected a lot more from someone who claims that he's a mature adult and I'm an asinine kid. I also find it ironic that you claim that I'm so arrogant and full of myself, but when I refer to people I look up to, are part of my environment, or are people I directly acknowledge to be above me and superior to me, you just shove them aside and discredit them in favor of your own personal judgment of me. That's pretty hypocritical if you ask me, and your aggressive tone just adds insult to injury. It doesn't make you look any smarter or more mature either. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you're just frustrated because I don't find your argumentation to be convincing enough or your insults to be any effective. I've also got a feeling that your headache is just a result of your frustration. Also, you still fail to see that I have never said that I find art to be objective or factual. I said that I find it to be normative, meaning that it's not a fact that something is aesthetically pleasing or not, but since experienced critics' assessment are so well-formulated, well-thought-out, serious, analytic, and generally reasonable and convincing to such a degree that the vast majority can relate to the assessment and consensus, then it becomes harder to disagree with them since it's hard to find an effective counter-argument. Norms are never factual, but since arguments behind them are so relatable and reasonable, people just accept them. Critics are like consultants, and what a consultant says isn't always factual either, but it can still be considered reasonable. Not everything a politician or salesman says is factual either, but it can still be reasonable. One last thing I haven't mentioned is that there's a difference between personal bias and aesthetic judgment. With the former, you can bring up any factor you want and nobody should comment on that, and it usually refers to someone's favorite/least favorite. With the latter however, you're expected to see the film for what it is and the criteria that apply, and of course it's subjective how you evaluate it, but people can still see whether you're being fair and reasonable or not. Just imagine that a critic personallly hated drama films or a film made by a black director and panned the film just because of that. That would be unfair! So with that in mind. If I'm using my personal bias, I can say that "The Godfather" is slow-paced and tedious at times and not something I would watch if I was tired or just came home from work, and I can find more benefits from watching a simple action film for example, but from a critical and technical point of view, I consider "The Godfather" to be superior. My favorite movie is actually "Rocky", but I still consider it to be a weaker movie than for example "Taxi Driver" from a critical and technical point of view.
    1
  212.  @yhwachpoetry4205  I don't need your approval. I'm saying that people that actually matter to me share my belief, so what you're saying to me is completely irrelevant to me, especially when you're not someone who obviously can lead to where I want. You're not a movie critic, you're not an editor-in-chief of the newspaper I want to work for, you're not a theatre manager, you're not a theatre director, and you're not a film historian. Me talking about you discrediting my peers, superiors, and role models was a comment directed towards your flawed judgment of saying that I'm only thinking about myself when I actually have allies to my statements. You constantly calling me a 12 year old troll is also irrelevant to me, because I know that I'm 23 year old, have received respect from people within my field and some of my role models, and have received my merits. Everybody knows that just because a stranger calls you this and this doesn't mean it's true. Your ignorance is not my problem, and calling someone a troll just because they take a debate and philosophy more seriously than an average person is just ridiculous. I guess if Hume, Kant, Derrida, Nietsczhe, Focault, or even Plato had lived in this era and written their philosophies here on YouTube, they would have been called 12 year old trolls by you as well? And no, I'm not comparing myself to them, this is again directed towards your flawed argument that not taking a philosophy for granted is the characteristic of a troll. I bet that you haven't done any research on David Hume, Roger Ebert, Doug Walker, or Lindsay Ellis either. In fact, you haven't referred to any sources in this discussion at all. You shoving those people aside is the equivalence of shoving aside an encyclopedia
    1
  213.  @yhwachpoetry4205  You sure like being emotional and bringing up your personal irritations. If I was you, I would have simply ignored the replies and moved on. Isn't that you what you want? Why do you keep replying to me if I'm such a pain in the ass? Also, you thinking that they have no credibility doesn't really make sense when you see how well-established and respected they are by the general public, and you thinking that I'm trolling doesn't make sense either when I've used the same arguments and referred to the same sources in multiple cultural debates in my environment and received my merits and the respect from those I'm striving to get on the same level as.
    1
  214.  @yhwachpoetry4205  And just for reference, me commenting on this thread is actually a supplement for a bigger project I'm working on, which is a written work regarding art criticism, so you could say that I'm gathering data from ignorant people and how their flawed argumentation is worth getting derided and criticized by much more experienced and well-established people. The chapter in question is a comparison of art philosophers (and critics) and "regular people"
    1