To all the film snobs.

Why? perhaps you are not in the same catagory as an example I will give but it does bother me why people will watch "acclaimed unknown to only film snobs films" which appear to be nothing more than a poor attempt a home cinema and then we come dfown to the whole issue of ART!

Do film snobs watch films just to say that they have watched said film?

Please note I am not a person who will enjoy any old crap from Hollywood but I do enjoy a movie if it entertains me. Example (Predator - this film makes no excuses about what it is, it is an honest to god Macho action film that has some hilarious mistakes)

So film snobs what say you? do I have you all wrong?

Hey Joe:
Being a film snob myself and a recent graduate of a film and media major in Uni, I was wondering if we had any other film snobs in the house. I know Purps is a film student, but he is yet to learn the way of the film student.

So, who in this nuthouse would rather poke their own eyeballs out rather than see anything at a 'megaplex'?

Do we have any Goddard fans? How about De Palma? Argento? Almodovar? Miyazaki? Kurosawa? Heaven help us if we have any Solondz fans in here!

DISCUSS

Hahaha I'm a film graduate and I worte my dissertation on Solondz! Got a 1st for it too. It was called 'Subverting Suburbia: The Function of Black Comedy in the Films of Todd Solondz', just in case you are interested.

This is why I can't go see another movie with Hey Joe. I just know that while I'm sitting there enjoying the BANG BANG SHIT MOTHERFUCKER BOOM with extra bad guys he'll be right there, silently judging me because I have no idea whether it's a zoom-in, dolly-out or a zoom-out, dolly-in. I can never remember.

Fuck you all, I LIKED TRANSFORMERS! Damn the missteps in logic, damn to crappy acting, and damn you snobby movie goers who are stuck too far up your own collective ass to see that explosions are nice.

I tend to dislike film snobs, not because of the films that they watch but because they moan about popular films. I have a couple of friends who have a huge selection of foreign art house films and are constantly telling me to watch them because of the political undertones or the in your face irony of the entire film "if you just think about what the director isn't showing you" kind of things. This doesn't strike me as good directing but apparently it is groundbreaking.

I am not a purist though who only looks to Hollywood. In all fairness I prefer underground and foreign films because they tend to show what they want as opposed to cutting the films down to 12A/PG-13/[Whatever it is in your country] standards. Unless the film is improved because of the cuts (I prefer the theatrical cut as opposed to the directors cut of The 40 Year Old Virgin and Donnie Darko) then I am completely against this.

I prefer my Chan-Wook and Fukasaku films to Spielburg and Abrams but I do not believe that this makes me a snob because I can admit that I, on occassion, want to be wowed by explosions and paper thin plots. I primarily see films as a form of entertainment over any form of expression. I will not watch an arthouse film, not matter what the message it is giving, if it is boring whilst I will also quite quickly turn off the latest Hollywood blockbuster if I find the action/suspense/whatever unappealing.

Last point. One thing that does annoy me though is America's tendancy to remake everything to make them better. I was sat near my housemate the other day who was on the Internet and a trailer popup came up for 'Quarantine', we watched it and he said that it looked pretty scary. I immediately said 'That is [REC]', I went to IMDB and within one year America have in fact remade [REC]. Whilst I admit I haven't seen it yet (Live in UK) I will most likely go to watch it to see if it can live up to [REC], I think it is very poor of America to have remade a film after one year. I can accept films that are 20+ years old because they can at least weakly justify it as better effects and methods in which to film it.

Please don't see me as a snob, I do in fact like many of the remakes I just find it poor of America to be constantly remaking films that do not need to be remade. My one defining dislike to film snobs is that many refuse to even watch a remake because it is a remake, but still find it completely acceptable to bitch and moan about how terrible it is.

My big three: David Lynch, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Wong Kar-Wai. Toss in some Sergei Parajanov for flavor (I need to find a way to see more of his work, though).

In addition to my original post, I'd like to add two films that I thoroughly liked.
Dead Poet Society and Dangerous Minds.

