http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/2011/09/the-elusiveness-of-cinematic-greatness/

Agreed with the part of the article that notes that The King's Speech was not a great movie. However, I know that some people will differ on that. Which highlights the main point of the article: that cinematic greatness is largely in the eye of teh beholder. Once in a great while a film will come along that receives (almost) universal acceptance. But only once in a great while and even then there is bound to be at least one or two detractors.

Why, Why, WHY, I ask, is everyone so attached to this mindset? My question is WHY do we feel the need to look for those types of movies? Why can't anyone be satisfied with their own personal taste? Who gives a fuck if a movie is "universally praised." Insecurity on the part of movie buffs; that's literally all it is. It doesn't matter how much you enjoy a film, just as long as it's a "landmark" or "classic" right? I think this topic's importance is limitless. This problem, more than almost anything else, demonstrates the process by which people become afraid of their own instinctual opinions. Here's my proposed solution, a set of rules that I firmly believe in:

1. No film, ever made, is perfect. So there are no masterpieces.
2. No "great" film is ever as great as it's supposed to be, and most "awful" films are never as bad as they're supposed to be.
3. If a specific genre/director appeals personally to you, you will get something out of even the worst films in that category.
4. If you have absolutely zero interest in a particular genre/director, you may get nothing out of any film in that category no matter how much it has been praised.
5. No film buff's taste will ever become truly personal until he or she forms at least a few contrarian opinions. If you watch every film on AFI's top 100 and love them all, then guess what - you have no taste whatsoever. You are a mechanical conformist.

I agree 100%, I don't think I could ever call any film i've seen a true "masterpiece" because there's no such thing as a perfect film IMO. I'm more likely to prefer a film on a "worst movie list" then I am to prefer one on a "best movie list" Drive was loved by almost everyone and I wanted to live it too, but I just didn't see what was so "amazing" about it, and 9 times out of 10, i'll see a something like Bucky Larson over something like Moneyball.

It sounds like much of the forum agrees with you. I have not seen Drive yet, but from the sound of things I'd say it's only "great" in the context of a desperate audience looking for a good September sleeper a'la The Illusionist or something. I must say though, despite my dislike for rottentomatoes, an individual critic like Roger Ebert is no better. 5-6 years ago, his ratings meant something to me. I would generally try to see the films he recommended. For September 2011, he recommends: 50/50, Drive, Contagion, Moneyball, Killer Elite, Warrior, Straw Dogs, and Dolphin Tale; is that supposed to be some sort of joke? If someone paid me a million dollars to see all of those in theaters, I'd still have to consider refusing, yet after 44 years in the business, Ebert thinks they are all worthwhile. His opinions are also far more misleading than JB's because he awards his highest ratings more often. This method of reviewing new films is, I think, incorrect, and to quote Armond White, it really is flat out dishonest.

Eber's reviews don't mean much to me either, alot fo the time he has a really piss-poor excuse for disliking a film(like in the case of Kick Ass) and he needlessly insults people for liking films he gives negative reviews to(like in the case of Battle:Los Angeles), and he sometimes goes on for several paragraphs about omething that's barely related to the film itself(like the review of Life Of David Gale) i'm not saying he's a terrible reviewer, he can still write a good review when he wants to, so i'd say he's more lazy then dishonest(his idiotic criticisms of video games haven't helped any).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Ebert's comments about video games are absolutely on-point--provided your definition of art matches his. This is something that is pretty much universally overlooked by the people who rushed to condemn him. Ebert never said that all video games are bad, stupid, or shitty. Just that they are categorically outside the realm of art. And he even subsequently qualified that statement, despite the fact that he had no real reason to do so.

As for the on-topic discussion, I'll agree with MGamesCook. There is a strange tendency in filmgoers to want their tastes to be validated by others. David Bordwell, for example, observed that in the summer of 2008, it wasn't enough to just like The Dark Knight. As soon as people caught wind that there was a film critic in the room, he was immediately pressed to pass judgment on whether or not it was the greatest film of all time.

