The Social Network

[Dick Knights Mumm]

The only thing it was missing was Kate Winslet's tits. Thankfully remedied in this thread.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

The experience of seeing something at the cinema:

Contact rustling of sweet wrappers
Woman stage-whispering to her husband all the way through
Someone coughing onto the back of your head
Kid (and more often adults) constantly tapping or kicking the back of your chair

Yep - can never recreate that at home, no matter how hard I try.

(Just being flippant DKM)

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I know. If I watch a film at home I do turn the lights off, phones off, and try to concentrate on the film. But is you are watching it while making a cup of tea, checking the scores etc - what film is going to look good.

 

[Mental Lental]

I think the problem with a lot of the more pompous movie reviewers (and by that I mean people professionally employed to review films, whose opinions are often given weight) is that they don't do that. Nor do they consider what the film set out to do (was it made to tell a story or to raise an issue, was it motivated by art or by entertainment). Is it really fair to judge, say, Spiceworld: The Movie by the same standards as The Life of David Gale for example?

Exactly.

A good example of this is John Hughes' movie Weird Science. Which I have never seen given more than 1 star by snooty broadsheet movie reviewers. It is a good movie. It sets up a RIDICULOUS premise and then sets about the rest of the story firmly tongue in cheek and manages to make you laugh in the process (if you like that kind puerile humour, which I do.)

Obviously this type of humour doesn't appeal to uppity 50 something movie bigots who would rather watch a Peter Greenaway movie (all of which I find utterly unwatchable).

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

What a load of absolute WANK. That is all.

1. Why didn't you put this on the Film 2011 thread Punkle S?
2. S Network is a hell of a lot better than all of that juvenile Spielberg shit you rate Punkle S.

 

[Spider]

I think the problem with Uncle Spielberg is that he seems to have set himself up as the resident film pundit here.......

And then displayed a spectacular inability to actually review any movie from anything but his own taste/point of view.

It is a simple rule of writing a movie review that you ask yourself who the target audience is and whether or not THE TARGET AUDIENCE would enjoy the film (as opposed to whether or not YOU enjoyed it.)

Disagree with that. I think the only way to review a movie (or a book/album etc.) is to give your own honest opinion of it, trying to imagine what other people who you deem the 'target audience' is a pointless task. Plus, if something's good, you don't need to be in the target audience to see that. For example, I'm obviously not the target audience for Disney animation, but I can see that The Lion King is a bloody good film whilst Treasure Planet was not!

 

[Man of Harveys]

I certainly thought it was very mediocre. And obviously nowhere NEAR worth being mentioned in the same breath as Babe 2: Pig In The City. Obviously.

 

[Acker79]

Disagree with that. I think the only way to review a movie (or a book/album etc.) is to give your own honest opinion of it, trying to imagine what other people who you deem the 'target audience' is a pointless task. Plus, if something's good, you don't need to be in the target audience to see that. For example, I'm obviously not the target audience for Disney animation, but I can see that The Lion King is a bloody good film whilst Treasure Planet was not!

I don't think acknowledging who a film is aimed at, the point of the film etc. and giving your own opinion is mutually exclusive. You can do both. But I think there is a difference between "I didn't like this film, though I'm not their primary target audience, I'm not a spice girls fan" and "spiceworld is awful, and no one should watch it because it doesn't break the barriers of movie making, doesn't challenge you politically, doesn't have any deep meaning etc"

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Weirdly I would say exactly the same about Transformers, and probably Avatar. They're like Steve Vai solos, really impressive for about 10 seconds, then SHIT DULL from then onwards when you realise there is NO depth whatsoever.

Steve Vai, that's a name I have not heard in about 20 years.

 

[Spider]

I don't think acknowledging who a film is aimed at, the point of the film etc. and giving your own opinion is mutually exclusive. You can do both. But I think there is a difference between "I didn't like this film, though I'm not their primary target audience, I'm not a spice girls fan" and "spiceworld is awful, and no one should watch it because it doesn't break the barriers of movie making, doesn't challenge you politically, doesn't have any deep meaning etc"

But I would say most people inherently do judge a movie based on it's purpose. I think it's a fallacy to say that people always judge films on whether they are challenging or have deep meaning. It is possible to appreciate whether something is a good piece of cinema aside from it's 'intentions', Spiceworld the movie doesn't set out to be (and isn't) deep or challenging, but it's also a very poor film even if you are judging it without the considerations you might take when reviewing "The Social Network".

 

[Raphael Meade]

I quite enjoyed it. I watched it last sunday after watching four other films and it was probably my favourite of the five, having said that I'm a fan of Aaron Sorkin's writing and have been since The West Wing. He has a certain rhythm to his writing that I enjoy.

The characters are not particualrly pleasant, but it's about real people, and it's the story of a real event, if those real people are arses isn't it wrong to dress them up as likeable heroes?

Sorkin is definitely what made it great for me, though i'll watch anything he writes and absolutely love it. Just finished 'Studio 60' for a 2nd time around.... legendary writer.

 

[Acker79]

But I would say most people inherently do judge a movie based on it's purpose. I think it's a fallacy to say that people always judge films on whether they are challenging or have deep meaning.

But I didn't say most people. I specifically narrowed it down to a subcategory of professional movie reviewers (the pompous ones who do always judge films that way).

Spiceworld wasn't made to be a good film. It was made to capitalise on the fad of the spice girls. It was designed to cash in, and give SG fans one more avenue to spend money on the brand in exchange for 90mins of the girls larking around and singing some songs. It achieved it's aim, it entertained their fans, it made money, and so on. It was a bad film for non-fans, it was a bad film from a technical stand point, but judging it purely by what it set out to be, who it was aimed at and how well it achieved it's aims, it cost $25m to make, it took $57m at the box office alone, then factor in all the merchandise, soundtrack albums and so on sold to people who enjoyed it, and it was a success.