TomNook:
Fuck you all, I LIKED TRANSFORMERS! Damn the missteps in logic, damn to crappy acting, and damn you snobby movie goers who are stuck too far up your own collective ass to see that explosions are nice.

Well it was a bit embarrassing that the 80s cartoon movie had better acting, plotting, scripting, action and looked better. The script was absolutely tits (in the good sense, well good cheesy sense):

"Come on, I got better things to do tonight than die."

"But Prime, I'm just a soldier."

"Now all we need is a little energon and a lot of luck."

"Megatron must be stopped, no matter the cost."

"Turbo rubbing young punks." (Swear to god Kup says that to Hot Rob and Daniel).

"Such heroic nonsense." *Blasts Ironhide in the face*

Kup: Reminds me the Nitith slave mines on Galganas 7.
Hot Rod: Every place reminds you of some place else.
Kup: Experience, lad. You should learn to appreciate it.
Hot Rod: A lot of good it's done us so far.

Quintesson: Quiet or you'll be held in contempt of this court.
Hot Rod: I have nothing but contempt for this court.

Galvatron: I, Galvatron, will crush you just as Megatron crushed Prime!
Ultra Magnus: And you'll die trying just like Megatron.

rossatdi:

corporate_gamer:

Eggo:
i watched live free and die hard and thought it was gud does that count

I once wrote an essay on how Die Hard was a parody of the Orthodox reflection of the the cold war. Does that count?

Bwah? Die Hard is about Bruce Willis kicking the shit out people and blowing stuff up. And it's the best action film ever made. What on earth has it got to do with the Cold War?

basically bruce willis is a representation of america. the dirty eastern europeans terrorists are the dirty russian communists. And its the idealised version of america kicking the shit out of the communists and blowing stuff up. Oh and theres a happy ending after he really gives it to the terrorists, which america is still waiting on.

Hey Joe:
Being a film snob myself and a recent graduate of a film and media major in Uni, I was wondering if we had any other film snobs in the house. I know Purps is a film student, but he is yet to learn the way of the film student.

So, who in this nuthouse would rather poke their own eyeballs out rather than see anything at a 'megaplex'?

Do we have any Goddard fans? How about De Palma? Argento? Almodovar? Miyazaki? Kurosawa? Heaven help us if we have any Solondz fans in here!

DISCUSS

Wow! I actually enjoy films based on their content rather than their directors.

corporate_gamer:

rossatdi:

corporate_gamer:

Eggo:
i watched live free and die hard and thought it was gud does that count

I once wrote an essay on how Die Hard was a parody of the Orthodox reflection of the the cold war. Does that count?

Bwah? Die Hard is about Bruce Willis kicking the shit out people and blowing stuff up. And it's the best action film ever made. What on earth has it got to do with the Cold War?

basically bruce willis is a representation of america. the dirty eastern europeans terrorists are the dirty russian communists. And its the idealised version of america kicking the shit out of the communists and blowing stuff up. Oh and theres a happy ending after he really gives it to the terrorists, which america is still waiting on.

But they're German not Eastern European, well East German, granted but still they're not exactly communists. They're bank robbers not terrorists. McClane states early on he'd be happy to leave if Gruber would open the front door. McClane openly mocks cowboy macho-ism (I always liked those sequin shirts). An idealised version of america is a burnt out cop with a failed marriage and a smoking problem?

In fact Die Hard has, at least in the first two films, openly mocked the US's institutions portraying high ranking cops as sycophantic idiots, the FBI as callous yahoos and the US army as easily corrupted (Die Harder, two entire platoons of the army defect for money).

i can sit through any movie without falling asleep and still be able to think of it as a good experience. it's not so much what the movie presents to you, it's what your mind can get out of the movie. you want to limit yourself within the confines of critique, because you don't understand? fine, but don't limit others.

rossatdi:

corporate_gamer:

rossatdi:

corporate_gamer:

Eggo:
i watched live free and die hard and thought it was gud does that count

I once wrote an essay on how Die Hard was a parody of the Orthodox reflection of the the cold war. Does that count?

