Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchu18
While I usually choose my films based on criteria such as director, country of origin, lead or supporting actors, genre, subject matter and even studio, there have been times when a recommendation from "left field" has yielded a wonderful movie going experience... but never in terms of mass appeal. It's more likely a measurement of variance and a movie that is usually obscure by nature.
It's not to say I don't enjoy a mass marketed film, I just find it very difficult as a function of my movie going experience to turn my brain off and just be bathed in the light of mindless formalism... and enjoy myself.
I harken back to the issue where the use of suspension of disbelief was the responsibility of the writer... and not one of the viewer, in that, hardly any film these days seems to hold any assemblage of the physical nature of the universe in regard... and I'm not talking about spaceships being able to make "right turns" in the vacuum of space. The stories have gotten so outrageously grandiose and polluted with cleverness and quite canny that its just not interesting any longer... but it seems it is for the masses.
I think Barton Fink is quite right, who cares about the fifth Earle of higgenbottom, we lust for the theater of the "street"... New realism.
I don't think I necessarily disagree with any of this, but it's a far different point than what I responded to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchu18
"Crowd sourcing" film ratings... do not want.
Folks can't rely on others to decide for themselves if something is acceptable... or perhaps, they can.
We were discussing the utility of considering aggregated film ratings and the associated reviews/analyses when forming our own assessment of a film.
And then, at least as I understood it, your above response unfairly characterized people who do so as relying on others to determine for themselves whether something is acceptable. That's almost an exact quote of what you said, but if I've somehow misunderstood your meaning, please clarify. If that is what you meant, though, I'll reiterate that I politely disagree