| Quote: Originally Posted by bankholdup Not all people want to sit and write a 5 paragraph review. Why bother posting a review if you don't have anything to say about the movie? I'm not expecting long reviews, I just want them to have some personal insight, something original that everybody doesn't already know. Quote: MovieManiac saw the movie, loved the way it looked, and noticed the incredible influence. Therefore, he respects and loves it. What's so bad about that? And do you know why more recent films are "superior" in technology? Because they didn't have computers or any of that crap 60 years ago. I mean, you aren't upset because there aren't any lightsabers, are you? When I said that many recent films are better than CK technically, I wasn't alluding to CGI. What I meant was that films of such directors as Antonioni, Kubrick, Bertolucci, Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg and many others are better than CK as for use of camera, lighting, set design, use of sound, etc. Welles himself made movies that are a lot more likely to wow the audience than CK, especially Touch of Evil. I don't buy movie-maniac's review, because someone who hasn't seen the movie could've written it (and I'm not suggesting movie-maniac didn't see it). In my opinion, people don't give movies a 10/10 rating just because of their technical merits. If they don't care for the story and characters, they don't love the movie, no matter how great is the cinematography or things like that. To me, movie-maniac's review looks like as if it was written by someone who thinks he MUST love this movie, not by someone who really loves it. Quote: What is so wrong with appreciating "older" cinema? The fact that Orson Welles brought to life a great story with some of the best cinematography on screen is awesome. Sure, some movie watchers (notice my choice of words) may not appreciate cinema from 61 years ago, but maybe you should take a closer look. However, movie fans should appreciate what Citizen Kane did for the film industry: created surprise endings, perfected cinematography, showed some of the first controversy in film, etc. The technical merits are awesome. It just seems to me that you're wrapped up in a world of modern cinema and lightsabers to notice that Citizen Kane should be appreciated and watched. I mean, seriously... You have completely misunderstood me. I have no bias against older films. In fact most of my favorite movies are from the 50s, 60s and 70s. I find it amusing that you think otherwise, because usually I'm accused of deriding comtemporary films. It's all right to appreciate CK for its influence on the industry, but you shouldn't confuse appreciation and loving. Sure, CK influenced lots of filmmakers, but it doesn't make it a better movie. |