Bwah? Die Hard is about Bruce Willis kicking the shit out people and blowing stuff up. And it's the best action film ever made. What on earth has it got to do with the Cold War?

basically bruce willis is a representation of america. the dirty eastern europeans terrorists are the dirty russian communists. And its the idealised version of america kicking the shit out of the communists and blowing stuff up. Oh and theres a happy ending after he really gives it to the terrorists, which america is still waiting on.

But they're German not Eastern European. They're bank robbers not terrorists. McClane states early on he'd be happy to leave if Gruber would open the front door. McClane openly mocks cowboy macho-ism (I always liked those sequin shirts). An idealised version of america is a burnt out cop with a failed marriage and a smoking problem?

In fact Die Hard has, at least in the first two films, openly mocked the US's institutions portraying high ranking cops as sycophantic idiots, the FBI as callous yahoos and the US army as easily corrupted (Die Harder, two entire platoons of the army defect for money).

Damn, i said it a lot better in my essay. You right, from the revisionist point of view of the Cold war. Oh and they were eastern german, just on the right side of the big ol' fence. The Point was, there was enough links to be made to write an essay. Although my history teacher was not impressed.

corporate_gamer:

Damn, i said it a lot better in my essay. You right, from the revisionist point of view of the Cold war. Oh and they were eastern german, just on the right side of the big ol' fence. The Point was, there was enough links to be made to write an essay. Although my history teacher was not impressed.

Ha ha, okay. I'll let you off. They are Eastern Europeans though, judging by their passports and cigarettes.

The best one my brother did (but I wrote) was comparing Firefly to westerns in the parallels with the Civil War. Independents = Confederates. Alliance = Unionists. The Alliance even have similar coloured uniforms to the Union. The Outlaw Josey Wales is a clear inspiration for Mal.

OuroborosChoked:
My big three: David Lynch, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Wong Kar-Wai. Toss in some Sergei Parajanov for flavor (I need to find a way to see more of his work, though).

Freaky, I was watching Eraserhead and In the Mood for Love the other day. An odd double feature but hey, after Eraserhead In the Mood for Love felt like brain candy.

Nope, my definition of a good film is: I enjoyed watching it.

This leads to everything from Ridley Scott epics to written, directed by and starring Steaven Seagal living within my DVD cabinet in perfect harmony. Although occasionally Steaven tries to smile, that never goes down well...

beddo:

Hey Joe:
Being a film snob myself and a recent graduate of a film and media major in Uni, I was wondering if we had any other film snobs in the house. I know Purps is a film student, but he is yet to learn the way of the film student.

So, who in this nuthouse would rather poke their own eyeballs out rather than see anything at a 'megaplex'?

Do we have any Goddard fans? How about De Palma? Argento? Almodovar? Miyazaki? Kurosawa? Heaven help us if we have any Solondz fans in here!

DISCUSS

Wow! I actually enjoy films based on their content rather than their directors.

I believe that when a film snob drops director's names they do so as a way of saying that the director's films are, in fact, usually packed with this great content you seek. If I were to say I like Kubrick (no opinion on the matter, seeing as I've only seen FMJ) it would be because I've seen most of his movies and think they're all fine pieces of celluloid. If I said I disliked Uwe Boll it would be because I thought all his movies lacked this impressive 'content'. I believe Hey Joe was using these directors in the sense that I used Kubrick above - and lo and behold, the ones whose names I recognise are widely believed to be consistent Golden Egg layers. Kurosawa's films, though they have their detractors, are agreed to be outstanding. Ditto Miyazaki. De Palma, I'm fairly sure, is the same.
So don't be a smarty pants.

I'm not generally a huge fan of films, but I do like Miyazaki films. Spirited Away and Howl are my favourites, Howl, because it cheers me up.
This year I loved Persepolis, but I only saw it in the original french, though I hope to see the re dub too.
And Bubba Ho-Tep is awesomepants, to use Hey Joe's expression.

