How to spot a bad movie?

[Jedi Master Carr]

I read this article that was linked on theforce.net it is really stupid and I could believe what the writers considered to be bad movies.
www.nationalpost.com/artslife/story.html?f=/stories/20010809/640298.html (http://www.nationalpost.com/artslife/story.html?f=/stories/20010809/640298.html)

One thing they listed was anything scored by John Williams. Now they are either insane, on drugs, know nothing about movies, or are plain ignorant. There is noway that all the movies that Williams have done could be considered bad especially when you look at the list, Schindler's List, Star Wars saga, Superman, Jurassic Park, ET, Close encounters of the Third Kind, Jaws, The Posideon Adventure, The Indiana Jones Movies, Amistad, The Patriot, and the Color Purple. All to just name a few. I have no clue what there point was but if you go by there list than every film ever made should be considered bad.

[General Ceel]

That article pissed me off when i saw it at TFN this morning. Its just another exaple of people who can't make movies so they become critics instead.

[Figrin D an]

The biggest point that the writers of (and the contributors to) that article seem to have missed is that films exist for one simple purpose: to entertain. Not every film has to have mutiple levels of hidden social comentary or cause us to think about the many paradoxes in our lives. Most people want to see films that will allow them a few hours of escapism, and give them a reason to laugh or cry, to be awestruck with what they see and hear, or just to experience a good story.

Everyone has different opinions about what constitutes a 'good' or a 'great' film, but the manner in which this article disregards so many films is rather pretentious and haughty.
It comes off as an attempted ego-boost for the writers and contains little content of any merit.

[JonathanLB]

That is the stupidest article I have ever seen. I won't waste my time with more than a skim, but people like that seriously make me wish I was also a big name journalist so tomorrow's column I could absolutely SLAM both of those writers like they deserve.

Haha, ok hello, John Williams is almost unquestionably the greatest movie music composer in history. If you're going to argue otherwise, well, Williams has the most Oscar nominations of ANY living person, let alone composer, and he has composed the music for most of the highest grossing movies of all time. That says a lot, I don't care what people's opinions are on popular films, if you compose that much great music to great films, then obviously you're a great composer.

Oh yeah, ok retards, the Star Wars movies are real "stinkers." They're only THE MOST POPULAR MOVIES of all time and the AFI named Star Wars the fifteenth best EVER. Hello?! What the hell is this retard talking about? Pass me whatever he is smoking, hell, they don't even sell that in most cities. Saving Private Ryan is a best picture nominee and most critics felt it was the best movie of the year, while Amistad obviously is a very high quality film.

What he IS saying EXACTLY is that EVERY Spielberg movie sucks. Spielberg doesn't do movies without Williams. That's just a fact. Nor does Lucas now. So by saying that he composes music to BAD movies they are saying every film by the two most influential Hollywood players in the last 30 years are trash. Nobody has made more of an impact on modern Hollywood than George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. They are the trendsetters, the curve.

Brian De Palma is not a bad director either, so that was a moronic comment. He has done some good work. Mission to Mars was a very well made film, but it had a corny ending and overall just didn't work that well. Snake Eyes, the movie all of the critics hated, was actually quite a good film. I'd give it three stars anyway. It was REALISTIC. The ending of the movie shows what would really happen, not a stupid Hollywood ending. It was a good movie. Neither film was great work, but both were at least enjoyable. Plus, Brian De Palma did Mission: Impossible, which was a very good movie, even if it was a bit convoluted. It still ruled.

I hate stupid people and those journalists make my opinion of ALL journalists very negative. I don't have much respect for the press already, and I don't have any respect for movie critics. They do an easy job that allows them to meet tons of interesting people and all they do is tear down the work of REAL WORKING PEOPLE. They are pathetic.

I will continue to rip the media and the critics even if I am a famous director, because I despise what they do. The media is unlikable. They are invasive of privacy, they are dishonest, and they are absolutely unrespectable. While there are good journalists, the vast majority of them disgust me.

There are almost NO EXCEPTIONS, every single critic is a FAILURE at their chosen profession. Failed filmmakers are critics, failed authors are book reviewers (this is especially true), and the list goes on. Critics, in general, are failures. There are those few critics who are really appreciative of other people's work, even while they may not like it all, and they can give decent, fairly unbiased reviews. Then there are the incredible critics who do credit to THEIR ENTIRE GROUP, such as the guy who did The Contender. He was a former critic, and he does his profession proud by actually creating something of his own. So bravo to those type of people too, but screw the people who simply cannot create and choose to criticize instead. That is sickening. Those people are a bane to society.

[ReaperFett]

quite sure Robin Williams won an Oscar in a beard :)


How to spot a bad film? "Starring Keanu Reeves"



And yes, Snake Eyes was great. Didnt De Palma make Scarface too?

[JonathanLB]

Yay, someone else who liked Snake Eyes. Haha.

I'm not sure if he did Scarface, don't know, and never seen it.

I really like Robin Williams!!! Whatever.

[Darth23]

The sad thing about the article was that the writer was TRYING to be witty.

[ReaperFett]

couldnt tell :)

[Jedi Master Kyle]

Same idea as always applies here guys: Journalists aren't supposed to tell it like it is; they're supposed to sell papers. And and as always, if it's bashing something Star Wars, or related to, then word spreads like wildfire, and bam! Hits to their website, papers sold, word of mouth about their rag spread, all in all a job well done. Whether the truth has been told or not.
Anyone who would write that about Williams is either completely retarded and/or bitter or trying REALLY hard to get some attention.

