Zodiac; the best film of the past 10 years? If not, what is?

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

I have to beg to differ. It's horribly manipulative, has poor character development, 2 romantic leads that have NO CHEMISTRY WHATSOEVER, a corny message than undermines so much of the real-life cruelty on show and a plot that completely consists of contrivances. I think it's one of the most cynical films of the last decade and it really bothers me that so many fell for it. It pretty much just tortures its characters for 2 hours before a completely arbitrary happy ending that wasn't earned in the least.


No this is a real "it's the rest of the world" case. I genuinely can't see how it's a good film on any level.

Yeah but this is the thing, you're totally wrong.

You may not like it, but in the case where hundreds of thousands of film goers and dozens and dozens of critics do, you're obviously so far in the minority as to be an anomaly.

It's a great film - you don't like it - both are true.

EDIT: For the record - there's many great films I don't like. I acknowledge that something's are just not for me. I'm sure there's some movies I think are basically unwatchable (e.g. Big Lebowski, Silence of the Lambs, Contact) that you love. My thinking the Big Lebowski is brutally unfunny isn't really a comment on the film as much as it is on me.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Yeah but this is the thing, you're totally wrong.

You may not like it, but in the case where hundreds of thousands of film goers and dozens and dozens of critics do, you're obviously so far in the minority as to be an anomaly.

It's a great film - you don't like it - both are true.

Just because a film is popular doesn't make it a sacred cow that can't be criticized outside of the hive-mind surrounding it. I have an opinion on the film that doesn't coincide with yours or some famous critics, deal with it. You could at least respond to some of the points I've made as just saying "you're wrong" or "it's good because it's popular" just reeks of immature fanboyism.

To so casually dismiss somebody for differing just seems churlish to me, more so-called "classics" should have their status challenged to see if they hold up. We can't just all sheepishly say that something's great just because it won a few Oscars.

ButtersSuki

Slumdog wasn't great (not totally crap either btw), but I could look at Freida Pinto all day………..

Based on the thread I've bought the Director's Cut of Zodiac on BR for a 2nd viewing so I'll post again after I watch it.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

EDIT: For the record - there's many great films I don't like. I acknowledge that something's are just not for me. I'm sure there's some movies I think are basically unwatchable (e.g. Big Lebowski, Silence of the Lambs, Contact) that you love. My thinking the Big Lebowski is brutally unfunny isn't really a comment on the film as much as it is on me.

This is different though, you acknowledge the qualities in something you dislike, I do that often too. But in the case of Slumdog I think the film is almost completely lacking in merit. There's a difference here, I think it's terrible and made a case for why. If you think it's great then please try and convince me instead of shutting my opinion out.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

Just because a film is popular doesn't make it a sacred cow that can't be criticized outside of the hive-mind surrounding it. I have an opinion on the film that doesn't coincide with yours or some famous critics, deal with it. You could at least respond to some of the points I've made as just saying "you're wrong" or "it's good because it's popular" just reeks of immature fanboyism.

It's actually much more immature to assume that simply because you don't like it, it's bad.

People don't have to like it, but personal taste isn't the final word on a film vein good - if it was there would literally be no good films as every movie on the planet is hated by someone.

So.

No, you're dislike is not equal to it being bad.

And that's not me saying it, it's thousands and thousands and thousands of people flatly rejecting your criticisms.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

It's actually much more immature to assume that simply because you don't like it, it's bad.

But I'm not doing that, not even remotely. I am responding to what I saw and have thought for a while about why I had such an overwhelmingly negative response to it. It's not simply a case of "it's not for me", I find serious flaws in the script, characters, plot and message of the whole film that I can't help but want to call out.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

This is different though, you acknowledge the qualities in something you dislike, I do that often too. But in the case of Slumdog I think the film is almost completely lacking in merit. There's a difference here, I think it's terrible and made a case for why. If you think it's great then please try and convince me instead of shutting my opinion out.

I have no interest in trying to convince of things you won't accept. That's a waste of both of our time.

Deal with the fact that simply because you have an opinion, doesn't mean your opinion is right.

