tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post6999073689161495952..comments2023-12-09T00:47:34.811-07:00Comments on Blog Cabins: Movie Commentary and Reviews Made Fun: The 11 worst films on the IMDb Top 250 (and other random thoughts)Fletchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17299302086449086987noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-28095133543694815842008-09-16T11:19:00.000-07:002008-09-16T11:19:00.000-07:00Sorry - gots to...but don't feel as though you hav...Sorry - gots to...but don't feel as though you have to respond. Do your work... ;)<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I did make a big jump, but looking back, I think it was in response to your big jump. The point is, sure, expertise is important, but, as you've expanded upon, the "what" that makes up that expertise is definitely subjective. In short, I don't feel that I need to be an expert, or even watch movies made prior to 1963, to have a blog about contemporary films. I'm not saying that having that education wouldn't be nice, but I certainly don't see it as a pre-requisite.<BR/><BR/>If the worst that comes of this is that I'm not a certified "general film expert," so be it - as I stated previously, I've never claimed to be, so there's no hypocrisy. It's not for a lack of trying - there's only so many times that I can watch an older film and be disappointed. I don't usually feel educated after watching a classic - I feel depressed and confused as to what I'm not getting about it that makes it so great for everyone else. It's a shitty feeling, and I'm sick of it. After awhile, I must ask myself "what's the point?" Am I doing this for me and my greater film education, or am I subconciously doing it just to appease people who write off those that don't appreciate those films as they do? And which is worse?Fletchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17299302086449086987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-74218775084573088422008-09-16T10:45:00.000-07:002008-09-16T10:45:00.000-07:00Whoa Fletch, I think you're making a jump. I was ...Whoa Fletch, I think you're making a jump. I was responding to your comment "I have no need to prove expertise." I wasn't suggesting that you didn't have expertise, or that your expertise needed to be more universal, or anything of the sort. I wasn't suggesting that you weren't knowledgeable about your subject. I just thought your statement that you had no need to prove expertise was too general. I think proving expertise of some sort is required to have any readers (which I, you know, barely have).<BR/><BR/>But I'm much more interested in your grunge analogy, and then the Swedish film/porn/anime analogy. If you had a grunge blog and didn't know anything about punk, that'd be unacceptable. Not knowing anything about ragtime, more acceptable. Communities have a tendency to define their subject differently, and the contemporary study of popular music often doesn't go any further than the 50s.<BR/><BR/>Film is completely different, however. It's barely been around a hundred years, so we still have a pretty coherent view of it. Which is not to say that to know film means you have to know Anime/porn/Swedish film industry. But I would think that the films of Ingmar Bergman and key anime films are in the larger film canon. You're certainly not invalidated for not knowing them, but I think they fall under the general heading of film "expertise" in the way that we define it. For a number of reasons, ragtime doesn't fall under the heading of music "expertise"; for a whole host of other reasons, classic film usually does fall under that heading.<BR/><BR/>I'm really just rehashing a tired old argument from some of the classes I've taken, so let me put it in those terms anyway. Obviously, no one can be expected to be an expert on all of literature. But if you study literature in the English language, you're expected to know some Shakespeare, some Chaucer, some Melville and Whitman, Joyce and Faulker, even if your specialty is 21st century South African poetry. That's just how the community defines a general form of expertise.<BR/><BR/>But this could just be my over-academized way of seeing this problem. It's certainly why I started Film Ignorance; although I've seen lots of films and know some areas very well indeed, I wanted the same sort of general grounding in "great" films that I'm supposed to have in "great" literature. Without it, I felt insufficiently expert. Again, this is probably just an academic anxiety.<BR/><BR/>Ok, I gotta fucking knock some stuff off my reading list. I'm enjoying this conversation, so if you respond I'll respond as well, but I'll try to be MIA for a few hours at least. Must...read...boring..poetry.Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14215810599956933532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-32191423251265289802008-09-16T10:29:00.000-07:002008-09-16T10:29:00.000-07:00"If you don't feel the need to prove expertise, mo..."If you don't feel the need to prove expertise, more power to you. But I think on some level anyone with a blog about something needs to seem knowledgeable about that subject."<BR/><BR/>That's casting an awfully big net, no? If someone had a blog about grunge music, would you slight them for not being an expert of ragtime or swing music? Why should my distaste for "the classics" matter? It's not as though this blog is about them.