Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:21 am
THX1138 wrote: I'm just saying a rating system is used to measure how much people will enjoy a movie. It's like telling people "don't go see the movie. It sucks!" and then 10 years later, tell them "go see this movie, it rocks!" when the movie hasn't changed. It makes no sense.
Maybe social hype is like a bandwagon that people have to get on to be cool and hip, otherwise people won't listen to you and you sound like a cranky old man (like me)
I think Ebert is probably guilty of the latter comment over the last 5-10 years, and what happens is that since he no longer trusts much of his own judgement, he ends up recommending and lavishing praise on lots of movies that aren't really worthy of it. He's been handing out "4-star reviews" over the last few years like they were free samples in a supermarket. All you can do (which is hopefully our everlasting right) is strenously disagree with an obviously nonsensical appraisal of somethng.
All the same, I think allowing for people's tastes to change and grow is a great thing to believe in...just like hoping that teenagers will someday give up their Frito-Lay products and fast-food drive-thru, and choose to learn about cooking and eating good, tasty, creatively made food (who wants to go through life thinking Doritos 3-Ds are the zenith of the culinary cosmos?) Sure, occasionally I agree with Sydney Pollack's character in 'Michael Clayton' that "people are f***ing incomprehensible"...but I also think that part of what's rewarding about reading reviews of movies and other topics is picking up on what the reviewers are learning about re: the subject matter as well as themselves along the way.
Just my own 2 cents on the topics o' convo, which anyone is free to give a big steaming 2 thumbs down to
