What makes a film 10/10 and a movie so bad it's 1/10?
May 17, 2018 22:46:47 GMT
vegalyra and twothousandonemark like this
Post by drystyx on May 17, 2018 22:46:47 GMT
The second part is easiest to answer.
There are so many horrible movies out there, that if one grades on a curb, many 1/10 would go up to 3/10 just to make room.
And lets be honest, while there have always been horrible movies, it was only about after 1963 or so when Hollywood and those copying Hollywood (such as Leone) actually took pride in being hateful and attacking the audience, and telling the audience they were there for the director and writer, not vice versa.
Now, the sane criteria for 1/10, the only criteria that a true critic would have, is that it depresses you to a deflating point of apathy and fear of the people making the movie. Ironic, that Nazis did this to Jews in their movies during the Hitler years, depersonalizing and rationalizing hate towards certain people. Hollywood did the same thing beginning around 1965, because the mob took over, and the mob needed to keep the outsiders in their place. The best way to do this was pretend you were being noble. But only the feeblest minds fell for it, until the critics proved to be part of the mob, and then they helped brainwash the Western civilization.
1/10 is for movies that bring you into a world so depressing that it's a wonder we don't have more suicides. As it is, the suicide rate for a first world country is ridiculously high. Suicides should be expected in starving countries, and among the poor in America perhaps, but we see it too high in where it shouldn't be, at least by Nature.
Hollywood goes against Nature in its quest to be more depressing than anyone else. At least 10% of Hollywood movies from 1965 to the present have been "hey, my sadist can out-sadist your sadist". We even had threads bragging about this on the old IMDB boards every single day. Somehow, the monitors of the new board have done a good job of whittling that number down. Kudos to them.
We're supposed to not only empathize with a self righteous cannibal who maims and kills innocent people, but supposed to accept him as superior and immortal? As a demi-God? That's what the movies do, plain and simple. And while only the most feeble minded people could possible bite on this obvious bait, it appears that a huge number do so. Are they on Heroin? Are they insane? Are they masochists? Are they just super naïve sheep? It boggles the mind. There's no way in Nature that a member of the animal kingdom could survive infancy with this kind of feeble mindedness and naivety.
Many movies just depict a movie world that is dull and depressing. I don't mean dramas that are slices of life, meant to show struggles. I mean actual action movies that deliver high action just to insult the audience. They won't let the audience in the world. The audience is always outside, with the cannon fodder that is mutilated during the movie.
Now there are so many of these, that over 25% of movies would be 1/10, so what can make a movie even worse than "worst"?
The answer is 'waste'. A movie that has no budget, no big name stars, no great technology, can be forgiven, because it doesn't waste much. However, when Gregory Peck, Omar Shariff, E. G. Robinson, and the biggest all star cast one can drum up are in such a depressing pack of crap, complete with special effects and avalanches, then that makes the "worst" the "worst".
So that's the sane view, in brief, of what makes 1/10, so what makes 10/10?
First of all, of all the genres, all but a few depend on the simple idea of "credible characters in incredible circumstances". Some, such as sci-fi, have totally "non-credible" circumstances, but the characters have to be credible.
A few genres can bypass this. Comedies, particularly. The guy doesn't have to be credible. He just has to get a pie in his face when he thinks he's safe. Anyone who doesn't laugh at a pie in the face deserves to get a pie in the face.
Motivation is the second criteria. Beginning with Leone and Coppola, Hollywood found it to their interest to avoid good writing and just tell people in the audience what to think. Motivation wasn't needed any more. It simply was. This way a "hero" could be called an "anti hero" by having no motivation.
However, nothing is further from the truth. The true anti-hero is particularly motivated, but isn't heroic. He isn't brave. He doesn't believe in the fair fight. Hombre John Russell figures to take three terrorist killers down to two by not honoring a flag of truce. But he is still hero of an anti sort, by trying to return to the Apaches what is stolen from them. Bigot Ethan is an outlaw who risks his companion's life in an ambush, and even tries to kill his own niece, but in the end, wants to bring the niece home.
The anti hero is not a man who simply kills every three men he meets and goes through more trouble to find stolen gold than he would by simply robbing a train payroll.
Motivation isn't a factor for most critics, I've noticed, but it is for me. And obviously"credible characters in incredible circumstances" only means something to myself, along with very few others.
The propaganda has to be acceptable. Let me tell you the truth, whether you can handle it or not. No story, no script, no prose, has ever been written in Art without an agenda of propaganda attached. That's the way it is. I've written things myself, and I acknowledge there is always propaganda attached. For instance, I wrote a play done locally, about 30 years ago, in which the one cheerleader was an idiot. It was a joke, yes, but even then I realized I was engaging in some propaganda.