This is also why I've raged (or limply flailed, if you prefer) against the term "guilty pleasure". I don't like the implication that someone can be wrong for liking something. The stated reasons for liking something can be wrong, but not the liking itself. You feel how you feel. It does not require outside confirmation by an official jury of film-people-who-know-better. This is why, in a place like this, we can have a valid discussion among people who, I think it's fair to say, have a very wide variety of tastes and frames of reference.

I agree very much with this mindset. I couldn't be less interested in the films that are "universally praised." People hear that phrase and then think there's something wrong with them when they don't see the greatness. Quite often there's not.



Maybe I'm misunderstanding you: if this is all about developing and honing personal taste, isn't it possible for a film to be perfect to me? Because a few are. If you're simply saying that there are no truly universal perfect/masterpiece level film, then I agree with you.

Now, are some films universally excellent, well-made, well-constructed, well-acted, etc etc? Of course. I think several films are universally good, but I also think it's possible to come to an honest opinion of not liking/not having affection for these films.



Again, I slightly disagree because a personal opinion can match perceived/expected greatness, but that's never going to be universal.



I disagree a bit with #3 but I see your point. With #4, I'm with you. Sci-Fi/Fantasy are never going to make appearances in my top, oh, 50 (at least in the way I define the genres).



I'm with the heart of your point, but I think you get a bit too specific: I think it's possible for someone to honestly come to an opinion that happens to align with the AFI list, Sight & Sound's list, whatever. Is this common? Of course not. Should we question someone who lists only largely accepted classics on their personal top 10 list? Yes. I think in the vast majority of cases your point is accurate, but to hold someone against a certain list is as mechanically conformist as holding them to it.



I agree that Ebert does this quite often (in particular with films he doesn't like...but I just reread the David Gale review and I can't find any segment that's not focused on the film itself. What are you referring to?

Ok, it has been awhile since i've read the David gale review, but I remember going on for quite a bit about the Texas justice system and what not and using that as his justification for giving the film a zero or something like that and what not, he praised the acting in the film, so i'm completely baffled as to why he didn't at least give at one star.

So I take it you are a fan of Armond's work?

Fair enough. He clearly hated the moral of the film and wasn't willing to grade the film on it's merit because of the level to which it offended him. The Texas angle was due to the film being set in Texas and how (in his mind) that kindof undermined the point of the film. Regardless, as I said, I agree that Ebert often goes off on major tangents.

I'm not sure why the moral statement of a film is inadmissible for criticism, particularly if it undeniably forms a major component of the critic's impression of the movie. That's not dishonest. It's quite the opposite.

And Armond White is the last film critic who should be making that accusation.

Completely agree. The question is not if critics (and viewers) do this, the question is if they acknowledge it.



Agreed. White does make some good points in his overall criticism of film criticism, but for him to call a reviewer dishonest reeks of hypocrisy.

The worst example of Ebert's meandering during a review might be his 2-1/2 star review for 'Deliverance', which contrasts the film with a real-life tale, but devotes almost the ENTIRE review to the true story and almost nothing to the film's actual artistic merits. Hell, even the source novel threatens to receive more space than the film itself.

I agree with Cook on his #3, since there will always be, no matter how you try, a preference towards some genres themes, and tones that affect each viewer differently. Some people watch a good number of dark films over light comedies, since they're more rare (at least at the local cineplex), and even a middling downbeat film might inspire more interest in that viewer than a truly diverting romantic comedy. That's just how it is for some people. I almost immediately become more involved in a drama than I ever am with a thriller, for example.

At the risk of coming across as an apologist (really, just a fan), there will be occasional anomalies in the quality of your work if you do the same job day in and day out for 40+ years. Even acknowledging his lesser moments, I can think of few critics more worth reading than Roger Ebert. He is extremely knowledgeable, honest almost to a fault, and a very strong and passionate writer. Even nowadays, he is on the very short list of critics whom I will read for any movie that I see.

