At 8/6/09 04:50 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:
But a lot of people enjoy watching films that are culturally and historically significant.
You'll notice that they never say "that movie sucks, but it was significant". They always lavishly praise it like it was a golden calf worthy of devotion.
I'm really sorry but "Dr. Strangelove" is not funny or good. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is borderline retarded. Anyone who watches this movie and thinks is genius was either born 70 years ago or is a pretentious douche.
THAT MOVIE HAS A 15 MINUTE INTRO OF PEOPLE IN MONKEY SUITS SCREAMING! HOLY SHIT.
It's not always easy to differenciate nostalgia from the actual worth of a movie, but luckily there's people like me, who haven't seen shit like King Kong when it came out... in 1933... and can tell you wether is sucks or not based on objective standards by which people actually judge movies when they go see them in theaters or at home with friends.
For instance, here's a con against King Kong: the stop motion sucked. I win.
Depends what you find entertaining.
When I suggest things to people, I don't bank on the fact that they have weird unique interests. Like, if someone asks me "hey what's fun to do in Montreal?", I don't assume they love stamp-collecting and direct them to the nearest stamp museum.
In the same way, people who are asked "hey what's a good movie" and reply "Oh Citizen Kane" are liars. LIARS I SAY.
I fail to see how spending ninety minutes watching something as shallow as Ghostbusters can be any less of a waste of time than watching something that actually has some depth like, for example, Jean-Luc Godard's "Weekend" made in 1967.
If you watch a movie solely for the story, I suggest you start reading novels instead.