Movie How to rate movies?

[sandeano]

Well, until recently CITIZEN KANE was generally regarded as the best film ever made (if we are to believe the S&S critics and filmmakers poll).

Although initially Kane himself is seen as an admirable character, his wealth, fame and power diminishes that trait and he becomes a mostly appalling person, corrupted by his rise to the top. We watch the moral and ethical downfall of a once decent protagonist. Sure there when we realise the meaning of the mystery word we regain a little of the character's redemption, but perhaps not quite enough.

You mention Max Cady. Personally I find Mitchum's take on the role far more satisfying as they did not see the need to humanise the character (as was the case with the overblown Scorsese film). In the 1962 version it was pure Manichean melodrama - Peck was the unwilling hero having to vanquish the vile Mitchum (who has no redeeming features). I just get the feeling that in taking on the role in the remake, De Niro requested some humanising to strengthen his character, whereas, at the same time Nolte's 'hero' becomes more flawed (it has been some time but wasn't he having affairs etc?).

I find Scorsese's film to be close to a disaster in its need to flesh out its characters (and include such messy Catholic iconography) that it induced nothing more than a migraine compared to the effective nastiness of the original (in which you were thrilled that the venal Max Cady was caught and subdued).

 

[Frank Bunn]

Well, until recently CITIZEN KANE was generally regarded as the best film ever made (if we are to believe the S&S critics and filmmakers poll).

Although initially Kane himself is seen as an admirable character, his wealth, fame and power diminishes that trait and he becomes a mostly appalling person, corrupted by his rise to the top. We watch the moral and ethical downfall of a once decent protagonist. Sure there when we realise the meaning of the mystery word we regain a little of the character's redemption, but perhaps not quite enough.

You mention Max Cady. Personally I find Mitchum's take on the role far more satisfying as they did not see the need to humanise the character (as was the case with the overblown Scorsese film). In the 1962 version it was pure Manichean melodrama - Peck was the unwilling hero having to vanquish the vile Mitchum (who has no redeeming features). I just get the feeling that in taking on the role in the remake, De Niro requested some humanising to strengthen his character, whereas, at the same time Nolte's 'hero' becomes more flawed (it has been some time but wasn't he having affairs etc?).

I find Scorsese's film to be close to a disaster in its need to flesh out its characters (and include such messy Catholic iconography) that it induced nothing more than a migraine compared to the effective nastiness of the original (in which you were thrilled that the venal Max Cady was caught and subdued).

Vonnegut highlights some classic story-lines that people find satisfying - hence why they might rate a movie highly. But it's not a comprehensive list. Same as giving your audience at least one character they can empathise with. It could be part of a writer's toolbox, not a hard and fast rule.

Detailed discussion of individual movies belong in other threads.

 

[Roobs321]

came across this on YT, thought it was funny and largely on the money. This seemed a valid enough thread to link it (playback disabled outside YT in this case)

The Worst Types of Movie Fans