He has also cautioned readers endlessly that his star ratings are to be taken with a grain of salt. If you want to know what he thinks, you have to ditch the stars and focus on the text. The stars are there as a heuristic, and of very limited use.

If I had my way, there would be no linear grading of movies, but that's in my personal universe of steak, Street Fighter II, and Frank Zappa.

It seems to me that you are applying an different definition of the phrase. "Guilty Pleasure" to me doesn't mean liking something that others don't, although it can mean that incidentally. It means liking or being entertained by something that deep down I know is shit myself. Police Academy. Any film with Van Damme or Seagal etc. All poor films but provide moments of levity or low-brow kicks.

Excellent definition. I consider myself a film snob (in that I prefer quality films) but dammned if I didn't stop on Bloodsport while channel surfing and watch it 'til the end...

On a van Damme note, JCVD was quite good. But then he wasn't acting, he was playing himself.

Yes I saw JCVD and enjoyed it greatly. Although as you alude to, for different reasons than Bloodsport, Kickboxer and the like.

We've already hashed it out elsewhere, but if you like the movie, then the movie can't be that bad by your own standards. There must be some merit to it.

Oh, I agree that Ebert is a go-to guy for reviews. I more or less mentioned his review of Boorman's 1972 classic as an example of what some posters were alluding to above. I recently watched The Curious Case of Benjamin Button for the first time, and afterwards, contrasted Ebert's review with James'. I was closer to recommending the film than Ebert was, but I saw alot of merit in what he had to say about the film, in particular the central relationship. It didn't change my feelings on the film - either way, it's a on overlong, albeit compelling film that will drown in the seas of time - but it did give me some food for thought. That pang of revelation and meditation is something I get often from Ebert, and rarely from others (including James). Actually, in that department, White, as dishonest as he might be, bats at least a .300 in this respect. He does have the ability to make one question the universally accepted criticisms of taste and morals (after all, does every critic need a film to be cynical and left-leaning?)

I think that ability to stir thoughtful analysis, along with other things, decides the value of a critic. Indeed, as much of a defense as we've all mounted for James at some point or another, aside from his core strengths as a critic (pragmatism and relative refusal of over-sensationalizing), it's not hard to see some people finding his reviews to be good, but merely surface-level, in their approaches to the film he's reviewing.

Yep. I was just waiting for yourself to mention that. It's your "There are only cheeseburgers" theorem.
I am a huge supporter of the "there are no absolutes" theory. People (including myself) tend to go some kind of safe route and go after pre-formed opinions all through their lives. The foundations of our image of the world are very likely based on misconseptions, universally accepted bad ideas, common lies and other people's opinions - not our own. To form our own opinion, we need to know it works. I don't know, but I know it doesn't work very well. Usually we fall into the trap of thinking we know something. If we get (what we believe is) better information, we fall into the next trap. That next trap can be closer to a universal truth (if there is one), but its' still a trap. Knowing that these are traps is another step in the right direction (but it is just another trap).
Conclusion: I think everyone should try and open up. Anyone of reasonable intelligence can at least have an abstract idea about what they don't know. It is our choice to widen the reference pool (I am quoting here), or stick to our opinion and defend it.

I hope any of the above makes any sense. Language, no matter how much of a wonderful tool it can be, is worse than 8-bit quantising when it comes to truly communicate anything of a certain complexity.

I just listened to Jimi Hendrix on Youtube. First thing I noticed: he played just one single chord. This of course was heavily influenced by old pre-conceived ideas. Of course Rachmaninov was "better". Then I really caught myself applying other people's ideas. Hendrix played this one "chord" with so many variations, feel, tone, sound, dynamics, soul. Not to mention that he influenced a ton of guitarists long after him - to this day. I'm trying to "quit" evaluating people. And therefore everything. And therefore movies. I try concentrating on what I enjoy and perhaps why - and hear people out. This might be just another misconception (see the "trap" part above). But that's what I believe in at the moment.

...yes I know I really tend to ramble.