That can be applied to many/most other films.

I mean, what "is" cinematic knowledge. There are people watching zillions of films in their spare time and still can't tell the difference between a the basic elements of film. Do you need full knowledge of film to be able to write any good review? No because otherwise there wouldn't be good reviewers out there.

I mean if I remember correctly, you haven't seen any Woody Allen films so far which, like 'em or not, are a substantial part of film history. Does it mean you're not able to write any good reviews. I dunno, but I think your reviews are pretty solid, so...heh. It's just...you need different kind of knowledge for different kinds of films. And for some, you don't really need much of it at all because they're not worth it.

Neither your stance nor LOTR's are correct. I always shake my head at people declining to watch older films. As a true movie fan you should be open to at least try out and watch any kind of a film - any genre, any year, any country. Whether you like them or not afterwards is a different thing, but you need to be open towards seeing them.

But on the other hand, unless you're completely clueless about film, you should be able to write a decent review. Of course there is stuff that should be considered a given. You should have some rough idea about technical details and especially a perception of how they fit together. *SOMETIMES* you should put a film into context, depending on the film/the genre. Being a movie fan in general is a given here too, of course...

But I think the most important aspect has to be mentioned yet: you simply have to be a good writer and that is AT LEAST as important and probably more important than having profound cinematic knowledge. You might have seen a lot, nderstand a lot, but your writing style sucks on a basic level. And this is the talent part. Cinematic knowledge - you can achieve. But there's a limit to how good a writing of someone can get, I'd say, even with training.

See, that's not true. I don't think any real moviegoer with an IQ above 90 needs to have seen many spoof films to realize that Disaster Movie is not good.

Eh... I think you're kinda misunderstanding me.

Cinematic knowledge does not necessarily equal watching a lot of films. That helps, but it also means having a basic understanding of the form, knowing how films work, and understanding that they are an art as well as entertainment (whether people realize this or not). No, I haven't seen any Woody Allen films, but I've seen a lot of other films, and I've done a lot of studying and reading on film, and I think that makes me pretty knowledgeable on the form. Do I know everything? Of course not. But I like to think I know a lot more than most here.

I dunno. Maybe I'm totally off-base here. I just don't think writing a "good" review is something anyone can do. It takes a lot more than having an opinion and a thesaurus. There's a reason I skip over a lot of the reviews posted in this forum.

And this is the point where I agree. The reasoning - I disagree with.

Writing skills in general are more important that profound cinematic knowledge because the latter can be acquiered over time if interest if there. The former - can only be improved till a certain degree.

Well, yeah. I thought that was a given. If you can't write, you shouldn't be writing anything, let alone a film review.

From what I can tell, though, LOTP can write. It's just that his film taste... leaves something to be desired.

I think we kinda detracted this thread for long enough now...

No one should be allowed to write reviews for a newspaper or magazine without at least a very basic knowledge of film.

Yeah, good thing I have no real desire to actually see Doubt.

It's stupid and a takes a total wrecking ball to the themes that played so well in the text of the play, but it's entertaining. Really entertaining. Much more so than Button or Slumdog, to name just two.

Oh I'll see it. It's just not high on my list.

Haha, thank you Trixter, that means a lot to me. Bu yeah, Doubt is one of those movies that having a vast film background will help you understand and enjoy the movie more than others.

Well sure you need to be able to recognize why certain aspects of a film are good. What makes driecting strong, what makes acting powerful. Recognition of these factors is absolutely key to writing a review, and understanding the division of responsibility within a film and being able to classify if you didn't like a certain aspect of a film who should be blamed for that is all very relevant to a review. However most of these things can be learnt without watching millions of movie and taking tons of film classes. I have probably seen considerably fewer old movies than anyone on this website but I do understand all of the aforementioned factors, it doesn't take that much filmgoing experience.

There is generally only one answer to this.

Haha, try me!

Ditto.

haha it would take a while for me to think of them, not because there are many, but because most of the older films I watched were when I was a young kid watching them with my parents. Most of the movies I have seen are 2000 films. I don't even know the 90's well, (but I love a Few Good Men), I've seen probably 150 films in the last 14 months though. maybe more like 120, something like that.
Although I do watch mostly new films because I work at a movie theater and can see those for free. I have to pay to rent or buy, I get into a theater for free.

I guess you're relatively new to the movie watching beat?

haha in case that wasn't made clear. I have only been watching movies as a frequent practice for the last year or so. Before that it was just a casual joy like it is for so many people. That's my excuse for my lack of film history knowledge.

So simply out of curiousity are there any films this year, or in general, that you really do like? You seem to just criticize everything from what I've read of your posts.

I love movies. All kinds of movies. It's why I'm here. It's not my fault that 2008 has been, almost without question, the worst year for film ever.

I've been able to find more worthwhile entertainments in, like, 1921, where 90% or more of the movies have been lost forever. Things are dire, yo.

haha fair enough I guess. I find many of the films this year very enjoyable but maybe that is simply because I don't know that much of film outside of the last eighteen months or so. Have you ever seen Network (1978). I suggest this one because it's my favorite "old" movie.
What are a few movies that you do particularly love? I am curious about taste because I've only seen you hate films on here so far. Makes me wonder what "good" cinema is to you.

yeah I'm probably setting myself up. haha

No wrath. I mean, I'm alarmed that you think of Network as an "old" movie, like it belongs in a museum, and I guess you got the year of release wrong, but whatever. You're apparently new to movies, perhaps you'll learn.

It's the people who act like Andrew Sarris but think like Ben Lyons that bother me.

haha (1976) and I didn't mean to refer to a museum context, but it's almost twice as old as I am so I think that works in this context. However you still didn't answer the question at all. Do you like Network? If not what films do you like? I don't mean to prod I'm just curious.
I'm not familiar with who Andrew Sarris is but anyone who thinks like Ben Lyons is definitely dangerous. However I am NOT Ben Lyons. I can at least form a coherent fucking sentence.

Does a dictionary make a good writer? I think it's playing on words...anyway...

Knowledge can be useful, but it's only pieces unless put together by ideas, thoughts etc. Knowledge is only useful if applied and linked well. Otherwise a piece of knowledge would just be somewhere without any purpose. It needs to be relevant for the topic you're talking about, and made coherent. So, in any particular review, it makes less of a difference how much knowledge you have, and more what sort of knowledge and what other tools you have to make something of it.

I would make someone a book critic for major mainstream releases even if they only read stuff like The Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter, and Twilight. Why? Well, if their writing is of quality, and behind it they are thoughtful, then for those reviews, they could very well be excellent.

With film reviews, does it matter as much whether they have knowledge of film history, or relevant knowledge about similar films. If you're reviewing oscar movies, I think your audience probably wants more history. But if your focus is on reviewing summer films, then why would there be anything wrong with someone only having knowledge of mainstream hit films from the past 4 decades? If they write reviews that are thought provoking, put the movies in some useful context, and give readers what they want, what more could you expect?