That's it! Never again!

[Tom D]

I spent $4.07 to rent Pi, based on recommendations on this forum.

Geesh.

Tom D

[IrishHand]

Those lists of movies are, for the most part, what I consider artsy trash. There are some people who want to watch things like that and then spend hours trying to figure out what the director/writer/whoever meant or intended when he made it. Fortunately, the vast majority of moviegoes choose movies on the basis of their entertainment value (which makes sense, since it's supposed to be a form of entertainment). The most I want to think in a movie is figuring out the plot twists of a Mission: Impossible. I have no interest in sorting out a director's homosexual tendencies as shown in an impressionist collage of images and scenes. Mostly, I want to sit down for a couple hours and smile and laugh as I'm being entertained by an alternate reality that makes some sort of logical sense.

Irish

[John Cole]

I'd be curious to know what films, in particular, drawn from any listing of say top one hundred movies, or more explicitly, from the Sight and Sound critics poll, you'd consider "artsy trash."

Furthermore, few critics or scholars read movies with the explicit goal of showing how any part of a movie relates to the director's life, for example.

In addition, you beg the question by claiming that movies are supposed to be entertainment. (Distributors might easily claim movies are simply popcprn selling machines.)Where is that written? Now, if trying to figure out plot twists in Mission Impossible is all you want, then you shouldn't have much trouble finding many films that fit the bill.

Don't get me wrong; I like to be entertained, too, but thinking doesn't bother me either. I'm just always surprised when I find people who claim that movies should only entertain. You might consider that what some people find entertaining gives others stomach cramps. (Mild overstatement.)

John

[IrishHand]

I never said movies should only entertain. If they happen to enlighten or do other nice things, that's great. My point was that the primary purpose of movies (much like television, theater, etc) is to entertain. Where is it written? I was unaware I needed proof for something that's common knowledge. Poll 1000 movie-going Americans and the VAST majority will say the purpose of a movie is to entertain.

Looking at those top 100 lists from directors or critics, I recall seeing maybe 1 or 2 movies per list that I don't think are a complete waste of time. I admit I haven't seen the majority of them, but the 30-40% of them I have had the misfortune of watching left their scars. The worst crime a movie can perpetrate on me is to bore me, and as a general rule, the movies on those lists succeeded.

Irish

PS. To the above poster - you speak the truth. Eyes Wide Shut was another critically-acclaimed yet absolutely atrocious movie.

[Clarkmeister]

No movie with a scantily clad Nicole Kidman is a total waste of time.

[John Cole]

Poll 1000 Americans, and they'll claim L. Ron Hubbard should hold the top thirty positions on the best non-fiction books of the century list. And, you're quite right, you can assert something as common knowledge as long as it is common knowledge. Instead, you wish to pass off opinion as common knowledge, and, I'm sorry, I don't agree. I don't carry if all 1000 respondents agree.

Again, please name the movies that bored you; perhaps some of them bored the hell out of me, too. But we won't know unless you name 'em.

[IrishHand]

All of them. Go read either of those lists posted, and assume that I think they're all useless. If you happen to come across one that I don't think is useless, I'll let you know.

Poll 1000 Americans, and they'll claim L. Ron Hubbard should hold the top thirty positions on the best non-fiction books of the century list.
You must interact with vastly different Americans than interact with. The ones I talk to actually read books.

Irish

[marbles]

Artsy film: A movie that leaves you wondering what you just spent the last two hours looking at. It's extra artsy if I would never have heard of if not for some expert's list. Even more bonus artsy points if the movie's foreign title does not have an english equivalent.

Artsy trash: Any film that meets any of the above requirements and sucks, too. I believe Eyes Wide Shut and Magnolia would both fit this category.

As for the S&S lists, I've kinda assumed most of the listed films were artsy because I hadn't heard of them, but I acknowledge this may be more of a reflection of my ignorance than their pretentiousness.

[whiskeytown]

May I offer a suggestion and say you avoid that piece of crap "Eyes Wide Shut" as well...LOL

RB

[Tom D]

Too late. My wife dragged me to that one at the theater. I knew going in, given the lead actors, that I was in for a long two hours.

Tom D