[QuickTidal]

Illuyankas, on 05 January 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

Abyss, on 05 January 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

KRULL was Neeson's defining role and i defy anyone who says otherwise. ROD ROY was nothing, NOTHING I TELL YOU.

You're right, it wasn't. Rob Roy, on the other hand...

...sucked the big hairy moose ba....you get the picture.

[Illuyankas]

McLovin, on 05 January 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

...is a cocktail. Shut up, Illy.

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

...sucked the big hairy moose ba....you get the picture.

Did I miss an injoke about insulting a movie where Liam Neeson hides in a deer corpse or are you just getting uptight about pointing out a typo before Captain Admin edits it out to make me look like a tit? (I remeber two scenes from that movie and none from Krull and I have no particular feelings on either)

Also if you have a problem with me McLonghornin just say it.

[QuickTidal]

Illuyankas, on 05 January 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

or are you just getting uptight about pointing out a typo before Captain Admin edits it out to make me look like a tit?

Oh he doesn't need to point out a typo.

Captain Admin eh? Illy, this is not TANGO & CASH...

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 05 January 2012 - 05:32 PM

[Illuyankas]

Yeah, I forgot the 'more' by accident. Also it totally should be.

[QuickTidal]

Morgoth, on 05 January 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

Which sadly tells you very little considering how atrocious 2011 has been as a movie year.

Fair point.

I've heard middling things about HUGO, that while it attempts to be charming, it ends up being clunky heavy-handed instead and that Scorsese couldn't do a kids movie if he had a love child with Chris Columbus.

I've also heard others who loved it, so who knows.

Not my bag, considering watching Sacha Baron Cohen go around mugging for the camera and being a caricature of Inspector Clousseau would put me right off.

And all that said, I find that more often than not "Critics Top Ten Lists" almost NEVER comprise films I wanted to see, nor are they usually populated by films that did tremendously well in theatres.

[amphibian]

There is a need for critics to connect themselves - however loosely - to the tastes of the masses. If they lose touch entirely, then of what use is the critic for the newspaper/magazine/tv consuming public?

At the same time, there's something to be said for tent-pole movies that aim squarely at the masses, yet are fine movies in and of themselves. Pixar has made a ton of money and rep following that strategy.

[McLovin]

Illuyankas, on 05 January 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Also if you have a problem with me McLonghornin just say it.

I want you to know this is only because I care...the 'roids will damage your heart and manly bits. You don't need them to get buff.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 05 January 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

There is a need for critics to connect themselves - however loosely - to the tastes of the masses. If they lose touch entirely, then of what use is the critic for the newspaper/magazine/tv consuming public?

At the same time, there's something to be said for tent-pole movies that aim squarely at the masses, yet are fine movies in and of themselves. Pixar has made a ton of money and rep following that strategy.

Indeed true, and PIXAR is one of those that really consistently impresses the critics no matter how big the movies are.

Now I loathe Peter Howell (the Toronto Star critic) because he always seems so entirely jaded, but here is his top ten list for 2011:

1. The Tree of Life

2. Certified Copy

3. A Separation

4. Nostalgia for the Light

5. Take Shelter

6. The Descendants

7. The Artist

8. Drive

9. Le Quattro Volte

10. Le Havre


Now, I at least KNOW a few of these (DRIVE, THE ARTIST) are really good, and TREE OF LIFE has its supporters (I am not one of those, I was pissed off when I saw that film), but this list almost in its entirety contains NONE of the films that the general movie-going public would have thought to be on the list.

Now here is a typical list that is based of general movie-goer consensus for comparison (based off audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes):

1. The Muppets

2. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

3. Moneyball

4. Hugo

5. Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol

6. Midnight in Paris

7. Drive

8. 50/50

9. Source Code

10. The Descendants

THOR, RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, BRIDESMAIDS amongst others also make the lists frequently.

So aside from a crossover of one or two the disconnect between critic and average audience viewer is fairly big. Sadly.

Funnily enough, these days I pretty much ignore critics completely, and now when I go to Rotten Tomatoes to check up on prospective movie watches, I check the "Audience rating" instead of the critic one, since I am sure that a few hundred of my own movie-going peers will know what I'll like more than a select number of somewhat jaded critics.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 05 January 2012 - 06:34 PM

[McLovin]

Wow, I have seen none of the ones on the critics' list.

[QuickTidal]

McLovin, on 05 January 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Wow, I have seen none of the ones on the critics' list.

Indeed, and that's not just one critics list. If you look up any major critic's top ten, 9 times out of 10 it will look like that...a mish-mash of "never heard of it" films that would only feel at home at a Film Festival.

[Illuyankas]

McLovin, on 05 January 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

Illuyankas, on 05 January 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Also if you have a problem with me McLonghornin just say it.

I want you to know this is only because I care...the 'roids will damage your heart and manly bits. You don't need them to get buff.

But how can I change my name to Big McLargehuge without them?!