I'm a bit of a film elitist with a healthy love of the quality block-buster. I'm a big fan of foreign cinema and enjoy my arthouse films. However I dislike experimentation for the same of experimentation and prefer good story telling over random madness.

Personal favorite directors are...

Hayao Miyazaki, Akira Kurosawa, Danny Boyle, Jean-Pierre Jeunet (something me and Yahtzee have in common), David Cronenberg, Brian DePalma, Tarsem and others.

I still however have a healthy love of good blockbusters and I still regularly consume Spielberg, Scorcese and even less autuer directors like Gore Verbinski and Len Wiseman.

Saskwach:

beddo:

Hey Joe:
Being a film snob myself and a recent graduate of a film and media major in Uni, I was wondering if we had any other film snobs in the house. I know Purps is a film student, but he is yet to learn the way of the film student.

So, who in this nuthouse would rather poke their own eyeballs out rather than see anything at a 'megaplex'?

Do we have any Goddard fans? How about De Palma? Argento? Almodovar? Miyazaki? Kurosawa? Heaven help us if we have any Solondz fans in here!

DISCUSS

Wow! I actually enjoy films based on their content rather than their directors.

I believe that when a film snob drops director's names they do so as a way of saying that the director's films are, in fact, usually packed with this great content you seek. If I were to say I like Kubrick (no opinion on the matter, seeing as I've only seen FMJ) it would be because I've seen most of his movies and think they're all fine pieces of celluloid. If I said I disliked Uwe Boll it would be because I thought all his movies lacked this impressive 'content'. I believe Hey Joe was using these directors in the sense that I used Kubrick above - and lo and behold, the ones whose names I recognise are widely believed to be consistent Golden Egg layers. Kurosawa's films, though they have their detractors, are agreed to be outstanding. Ditto Miyazaki. De Palma, I'm fairly sure, is the same.
So don't be a smarty pants.

Don't be a pretentious and patronising idiot. You failed to read my comment as I had intended; 'film snobs' don't actually seem to enjoy films. This often seems to be the case because they have a tendency to judge them based on 'the vision' of the director and not the actual content.

I think Stanley Kubrick's films are awful. Space Odyssey is one of the most boring things I have ever seen. It lacked subtlety, there was no emotion, the story was weak. The end sequence when he 'evolves' it was just a tedious use of the then available special effects.

Clockwork Orange, what an incomprehensible mess. Non believable storyline and outrageous characters. Totally boring and a waste of time and effort to watch it.

One of my favourite films is Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl. It's fun, exciting, engaging, you can watch it more than once. It's just an entertaining film.

I hate all these pseudo intellectual commentaries on life that are put into films. If these people were actually intelligent then they would write a book about it!

Aha beddo! But Gore Verbinski also falls into the category of a talented director with consistantly good films and content. His work on the NA version of The Ring was excellent, despite a weak, plot hole filled script. He didn't do so well with The Ring 2 and both of the Pirates Sequels were nutty, but still fun to watch. I love all 3 Pirates movies for the shear madness and spectacle they present however I would not for one second defend their plotting, it's batshit insane and in some cases overly cliched and nigh incomprehensible. But then again, Pirates 3 has Shipwreck Cove, that shit rules.

I'm looking forward to the Bioshock movie because he's the first truly excellent director to be put on a Videogame movie project.

Being a film-guy myself, as well as an annoying pretentious elitist, it's odd to me how many people admit that they will watch anything just because something blows up.

beddo:

Don't be a pretentious and patronising idiot. You failed to read my comment as I had intended; 'film snobs' don't actually seem to enjoy films. This often seems to be the case because they have a tendency to judge them based on 'the vision' of the director and not the actual content.

I think Stanley Kubrick's films are awful. Space Odyssey is one of the most boring things I have ever seen. It lacked subtlety, there was no emotion, the story was weak. The end sequence when he 'evolves' it was just a tedious use of the then available special effects.

