frederic_g54 wrote:ShogunRua wrote:And wasn't another "movie with bad actors and an unknown director", Precious, something you liked a lot? ...But a poster?
I though I'd made myself clear back then when I said I'd never seen these actors on screen.
I'd seen Paul walker, Hayden Christensen, Chris Brown, Jay Hernandez, Michael Ealy,... on screen numerous times who left me cold on each occasion. My comment was based on experience (acting wise !), a comment I couldn't have made with Precious (nor did I), nor with any other film featuring actors I'd never heard of.
Before the film Precious, Mariah Carey and MoNique were considered infinitely worse actors than anyone you mentioned above. You didn't watch masterpieces like "Glitter" or "Phat Girlz", but that doesn't make them any less shitty.
And dismissing films solely based on their actors or because the director isn't critically acclaimed is close-minded. Or worse yet, based on the poster. It's a different if you had done so on the basis of the STORY or trailer. No arguments then.
frederic_g54 wrote:from http://www.criticker.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1328
You were a new member back then, and if I remember correctly, if was your first post on this site. You accused one of the greatest directors of being senile, had failed to rate more of his films and at the same time gave films such as Johnny English and Transporter 2 very strong ratings.
See? That paragraph above is the very definition of being a snob.
Instead of discussing the film in more detail, you assumed that because it was by KUBRICK and the person rating it liked unrelated action and comedy films, it wasn't valid criticism. That IS being a snob. What's worse is that my opinion wasn't even that unique; on IMDB, Boxofficemojo, and a host of other places, "Eyes Wide Shut" is the lowest regarded Kubrick movie, with a lot of Kubrick fans considering it awful, too.
fredericg_54 wrote:ShogunRua wrote:and it was the one Kubrick film that was outright bad.
one ? you don't seem to like much of his other pictures, but I won't get into that (nor am I asking you to)...
There's a difference between thinking certain pictures are good, but not as great as advertised (Fullmetal Jacket, The Shining), or even mediocre (2001), and thinking a movie is downright bad.
fredericg_54 wrote:ShogunRua wrote:Most of the other folks in that topic, who knew you well, responded by calling you "arrogant", "elitist", and yes, a "snob".
no they didn't...just you.
Unfortunately, mpowell deleted most of your angry ravings, and people calling you arrogant and foolish later in the topic. (It was initially over 4 pages long) I did forget that Rufflesack was on your side, though. What a shame the entire thread hasn't been saved for posterity!
fredericg_54 wrote:on a side note, circumstances (personal life, work,... +- 14 hours a day) have forced me (based on experience) to keep ignoring potentially bad films, which apparently has turned me into a snob/close-minded person according to Shogun, though I hope there are some folks out there who'd respond similarly. Though I don't mind; I enjoy (re)watching great films.
and who knows me well here, show yourself !
You can watch whatever you like, it's just ironic that you should be the most adamant about what constitutes good/bad taste, and that "anyone who watched movie X has detestable taste". Speaking of which, you are probably the most predictable guy on here in terms of taste; everything that is/was highly critically acclaimed, no matter its actual quality, gets a high score.
Anything that is a non-hipster comedy or an non-acclaimed action film gets a mediocre/low rating, regardless of actual quality. Anything by famous director X automatically gets a high rating, except for very extreme cases, like Francis Ford Coppola making "Jack".