Also critic discussion wise, it's always depressing seeing the gap between movies aimed at your wallet and movies aimed at your brain grow every year.

[amphibian]

My older brother considers himself an amateur movie buff. His list of favorite 2011 films went like so (in no particular order):

Like Crazy

Tree of Life

Drive

Hanna

Warrior

The Skin I Live In

Submarine

London Boulevard

Wu Xia

Delhi Belly

A Separation

Outrage

Come Rain Come Shine

I would say exactly none of those were big movies. He realizes several were flawed movies, but wrote in the explanations for each one that he was moved by their high points to a degree that they made the list (Hanna in particular).

[QuickTidal]

Illuyankas, on 05 January 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Also critic discussion wise, it's always depressing seeing the gap between movies aimed at your wallet and movies aimed at your brain grow every year.

A movie aimed at my brain is called a documentary (and I watch those all the time). I watch fiction to watch something fictitious, I don't always require that it's super smart or clever to enjoy it. I like a Saturday afternoon matinee flick as much as the next guy.

This is all subjective naturally, since my fave movie of the year was THOR...and that was because that it was such fun. Critics seemed pretty split on it though.

That's not to say I can't appreciate a smart film...but when critics start to peddle me pretentious stuff like TREE Of LIFE and bash me over the head with the "This is a Modern Masterpiece stick" I get my feathers ruffled. I get why some people would like it, but I have sat with no less than three people in social settings who LOVED it and told them I didn't like it... their immediate first defense is "Critics loved it, so clearly you are wrong" this is after attempting to "explain it to me since I obviously didn't GET IT". No, no, I get it, I just find it pretentious, self-flagellating twaddle.

My point being that I truly feel that when it comes to the subjectivity of movies, 300 people who go see movies can likely tell me better what I might like, than 35 Critics would.

and I think that's sad.

When I review books at the blog, I do so trying to be as balanced as I possibly can, and I think more often than not I enjoy things in line with a lot of readers.

I think if I ever moved to a position where I could only get enjoyment out of obscure stuff, I'd stop reading...or at least stop reviewing.

Just my 42 cents.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 05 January 2012 - 06:56 PM

[polishgenius]

Morgoth, on 05 January 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

Which sadly tells you very little considering how atrocious 2011 has been as a movie year.

Eh, I think it's been a cracking year. I didn't like anything as much as I did Kick-Ass in 2010, but putting together an overall top 10 it's a lot stronger in my view.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 05 January 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 05 January 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

Which sadly tells you very little considering how atrocious 2011 has been as a movie year.

Eh, I think it's been a cracking year. I didn't like anything as much as I did Kick-Ass in 2010, but putting together an overall top 10 it's a lot stronger in my view.

I agree there was some great stuff in 2011....but if you compare it with a year like 1999 or 2002 you will come up wanting...

and I already told you PG, KICK-ASS sucked.

[QuickTidal]

In news that hath made me sublimely happy:

That abomination, white-washed, Americanized version of AKIRA...shut down.

Thank the various gods and deities.

http://www.hollywood...ner-bros-278729

[amphibian]

The Tree of Life was kind of dependent on the viewer's natural experiences and willingness to take Malick movies. My brothers and I had childhoods that featured similar moments to that of the children in the movie - despite it being set in Bumblefuck, Texas and us growing up in Nepal and New York.

All of us liked it, although we did see flaws and how other people could see it differently. I did think the movie was about ten minutes too long in one spot, but would love to see a DVD with an extended version or deleted scenes.

Sadly, no such DVD exists for The Thin Red Line, but I'd buy that in a heartbeat if there were one.

[McLovin]

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

and I already told you PG, KICK-ASS sucked.

Don't hate on KICK-ASS. I loved that movie! Hit Girl was like WATCHMEN BABIES ON CRACK.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

I agree there was some great stuff in 2011....but if you compare it with a year like 1999 or 2002 you will come up wanting...

and I already told you PG, KICK-ASS sucked.

1999 was awesome. 2002 doesn't jump out at me as a classic year, though... A decent one, but not sure it's better than this. Now, 1994, there's an epic year.

My view on the recent years is slightly skewed in that, as I'm rating them as they go, I'm counting what came out in the cinema in the UK- thus, we got a better start to the year than you on the other side of the Atlantic as Black Swan, 127 Hours, The King's Speech and The Fighter all came out this year... but only one of those got on my top 10 (127 Hours, albeit it was a coin toss between The Fighter and Warrior which the latter won)
Looking back in future, I'll likely go back to 'first release wherever it was', since that makes internet discussions more logical (and is easier to check)...


Oh, and Kick-Ass was a Ronseal movie.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 05 January 2012 - 10:49 PM

[Catherine]

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

McLovin, on 05 January 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Wow, I have seen none of the ones on the critics' list.

Indeed, and that's not just one critics list. If you look up any major critic's top ten, 9 times out of 10 it will look like that...a mish-mash of "never heard of it" films that would only feel at home at a Film Festival.

And I thought it was just my boyfriend and me that thought the same thing.