[Jedieb]

Well I just read the article. Let me start with this quote;

"Smug is the common thread," says Stahl. "Movies and stars that scream, 'Love me as much as I love myself.' Think Yentl."

I'm sorry, but were the writers talking about pretentious movies or were they describing themselves? I can be as fair minded as anyone, but this articles begs a reader to attack it. The writers go out of their way to attack such a wide variety of good films that it's hard to believe any one person could read this article and not find a film they enjoyed slandered. What's really worse is the pretentiousness with which the article was written. The writers attack films for being pretentious and sanctimonious, YET NONE OF THOSE FILMS ARE AS PRETENTIOUS AS THE ARTICLE ITSELF!

Wasn't it cute how they quoted an "anonymous" WB executive? How courageous of that excutive to speak out against the pretentious tripe that SHE HERSELF HELPS PRODUCE!! For Yoda's sake, if I want a rational critique of over hyped pretentious Hollywood films, the LAST person on the planet I'd talk to is a STUDIO EXECUTIVE! I'd rather talk to one of the guys that sells 'Maps to the Stars Homes' on Santa Monica Blvd.

This article was so ridiculous that I have to wonder if it wasn't simply a joke. I'm embarrased for the New York Times. This nonsense is unworthy of them.

[IndianaJones]

I was once told that bad movies normally get the riviews that cross 2 or more other good movies in an attempt to describe them...

Like

"Movie X was a great movie, Gladiator meets JFK"

Something like that.


I don't think its true all the time, thouhg.

I read one revie which hailed the Patriot as Braveheart meets The Last of the Mohicans, and that was kinda what it was.

[Darth Turbogeek]

Funny....

O dont see anyhting in that article that anyone else saw. I thi in someways it nailed what a truly bad movie is

(No, not the John Williams score - forget that comment - read the article)

it;s moives that take themselves WAY to serious and they to change the world and fail to do so misrebly. THAT is what the article was about.

And that I agree with.

[Jedieb]

That's a fine premise to write about, but they chose films that simply don't fit that category. Grand Canyon was a very good film. The year it came out it made several Top Ten lists, including Sickel & Ebert's. And they went out of their way to attack INDIVIDUAL filmmakers and stars. Pretentiousness wasn't the common thread in the people they attack, SUCCESS was the common thread.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree completely Jedieb though I think you gave credit to the wrong paper. The Paper was the National Post, I think its the USA today of Canada. I think as somebody else said it was attended to be a Joke but it was entirely unfunny. Obviosly these writes have no sense of humor.

[Jedieb]

I notice now that the site's name is the National Post, but here's the byline;
Franz Lidz and Steve Rushin
The New York Times

So exactly where did this nonsense originate?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Whoops I didn't see that. Maybe the National Post bought it from the NY times. Or Maybe the Times didn't want to publish it because it was so ludicrious that the writers sold it to the National Post. Anybody subscribe to the Times? That would be the only way to answer it.

[JonathanLB]

haha, no. The Times is an extremely liberal paper and I wouldn't subscribe to it. Not to say they don't have good stories, but I like USA Today... It works well for me, often some very good stories, nice layout, colorful, it's a good paper I think, as papers go.

I liked all of what Jedieb wrote in his first post, haha. That was a great post! I could not agree more! How could they call a film pretentious when they're using words I've never seen used in print even?! LOL. I mean, I don't claim to know nearly every word, but I have a fairly vast vocabulary (as I should, it's one of those things that obviously helps your writing). Even I had not seen some of those words used before. It was a stupid article and I really hope it was a joke.

I don't agree that movies "that take themselves seriously" are not good. I think that's a stupid saying because movies are not alive, so they can't take themselves seriously. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with a serious film that is well done. I think the better part of that topic is to say films where the director is REALLY TRYING to change the world with his "great concept" or plot generally do not work and come across as trite and obnoxious. Many people would say this about Pay it Forward, for instance. Although, I gave the film 2.5 stars. It was decent...

The Star Wars films changed the world, but honestly I don't think that was what Lucas had in mine. He was even a bit embarrassed by the success of his films, really. I mean success is great, but I think it annoyed him a little bit that people became absolutely obsessed by his movies to the extent that they nitpick them so severely.

I think filmmakers should be applauded for instilling values and morals into their movies, though. It's not always appropriate and many movies simply shouldn't have any life lessons or anything like that, they should just be entertaining and that's that. Still, the Star Wars films were crafted in such a way that if you lived your life the way the Jedi set out to do, you would be a better person for it. I think that's refreshing, really, and it is the primary reason that Star Wars is so far separated from other summer blockbusters, even though at first that may have been what it was. Now, the films are understood on a much more complicated level, which is good. Only the ignorant journalists and critics (and moviegoers) don't understand the merits of the saga, and anymore, there are few of them.

[Jedi Master Carr]

NY Times is slightly liberal but is considered the best paper in the U.S because it covers every major story in the world. (Maybe the London Times is better I have no clue) Actually the NY times has been quite postive about Star Wars in the past and as I remember the critic Maslin? gave TPM 3 1/2 stars and raved like Ebert about how great of film it was.

[JonathanLB]

Yes, for sure. I'm not saying it's not a good paper. Generally their news stories are excellent and they do a great job, but I mean I'm not really hot on the paper, not enough to subscribe.

I like the WSJ a lot, though.