It's totally gonna be ok.

You don't like a good movie - the world is gonna keep on spinning.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

But I'm not doing that, not even remotely. I am responding to what I saw and have thought for a while about why I had such an overwhelmingly negative response to it. It's not simply a case of "it's not for me", I find serious flaws in the script, characters, plot and message of the whole film that I can't help but want to call out.

Yes, but you're wrong.

Simples.

LuckyLloyd

Slumdog Millionaire was 'movie of the week' fare imo. I think part of its appeal and critical acclaim were cultural factors beyond the scope of the movie itself.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

No, you're dislike is not equal to it being bad.

I think we're on completely different peggings here, you think a film is objectively great by virtue of favorable reviews or good box office returns. I disagree with that notion altogether. Some good reviews or word of mouth might urge me to see something but at the end of the day the only opinion I have to go on is my own. I find this idea that you can't possibly disagree with a film having a status of being great to be absolute bull****.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Yes, but you're wrong.

The fact that you can't even defend the film beyond this is very telling to me.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

The fact that you can't even defend the film beyond this is very telling to me.

You can say that if you want, but the fact that you feel you know more than Roger Ebert or Peter Travers is much more telling than my unwillingness to ague with you about the script of a film.

Best to just drop it, yes?

Nerdlingr

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Yes, but you're wrong.

Simples.

A very well thought out and eloquated response. Well done. :rolleyes:

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

but the fact that you feel you know more than Roger Ebert or Peter Travers

Straw man much? I'm a huge Roger Ebert fan incidentally, doesn't mean I have to blindly agree with him at every turn.

ButtersSuki

Ah will ye cool the jets the pair of ye!

MilanPan!c

Nerdlingr wrote: »

A very well thought out and eloquated response. Well done. :rolleyes:

Thanks!

And by the by, If this was a film that in anyway was seen as a mixed bag, by even 10% of critics, then maybe there's a point in an argument.

On the other hand, if someone wants to argue that paved roads have destroyed society, well... They'll have to find someone else to argue with.

It's universally praised and loved.

That's not some giant conspiracy. There's no reason for it other than the strength of the film.

The MUCH more likely explanation is that some people just don't like some good movies.

Not that a couple of guys on Boards are better judges of film quality than basically the rest of humanity.

Mickeroo

I enjoyed Slumdog myself, I like Danny Boyle's visual style, liked the soundtrack and found it to be a pretty entertaining film. There's no denying its incredibly contrived and manipulative though and nowhere near Boyle's best films in terms of quality.

I'd have more umbridge with Avatar being considered one of the best. On a technical level Avatar sure it was impressive and there could an argument made there, and I the first time I watched it I found it very enjoyable but after seeing it a couple of times since, it falls apart under any sort of criticism beyond the aesthetic. As a film its very cliched and extremely unoriginal and like Slumdog, its pretty manipulative too.

Another film that springs to mind when it comes to having enjoyed them at the time but fall apart when you begin to look deeper at them is Crash.

Basically what I'm trying to say, though I acknowledge I enjoyed these films at the time I don't think they stand up too well to scrutiny after the fact.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

Straw man much? I'm a huge Roger Ebert fan incidentally, doesn't mean I have to blindly agree with him at every turn.

Yes yes, I assume you also reject modern medicine; why listen to any experts at all?

Roger Ebert is a very spot on film critic. As you know. His resume is his work and his work was consistently excellent.

You're just some guy on Boards.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The MUCH more likely explanation is that some people just don't like some good movies.

But why does a good box office and critical reception automatically make it good? It's very condescending and narrow-minded to suggest that somebody going against the grain can't possibly have something interesting to say. It's an attitude I hate because it really blocks out discussion and unique, valuable perspectives.

Nerdlingr

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Thanks!

And by the by, If this was a film that in anyway was seen as a mixed bag, by even 10% of critics, then maybe there's a point in an argument.

Ah you're right there so, no point in discussing it at all. Its a great film cos everyone says so. Ha ha! :pac:

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Yes yes, I assume you also reject modern medicine; why listen to any experts at all?