<BR/><BR/>I know plenty about movies that I know plenty about, if that makes sense. You have a movie blog - does that mean you're knowledgable about the Swedish film industry (or lack thereof)? Or 1970s porn flicks? Or Anime? No one can be considered an "expert" on everything that "movies" encompasses - there's just not enough time in the day.Fletchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17299302086449086987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-38510134707373221292008-09-16T10:18:00.000-07:002008-09-16T10:18:00.000-07:00Opinions are like assholes...they show up all over...Opinions are like assholes...they show up all over the internet, and no one knows where they came from!<BR/><BR/>If you don't feel the need to prove expertise, more power to you. But I think on some level anyone with a blog about something needs to seem knowledgeable about that subject. I could be wrong (the career of Geraldo suggests that I am), but I would think that people, who do want to hear opinions, want opinions from people they think know something about movies. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I said it might be harder to do so if you don't have classic film cred. I only half believe that. The other half of me is well aware that most people looking for a knowledgeable opinion might care if you've seen The Godfather, but not if you've seen Nosferatu. So the joke's probably on me.Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14215810599956933532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-70536633230042513532008-09-16T10:07:00.000-07:002008-09-16T10:07:00.000-07:00I'll give you this much: I've since re-watched The...I'll give you this much: I've since re-watched The Illusionist and was much less impressed with it the second time out. Still a good movie, but it didn't hold up very well. Meanwhile, I still need to watch The Prestige again. In time...<BR/><BR/>I have no need to prove expertise. I've made no claims of being a film scholar or teacher of any sort, and I don't even think reviews are my strong suit. I'm here to offer editorials, insightful commentary and provide some fun for anyone that should happen to stop by. I won't be making a play for Ebert's job anytime soon. This post (and its comments) proved nothing if not this: opinions are like assholes....Fletchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17299302086449086987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-88116606942456266172008-09-16T09:40:00.000-07:002008-09-16T09:40:00.000-07:00Clearly it's time to get this debate started again...Clearly it's time to get this debate started again. I have one thing to say: This post received over 100 comments, and only one of them (Eric) suggests that Illusionist is better than Prestige. Just one. I find that hilarious, although also predictable: Illusionist was only ok. Prestige was great.<BR/><BR/>I should also probably say that while not liking movies made prior to 1963 is of course your choice, it does make it tough for you to maintain credibility. Not necessarily because you have to know older films to be a credible film blogger, but simply because the internet (and the world at large) are already awash with people who have opinions on The Godfather, Top Gun, and Knocked Up. Without being able separate yourself from them, you'll need to work extra hard to prove your expertise. Like, start an association of movie blogs or something.Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14215810599956933532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-91998189674929368362007-12-03T07:12:00.000-07:002007-12-03T07:12:00.000-07:00You lost my interest at "I haven't even seen this,...You lost my interest at "I haven't even seen this, but"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-18659087055667538702007-12-02T17:03:00.000-07:002007-12-02T17:03:00.000-07:00serasirrah - very well thought out response, and t...serasirrah - very well thought out response, and thanks on the congrats. You are correct in your assumption about my proclaimation - NEVER would I be so shortsighted to say "all old movies suck" or something as simplistic as that. Instead, I say that "<I>I</I> don't care for them." There's a big difference, and one that I think people aren't taking into account. <BR/><BR/>Let me just add that a post on why I feel the way I do about older movies is forthcoming. <BR/><BR/>eternality - thanks!<BR/><BR/>chivid - see, this is why I don't get too upset with people calling for blood over my feelings about The Prestige. I wildly disagree with you on Fargo, as I think it's in the Coens top 2 or 3. Great film. To each his or her own, though.<BR/><BR/>Any who has said so - for the 100th time, I'm sure The Elephant Man is worthy. There's a reason the list is 11 and not 10 films (hmmm, most lists are 10, right?).<BR/><BR/>clairebear - I like the first Pirates movie. It's a fun ride that I own on DVD. But calling it a classic seems a bit strong. I'm sure others feel the same way. Heck, I love the Ocean's movies (which are also very-well-done-yet-still-mindless-entertainment), but I wouldn't call them classics, either. <BR/><BR/>i am jack's username - I like your analogy as well, as it's more true to what one of the key issues with older films I have is. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>(I'm totally staying out of the IMDb rating 9 or 10 stars debate. ;) )Fletchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17299302086449086987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-75412117961070076112007-12-02T12:27:00.000-07:002007-12-02T12:27:00.000-07:00"Sir, your apparent disliking of movies pre-1963 i..."Sir, <BR/><BR/>your apparent disliking of movies pre-1963 is profoundly ignorant, and makes your "movie" blog completely bias."