But there could be all sorts of different criteria as to what makes a quality review...

You guys have that problem with trying to make your tastes out as right, and you have not even tried to address it.

But none of it should be is based on conventional cinema and what would be considered based in film schools.

If someone says it's their opinion, they likely mean that they enjoyed it and don't take the movie as anything more important. Importance, truth, etc are other topics, but then those are not either determined by knowing film history. You can notice importance or truth in themselves by the way they apply to life, the world, society, events, ideas etc.

Um...why do you need to know older films? How do they apply to reviewing POTC for an audience today. You're basing this entirely on what's established or easy to argue from a social perspective. There is no 'true knowledge of cinema'. There is a set of things considered important because it's been set up that way for a long time.



Why?

I'm willing to watch older films, but I tend not to like them as much. There are many recent films I'm more interested in seeing (I've seem quite a few classics) so my time is better spent on those, and it's more relevant for me.



I think there could be many ways to write reviews. Some people might not be interested in technical details and only want something to keep them interested and entertained. There are a lot of possibilities in terms of how you could structure them. Some probably generally work better than others.

Finally, I'd say that some things are specific to film (technical, knowledge of history), but the most important things about film are not specific to it. The nature of the way people feel, think, communicate, relate to ideas, concepts, surprises, perspectives.

So, the most important aspects of film, have nothing to do with film.

I'll repeat, the most important aspects of film mostly have nothing to do with film.
I'll repeat, the most important aspects of film mostly have nothing to do with film.
I'll repeat, the most important aspects of film mostly have nothing to do with film.
I'll repeat, the most important aspects of film mostly have nothing to do with film.

Thanks. So, I'd rather hear from someone about a movie if I feel I can trust them on those other topics and issues than I would the most knowledgeable and intelligent film critic to exist.

On KJ I think it's implied that the average person doesn't agree with critics because of lack of knowledge of inability to argue for their views. I think it has a lot more to do with this.

OMG!

Heresy?

Inanity.

I think it's a significant point and it's absolutely true. The things people tend to most care about in movies and that they use to judge are things that are not at all unique to movies. So in those terms, movies are more about other things (ideas, thoughts, emotions etc) than they are about just being movies.

You know, I started to reply to this. I actually had a fairly long and substantive post typed out. But honestly, what's the point?

A wise conservation of energy, sir.

I actually think DP is 100% correct

IT SPREADS!!

Well all he's saying (I believe) is that the important parts take their substance from outside the medium and actual filmmaking technique itself. Just as a painting isn't about the oils and canvas. Seems like a fairly straight forward and true statement.

Not really.

The whole is more than just a sum of its parts. That's right.



Anyway, guys, I know I'm no mod and all...but could you take this discussion elsewhere because the past two pages or so have barely anything to do with this film. : )

It's called the "DP07 effect"

Well no, that's true but not quite what I meant. I meant it's not about the oil on the sheet itself, it's about what it represents, which is outside the medium of painting

So just any scene in a movie will be effective no matter what. Or a key moment in the film doesn't depend on the way it's staged, photographed, etc. You don't think that has to do with how effective a scene can be to the viewer? Or when a key moment in a film references another moment from a previous one and it flies right by you but that great film critic who's eye catches everything helps you notice and then when you watch the movie again it adds so much to the experience.

Heh I think the message was misunderstood. For example, Rear Window. Hitchcock's use of the camera - essential. But the emotions taken out of that film is the suspense/excitement/etc. brought on by the use of that camera, and the voyeurism and other themes in there, that's the result and goal, and those aren't exclusive to the film medium. Even things like beauty gained from directorial brilliance can be thrown in there.

I can use this to summarize what I was going to say to DP07 initially.

Of course the emotions of suspense/excitement aren't exclusive to movies. This is so obtusely obvious that it doesn't need to be stated at all, let alone in a masturbatory message board posting. However, the fact remains that the art of the movie inspired those emotions while you were viewing it. Therefore, in that specific moment, the emotions are exclusive to the medium.

But regardless they don't rely on the medium of filmmaking or the knowledge of it, which I believe is the original point (trixster's) being argued against.

Another analogy would be of a music lover who doesn't know the specifics of keys, progressions, time rhythms, etc., and doesn't really listen to music older than him. That doesn't hinder their ability to judge music.

Jesus Christ, of course it does.

I should specify current music, the type he's familiar with

Do you not need to be knowledgeable - at least to a certain extent - to be able to identify a cut, a shot, a composition? These are the tools of the artist in the medium being discussed that sparks these emotions. If you can't identify them, and identify what makes them do what they do to you and why, then I would say it certainly hinders your ability to judge it, at least with the slightest bit of insight.