Again you completely misunderstand. I don't reject modern medicine because my experience of it has been good, I outright reject Slumdog because I had a lousy experience with it. I'm not just some hater, I'm willing to give everything a chance and was actually really looking forward to the movie. Understand?

Shut down the film board everyone! We're not allowed to disagree at all.

Mickeroo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Yes yes, I assume you also reject modern medicine; why listen to any experts at all?

Roger Ebert is a very spot on film critic. As you know. His resume is his work and his work was consistently excellent.

You're just some guy on Boards.

Are you saying modern medicine is based on entirely subjective opinions?

Nerdlingr

e_e wrote: »

But why does a good box office and critical reception automatically make it good? It's very condescending and narrow-minded to suggest that somebody going against the grain can't possibly have something interesting to say. It's an attitude I hate because it really blocks out discussion and unique, valuable perspectives.

Judging by the responses I dont think they have any - other than taking someone else's word for it.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

But why does a good box office and critical reception automatically make it good? It's very condescending and narrow-minded to suggest that somebody going against the grain can't possibly have something interesting to say. It's an attitude I hate because it really blocks out discussion and unique, valuable perspectives.

Please spare me.

You want to know why universal critical and popular acclaim means a film is "good"?

Really?

The alternative being what?

Any films that someone doesn't like (I.e. every film ever made/to be made) should be considered not "good" if a couple of guys on the Internet don't like some things about it?

Sorry but that's nonsense.

A movie like this has been viewed and reviewed hundreds of thousands of times over multiple years. Almost no one thinks it is crap.

You do.

We've now had the entirety of meaningful discussion that can be had about your fringe opinion.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Roger Ebert is a very spot on film critic. As you know. His resume is his work and his work was consistently excellent.

Why do you think Roger Ebert had guests on his show all the time? I think he's a great critic but not the all-seeing movie eye that you see him as. Like it or not just because he has an opinion does not make it gospel, hell he disliked many films that were popular both critically and financially.

e_e

e_e wrote: »

Again you completely misunderstand. I don't reject modern medicine because my experience of it has been good, I outright reject Slumdog because I had a lousy experience with it. I'm not just some hater, I'm willing to give everything a chance and was actually really looking forward to the movie. Understand?

Shut down the film board everyone! We're not allowed to disagree at all.

Two pages back you objected to me calling a movie you loved ****e even though I made it clear people would disagree with my opinion.

Why can't you apply the same formula and show a bit of humility while accepting that you might not be correct here? Just because you think a movie is bad or good does not mean that is the case. It's your opinion at least be open minded enough to admit that others might disagree. In the case of Slumdog more people clearly disagree with your opinion as it is very popular.

MilanPan!c

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Judging by the responses I dont think they have any - other than taking someone else's word for it.

Like I said, why would I argue the well established merits of the film? Just because you and some other guy want me too?

Anything else you want?

Need your dishes done? Bit of grocery shopping?

You guys have your opinion - I'm not going to change it if Roger Ebert and close to 500k IMDB ratings haven't.

You're not going to change mine either.

So the point of arguing about it is... What?

Nerdlingr

Time to give up e_e. Head => Brick Wall.

e_e

Deleted User wrote: »

Two pages back you objected to me calling a movie you loved ****e even though I made it clear people would disagree with my opinion.

I did that to get a response out of you and find out WHY you felt that way. I didn't dismiss your opinion out of hand like Milan Panic is. I was really willing to hear why somebody would call it awful.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Please spare me.

You want to know why universal critical and popular acclaim means a film is "good"?

Really?

The alternative being what?

Any films that someone doesn't like (I.e. every film ever made/to be made) should be considered not "good" if a couple of guys on the Internet don't like some things about it?

Sorry but that's nonsense.

A movie like this has been viewed and reviewed hundreds of thousands of times over multiple years. Almost no one thinks it is crap.

You do.

We've now had the entirety of meaningful discussion that can be had about your fringe opinion.

I think you really need to be schooled in subjectivity.