Clockwork Orange, what an incomprehensible mess. Non believable storyline and outrageous characters. Totally boring and a waste of time and effort to watch it.

One of my favourite films is Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl. It's fun, exciting, engaging, you can watch it more than once. It's just an entertaining film.

I hate all these pseudo intellectual commentaries on life that are put into films. If these people were actually intelligent then they would write a book about it!

Well if that is what you like then fair enough. I thought a Clockwork Orange was ok, though the book deals with the issues in a more graphic way.
On the other hand I thought Pirates... was a badly written piece of tripe that had a poor plot and bad acting, which relied almost entirely on Johnny Depp to succeed.

To say that the intellectual uses words as his medium is a passé as an argument. Surely the most intelligent way to say something would be to get the attention of the maximum number of people. Films usually end up on television, after dvd release. So essentially you get three waves of diffusion, thus giving you a far wider audience than a book could.

You spot film snobs easily by the way they pretend to 'get' Eraserhead.

I like a lot of films from the cheesy crap to the masterpieces.

Except arthouse wank, can't stand arthouse wank.

KarmicToast:
Being a film-guy myself, as well as an annoying pretentious elitist, it's odd to me how many people admit that they will watch anything just because something blows up.

Can't one enjoy both?

I love good story and clever direction but at the same time I'll never pass up a quality action film (Raiders of the Lost Arc being the formost example) or even a dubious one if it has significant visual flare (re: Die Hard: Live Free or Die Hard) or real stunt work.

I wouldn't say I'm a film snob; I've really enjoyed all of the Jean-Luc Godard and Sergio Leone that I've seen, but I also like John Waters and John Carpenter. Basically, a movie needs to have a 'hook' to keep it watchable and interesting throughout. Movies like Hero and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon don't do it for me because to me they're each just a long series of ridiculously long (and admittedly pretty) fight scenes that don't go anywhere and don't have any emotional quality. Artsy "concept" movies like The Cremaster Cycle and whatever that one where the guy stuck all the insects to editing tape is don't do it for me because they're just unwatchable - there's nothing happening, none of it means anything. Strangely, I do like Luis Bunuel films like Un Chien Andalou and Le Charme Discret de la Bourgeoisie.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are a lot of levels that a film can appeal on, and those levels can be really base, like in your standard Hollywood fare, or they can be more intellectual. I tend to prefer the more challenging intellectual films, but the mindless ones can be fun, too.

beddo:
Don't be a pretentious and patronising idiot. You failed to read my comment as I had intended; 'film snobs' don't actually seem to enjoy films. This often seems to be the case because they have a tendency to judge them based on 'the vision' of the director and not the actual content.

I think Stanley Kubrick's films are awful. Space Odyssey is one of the most boring things I have ever seen. It lacked subtlety, there was no emotion, the story was weak. The end sequence when he 'evolves' it was just a tedious use of the then available special effects.

Clockwork Orange, what an incomprehensible mess. Non believable storyline and outrageous characters. Totally boring and a waste of time and effort to watch it.

One of my favourite films is Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl. It's fun, exciting, engaging, you can watch it more than once. It's just an entertaining film.

I hate all these pseudo intellectual commentaries on life that are put into films. If these people were actually intelligent then they would write a book about it!