<BR/><BR/>I concur. Many of my favorite movies are before that time you indicate. Geez..and you are over a decade older than me too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-63091519655770757022007-12-02T11:04:00.000-07:002007-12-02T11:04:00.000-07:00"People don't get that kind of abuse for not being..."People don't get that kind of abuse for not being into '30s or'40s music."<BR/><BR/>Oy, I'm rolling in my grave!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-34619144417721213562007-12-02T11:00:00.000-07:002007-12-02T11:00:00.000-07:00Actually that should be 0 to 1 is one star. So the...Actually that should be 0 to 1 is one star. So there are ten.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-61505694393450812372007-12-02T09:25:00.000-07:002007-12-02T09:25:00.000-07:00No Adam, my math is not wrong.Here I will write it...No Adam, my math is not wrong.<BR/><BR/>Here I will write it out very slowly, just for you. <BR/><BR/>From 1 to 2 is 1 star<BR/>From 2 to 3 is 2 stars<BR/>From 3 to 4 is 3 stars<BR/>From 4 to 5 is 4 stars<BR/>From 5 to 6 is 5 stars<BR/>From 6 to 7 is 6 stars<BR/>From 7 to 8 is 7 stars<BR/>From 8 to 9 is 8 stars<BR/>From 9 to 10 is 9 stars<BR/><BR/>IMDb only allows a range of 9 stars in its rating system. <BR/><BR/>In order to get the FULL range of a ten star rating, they need to include a ZERO rating. Otherwise there is no way possible to get a rating between 0 and 1 to achieve that true first star. <BR/><BR/>Its the same reason why the Twenty-first century didn't start until January 1st, 2001. There was no year "0" to begin with.Zenragehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02318186920505180815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-33654062126372427962007-12-02T00:59:00.000-07:002007-12-02T00:59:00.000-07:00If you're going to write that "Why movies made pri...If you're going to write that "Why movies made prior to around 1963 don't ring my bell.", I suggest you have a look at some of the movies listed on IMDb's top movies per decade lists.<BR/><BR/>I also don't think the 1930s music analogy holds. Some people will never like opera, jazz, country and western, or big band; and some will never like musicals or dumb comedies. A more apt comparison may be that some people don't like listening to poorly recorded mono music on scratchy LPs; and some dislike black and white or silent movies. Since great writing long predates movies, getting over the low tech allows you see some some wonderful stories told in the old movies. Some of my favorite old, accessable movies include:<BR/><BR/>078 03 8.4 Modern Times (1936)<BR/>101 06 8.3 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)<BR/>061 11 8.4 The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)<BR/>045 07 8.5 To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)<BR/><BR/>While I haven't seen many old movies, and for most I neither particularly liked or especially disliked them, some of my least favorites include:<BR/><BR/>178 35 8.2 Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. (1920)<BR/>n/a 38 8.0 The 39 Steps (1935)<BR/>024 02 8.6 Citizen Kane (1941)<BR/>144 29 8.2 Smultronstället (1957)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-59983747766104875552007-12-02T00:02:00.000-07:002007-12-02T00:02:00.000-07:00Uhh, Chivid, your math is wrong. There are ten pos...Uhh, Chivid, your math is wrong. There are ten possible votes when someone is rating a movie on the IMDB. I think you have maybe overthought things and missed the obvious - there are ten whole numbers from 1 to 10 inclusive.<BR/><BR/>What *is* true, however, is that the average of all these is 5.5, not 5.0. If a 0 rating were available, then the average of all possible values would be 5.0, but as such, 5 is below the average of all possible values and 6 is above.<BR/><BR/>Not that that really matters, since most people typically rate a movie around a 6 or 7 anyway. But I suppose that makes sense, since it indicates that one enjoyed watching the film somewhat... if people didn't enjoy most movies they saw, they probably wouldn't see very many!Adam Villanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10694072629634740634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-69513877362228597792007-12-01T22:52:00.000-07:002007-12-01T22:52:00.000-07:00pirates does NOT belong on this list. it is a clas...pirates does NOT belong on this list. it is a classic (though almost tainted by the atrocities dead mans chest and at worlds end) this is definitly johnny depp at his best. this movie was so original. it wasnt meant to teach some great lesson, it was just meant to be entertaining!!!! it was supposed to be funny, have excellent special fx's, and epic love story...check, check, check. this movie achieved everything it set out to. it was so unique and if you are gonna play the "cultural impact" card on groundhog day, how can you not realize the impact that pirates has had? johnny (while fairly famous before) was definitly not the household name he is now. this movie will not be quickly forgotten and when i look back 10-20 years from now, this is one movie that will stand out. <BR/><BR/>but wait, you totally declared a movie that you have never seen before as undeserving to be on this list. your blog is a joke if you are seriously that ignorant. <BR/><BR/>also, superbad is hilarious. definitly the best comedy i have seen since zoolander. just because it is crass does not mean it isnt funny.clairebear277https://www.blogger.com/profile/02404017297111237162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-88657504493584579572007-12-01T21:32:00.000-07:002007-12-01T21:32:00.000-07:00I only disagree about your comparison of The Prest...I only disagree about your comparison of The Prestige and The Illusionist. The former won that race. <BR/><BR/>I figured out the "suprise" ending of The Illusionist about halfway through the film, and Jessica Biel simply cannot act. It just turned out to be sappy romance, while The Prestige, with an amazing boatload of talent, ventured more into the dark side of magic. The Illusionist is nice popcorn-flick, date-movie at best.