For whatever reason, from day one, I was always aware of the propaganda behind a work of art, of the "real reason" it was done. One of the first movies I saw on TV was THE WAR OF THE WORLDS with Gene Barry. I noticed that every character with a wristwatch fared well in the film, but the one with a pocket watch was burned to death by aliens. I immediately knew that someone behind the scenes had stock in wristwatches, or sold them, or had some interest in them. I also remember the most memorable imagery of the film, where they're in a farm house, and we see eggs frying. Before that, I never liked fried eggs, but something about those eggs and the situation made me savor them, and I knew immediately that I was "being played", that the scene was intentional, perhaps for an egg company, or a farmer, whatever, but it was something conscious to me.
And those are the real reasons the films are put together. Now, I have no problem with a film advertising eggs or wristwatches. There are some films that endeavor to brainwash on sicker ideas. The neo-Nazi influence in Hollywood is undeniable and obvious. They preach it by battering us with hammers on our heads, yet most people seem oblivious to it. Those bits of propaganda are bits that make an ugly world to me, a pale, dull world that depresses me. It appears that many here like that world, but it isn't their fault. I didn't see a movie till I was six, so I was tough to brainwash. Most people here saw movies consistently since the day they were born. There is no way such people can beat such relentless brainwashing.
For me, I was the last person brainwashed in my class. I didn't want to fight one man against a billion dangerous snakes. But being among the last brainwashed means that you know it's done. You're conscious of it.
So the "hidden messages" have to be at least trifling, and in some cases even helpful.
Of course, the film has to be engaging, if not entertaining. MISSING isn't exactly entertaining, but it's "engaging". It keeps you hanging on. It's perhaps the best example of a character actually changing in the course of a story. Lots of directors brag about doing this. Few succeed. This one does succeed.
To make the 10/10, the action movies need to have convincing motivation for the minor characters as well as the main characters. The best films, for me, have excellent supporting characters. That's why my all time top 40 include FORT APACHE, JUNGLE FIGHTERS, 49TH PARALLELL, SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL.
And lets not forget an all important part of being 10/10. In order to be a truly great film, it would have to work on stage as well as film. If you have to see it on a big screen to appreciate it, then it's a flop. It needs to be appreciated on an old time fuzzy TV with the old flimsy antenna. It has to be just as lively to kids playing make believe. It has to be just as entertaining on a stage. Now, I realize this is easier for those of us who grew up on old black and white TV sets with little antennae, but a person would have to be the most spoiled rich kid ever to only expect a movie to be good on a big screen. I hope there's no such dorks here, but if there are, I don't guess I'll apologize to people who are that big of wussies.
So, these are the chief criteria. They're certainly on any list for a real critic, in some order. Anyone who disagrees, I will respect their opinion, even though such a person would be the definition of a dweeb, a dork, and a puke.
No offense.
There are so many horrible movies out there, that if one grades on a curb, many 1/10 would go up to 3/10 just to make room.
And lets be honest, while there have always been horrible movies, it was only about after 1963 or so when Hollywood and those copying Hollywood (such as Leone) actually took pride in being hateful and attacking the audience, and telling the audience they were there for the director and writer, not vice versa.
Now, the sane criteria for 1/10, the only criteria that a true critic would have, is that it depresses you to a deflating point of apathy and fear of the people making the movie. Ironic, that Nazis did this to Jews in their movies during the Hitler years, depersonalizing and rationalizing hate towards certain people. Hollywood did the same thing beginning around 1965, because the mob took over, and the mob needed to keep the outsiders in their place. The best way to do this was pretend you were being noble. But only the feeblest minds fell for it, until the critics proved to be part of the mob, and then they helped brainwash the Western civilization.
1/10 is for movies that bring you into a world so depressing that it's a wonder we don't have more suicides. As it is, the suicide rate for a first world country is ridiculously high. Suicides should be expected in starving countries, and among the poor in America perhaps, but we see it too high in where it shouldn't be, at least by Nature.
Hollywood goes against Nature in its quest to be more depressing than anyone else. At least 10% of Hollywood movies from 1965 to the present have been "hey, my sadist can out-sadist your sadist". We even had threads bragging about this on the old IMDB boards every single day. Somehow, the monitors of the new board have done a good job of whittling that number down. Kudos to them.
We're supposed to not only empathize with a self righteous cannibal who maims and kills innocent people, but supposed to accept him as superior and immortal? As a demi-God? That's what the movies do, plain and simple. And while only the most feeble minded people could possible bite on this obvious bait, it appears that a huge number do so. Are they on Heroin? Are they insane? Are they masochists? Are they just super naïve sheep? It boggles the mind. There's no way in Nature that a member of the animal kingdom could survive infancy with this kind of feeble mindedness and naivety.
Many movies just depict a movie world that is dull and depressing. I don't mean dramas that are slices of life, meant to show struggles. I mean actual action movies that deliver high action just to insult the audience. They won't let the audience in the world. The audience is always outside, with the cannon fodder that is mutilated during the movie.
Now there are so many of these, that over 25% of movies would be 1/10, so what can make a movie even worse than "worst"?