Pretentious? Me? I never even pretended to have watched most of the movies by these 'great' directors. I've seen FMJ by Kubrick, AI (half by Kubrick) and The Seven Samurai and that's it. My earlier post in this thread was about how much I love big bangs in my movies.
Patronising? I wasn't the one whose response to an innocent OP was dripping with veiled distaste. Your new post only shows exactly how much bile you were quietly directing at Hey Joe in the first place; I just called you on it.
As for your problems with Stanley Kubrick's movies, I really couldn't say one way or the other as I've already admitted I haven't watched them; but it should be noted that a writer I'd definitely class as an intellectual said one of the big themes of 2001 was a lack of emotionality, the process of distancing oneself from emotions. Don't ask me if that's true, but if it is then for the movie to lack emotion would mean SK succeeded with this 'vision' of his and successfully conveyed his meaning, which I would class as content. There was a message and you got it: you just concluded it was a failing when others claim it was the point.
As for your favourite movie...the content is what? Pirates, Johnny Depp playing a gay drunkard and sea battles? Seriously, I was willing to admit you had a valid point of view until then. Sure the movie is fun, engaging, blah blah blah - I loved it. But it's definitely not heavy on this content you speak of - a word as empty of meaning here as you've implied directorial 'vision' is.
Your last line is just silly. Books are the only medium for intelligent commentary? Tell us, in your infinite wisdom, do poems pass your test? Do plays make the cut?
Saying that film snobs don't enjoy films is preposterous; they wouldn't watch them otherwise. I suspect you simply don't like how much they analyse the movies they watch - something I'm not too fond of either, but I don't carry a chip on my shoulder about it. You've got no good reason; you just hate that they 'suck all the fun out of it'. Everything you've written is the ravings of one trying to explain why they just can't stand something.

jim_doki:
oh god.

I like films, but no amount of art is going to make a pile of crap any more appealing. I like the work of John Waters, The Cohens, most of Sam Raimi's that i've seen, Krubric except for eyes wide shut, but all i could tell you about them was that I enjoyed them. I don't like it when art gets in the way of the message (see Donny Darko)

Amen brother.

I watch all kinds of movies, from action to romance to torture porn (Saw/Hostel) to art house pictures. I don't consider myself a film snob but I can appreciate any kind of movie, I can see the creativity in everything with few exceptions (Date Movie, Epic Movie, things like that). So I guess I'm kind of on the middle ground. I'm equally annoyed by people who can't appreciate artistic, slow moving films with character depth and proper plot construction, as I am by people who look down on me because I enjoy action films and slapstick comedy.

Why can't I like The Pianist and Rambo?

I am a film snob I guess, but I draw the line at Goddard.
He's a total fraud.
The only reason he could justify his horrendous tentatives at making films was because he also conveniently happened to write in "Les Cahiers du Cinema" where he could explain his movies and criticize them himself. If he didn't explain them there, no one would have understood any of it ever.
To de-construct cinema, you first have to know a little about it at least. Just so you know what you deconstruct.
So yeah, Goddard is took pleasure in tearing appart what himself could never create. A movie.

I forgot this, but rather than adding it as an edit, I think it's worth posting on its own:

Favorite animation directors!

Makoto Shinkai - Everyone should check out his work. Seriously. This guy is incredible. On his eariler films, he basically did everything on his own except the voice acting. Everything. On his computer. And every frame is breathtaking. 5 Centimeters Per Second leaves me in awe. I only wish it was out on Blu Ray in the US. The art is so sharp, though... it basically looks HD anyway. Incredible stuff.

Isao Takahata - Grave of the Fireflies. Need I say more? He also wrote and directed both Only Yesterday and Pom Poko.

Miyazaki's good... but in my opinion, his films don't actually have a lot of weight to them. They're just entertainment pieces. He does solid work... there's just not a lot of depth there. That said, Spirited Away is very enjoyable and no, it's not the only one of his that I've seen.

Well shaun of the dead rocks my socks...so freaken funny.

I am looking forward to the next Transformers movie, so I guess you can count me out of the "film snob" brigade. The Constructicons as Devastator are going to kick so much ass it is going to hurt my eyeballs.

I also like many movies like Spirited Away, the Seventh Samurai, Hero, Casablanca, Shaun of The Dead, Bubba Ho Tep, and the like. But I also like movies like Spider Man, The Rock, and Die Hard(all of them so there!). What am I as far as movies are concerned? Do I care?

I'm not sure if you would class me as a film snob. I do look at the style of direction and quality of acting in films quite a bit, as opposed to most of my friends who rate a film by how many people are dismembered by the end credits, and I have seen a few foreign or more arty films. I do ultimately judge films by how much I enjoyed them as an experience so that probably detracts from any snobbery I have a bit.