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12386248680892197260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-61994350315891416932007-12-01T20:58:00.000-07:002007-12-01T20:58:00.000-07:00Elephant Man is worthy.the rest are flash in the p...Elephant Man is worthy.<BR/>the rest are flash in the panAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-55935691466376138312007-12-01T20:22:00.000-07:002007-12-01T20:22:00.000-07:00Disagree with your comments about Casino Royale. I...Disagree with your comments about Casino Royale. I prefer Craig and this movie over every Bond movie I've seen. Granted, I've only seen the Brosnan movies. I'll hold my judgment on Connery vs. Craig once I've seen Connery at action. <BR/><BR/>For the rest, I either agree with your opinion or haven't seen the movie.wadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08642741296275036543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-54134327880194035992007-12-01T19:30:00.000-07:002007-12-01T19:30:00.000-07:00If this person hasn't seen some of the movies int ...If this person hasn't seen some of the movies int the top 10, how can we respect their opinion of these movies that are supposedly the worst out of 250?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-989047543096769092007-12-01T19:06:00.000-07:002007-12-01T19:06:00.000-07:00You haven't seen Stardust? Your opinion is thus vo...You haven't seen Stardust? Your opinion is thus void. <BR/><BR/>I don't blame you but the IMDb for mentioning this crap.massromanticrightshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05045216525008646411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-60592103401595926712007-12-01T19:04:00.000-07:002007-12-01T19:04:00.000-07:00The Prestige was a much better movie that The Illu...The Prestige was a much better movie that The Illusionist. I liked both, but Prestige was a better film. Casino Royale was much better than the other recent Bond movies (despite being a good 1/2 hour too long), and Ultimatum was arguably the best of the Bournes. Other than that I have no problem with your list...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-9218302679371456662007-12-01T18:56:00.000-07:002007-12-01T18:56:00.000-07:00The IMDb has a couple problems with its rating sys...The IMDb has a couple problems with its rating system. First of all, its not a real 10 star system. The lowest you can give any movie is a single star. So that makes it a 9 star system (10 - 1 = 9). <BR/><BR/>The second problem is that they count votes too soon after they come out. For votes to count towards the IMDb 250, potential voters should have to wait 6 months after the film comes out. <BR/><BR/>That's my opinion on the matter. <BR/><BR/>As for the list of movies that shouldn't be there, my biggest problem is the movie Fargo. I never could understand why people liked this shite film - let alone enough to put it on the Top 250. It was a Columbo TV Movie plot wrapped around the "novelty" of a Northern Minnesotan Accent. Big Whoop!Zenragehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02318186920505180815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-47303462441000462902007-12-01T18:12:00.000-07:002007-12-01T18:12:00.000-07:00I happen to chance upon your blogsite from IMDB, a...I happen to chance upon your blogsite from IMDB, and honestly, it's a pleasure to read your articles and reviews. Being a film critic myself (though my blog isn't as comprehensive as yours), it's heartening to meet another soul with a natural passion for films! Keep up the outstanding work!<BR/><BR/>[www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com]Eternality Tanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13451723744045261511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-48245747259073836312007-12-01T18:08:00.000-07:002007-12-01T18:08:00.000-07:00"I've always considered American History X to be a..."I've always considered American History X to be a "very good" film that has an amazing performance - one that should have hands-down won the Oscar for Norton. From the first viewing, it felt a little too "afterschool-special," but I still enjoy it immensely and have no problems with its inclusion on the 250. A valid comment nonetheless."<BR/><BR/><BR/>American history X treatment of the ABC afterschool special. Hmm, as a kid I think I would have like to see John Travolta as the bubble boy get 'curbed' or Rob Lowe/Jodie Foster/Marion Ross/Scott Baio/Kristy McNichol/Sean Cassidy/....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859290034031232542.post-35874602301870473712007-12-01T17:51:00.000-07:002007-12-01T17:51:00.000-07:00For anyone to dismiss all cinema before 1963 is to...For anyone to dismiss all cinema before 1963 is to discredit anything you say at all. You are not aware of the history of cinema and therefore you are not capable of proper analysis.<BR/><BR/>I had never heard of you until 5 minutes ago. I wish I never had. I'm livid. You're truly objectionable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com