The answer is 'waste'. A movie that has no budget, no big name stars, no great technology, can be forgiven, because it doesn't waste much. However, when Gregory Peck, Omar Shariff, E. G. Robinson, and the biggest all star cast one can drum up are in such a depressing pack of crap, complete with special effects and avalanches, then that makes the "worst" the "worst".
So that's the sane view, in brief, of what makes 1/10, so what makes 10/10?
First of all, of all the genres, all but a few depend on the simple idea of "credible characters in incredible circumstances". Some, such as sci-fi, have totally "non-credible" circumstances, but the characters have to be credible.
A few genres can bypass this. Comedies, particularly. The guy doesn't have to be credible. He just has to get a pie in his face when he thinks he's safe. Anyone who doesn't laugh at a pie in the face deserves to get a pie in the face.
Motivation is the second criteria. Beginning with Leone and Coppola, Hollywood found it to their interest to avoid good writing and just tell people in the audience what to think. Motivation wasn't needed any more. It simply was. This way a "hero" could be called an "anti hero" by having no motivation.
However, nothing is further from the truth. The true anti-hero is particularly motivated, but isn't heroic. He isn't brave. He doesn't believe in the fair fight. Hombre John Russell figures to take three terrorist killers down to two by not honoring a flag of truce. But he is still hero of an anti sort, by trying to return to the Apaches what is stolen from them. Bigot Ethan is an outlaw who risks his companion's life in an ambush, and even tries to kill his own niece, but in the end, wants to bring the niece home.
The anti hero is not a man who simply kills every three men he meets and goes through more trouble to find stolen gold than he would by simply robbing a train payroll.
Motivation isn't a factor for most critics, I've noticed, but it is for me. And obviously"credible characters in incredible circumstances" only means something to myself, along with very few others.
The propaganda has to be acceptable. Let me tell you the truth, whether you can handle it or not. No story, no script, no prose, has ever been written in Art without an agenda of propaganda attached. That's the way it is. I've written things myself, and I acknowledge there is always propaganda attached. For instance, I wrote a play done locally, about 30 years ago, in which the one cheerleader was an idiot. It was a joke, yes, but even then I realized I was engaging in some propaganda.
For whatever reason, from day one, I was always aware of the propaganda behind a work of art, of the "real reason" it was done. One of the first movies I saw on TV was THE WAR OF THE WORLDS with Gene Barry. I noticed that every character with a wristwatch fared well in the film, but the one with a pocket watch was burned to death by aliens. I immediately knew that someone behind the scenes had stock in wristwatches, or sold them, or had some interest in them. I also remember the most memorable imagery of the film, where they're in a farm house, and we see eggs frying. Before that, I never liked fried eggs, but something about those eggs and the situation made me savor them, and I knew immediately that I was "being played", that the scene was intentional, perhaps for an egg company, or a farmer, whatever, but it was something conscious to me.
And those are the real reasons the films are put together. Now, I have no problem with a film advertising eggs or wristwatches. There are some films that endeavor to brainwash on sicker ideas. The neo-Nazi influence in Hollywood is undeniable and obvious. They preach it by battering us with hammers on our heads, yet most people seem oblivious to it. Those bits of propaganda are bits that make an ugly world to me, a pale, dull world that depresses me. It appears that many here like that world, but it isn't their fault. I didn't see a movie till I was six, so I was tough to brainwash. Most people here saw movies consistently since the day they were born. There is no way such people can beat such relentless brainwashing.
For me, I was the last person brainwashed in my class. I didn't want to fight one man against a billion dangerous snakes. But being among the last brainwashed means that you know it's done. You're conscious of it.
So the "hidden messages" have to be at least trifling, and in some cases even helpful.
Of course, the film has to be engaging, if not entertaining. MISSING isn't exactly entertaining, but it's "engaging". It keeps you hanging on. It's perhaps the best example of a character actually changing in the course of a story. Lots of directors brag about doing this. Few succeed. This one does succeed.
To make the 10/10, the action movies need to have convincing motivation for the minor characters as well as the main characters. The best films, for me, have excellent supporting characters. That's why my all time top 40 include FORT APACHE, JUNGLE FIGHTERS, 49TH PARALLELL, SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL.
And lets not forget an all important part of being 10/10. In order to be a truly great film, it would have to work on stage as well as film. If you have to see it on a big screen to appreciate it, then it's a flop. It needs to be appreciated on an old time fuzzy TV with the old flimsy antenna. It has to be just as lively to kids playing make believe. It has to be just as entertaining on a stage. Now, I realize this is easier for those of us who grew up on old black and white TV sets with little antennae, but a person would have to be the most spoiled rich kid ever to only expect a movie to be good on a big screen. I hope there's no such dorks here, but if there are, I don't guess I'll apologize to people who are that big of wussies.
So, these are the chief criteria. They're certainly on any list for a real critic, in some order. Anyone who disagrees, I will respect their opinion, even though such a person would be the definition of a dweeb, a dork, and a puke.
No offense.
