ayall wrote:Well, using the legal system as an example, if someone is on trail and they need an "expert witness," it's fair to use someone who's devoted their life (and have made a living) on the subject. Someone who's opinion is respect.
For example, checking out Roger Ebert's "top 50 movies of all time," the hurt locker is no where to be seen.
Once again, who cares? Roger Ebert is far from infallible; he has given lots of shitty films high marks in recent years. That's not even getting into how many newspaper critics are pressured into giving higher scores to certain films. (Note how the shills shamelessly lied about Revenge of the Sith)
By the way, you're the same guy who loved Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, gave a T10 to freaking Billy Madison, and hated (T2) both True Romance and Beverly Hills Cop. The fact that you're using "critical opinion" as a pseudo-argument shows how intellectually bankrupt you are in any actual support behind your views, and how hypocritical that really is.
ayall wrote:The burden of proof is on you, to present a "respectable critic" who has THL on their "top 50 greatest ever" list.
Actually, in traditional Policy Debate format, you have the easier task.
Instead of me providing 1,000,000 lists which don't show the THL on them, you only have to provide 1 list which does show THL on it.
What "burden of proof"? You're the one who brought up "respectable critics" into this discussion, not me. I only stated that The Hurt Locker was one of my top 50 films ever. I don't care about any critics' list, although it's pretty damn easy to find critics that absolutely loved it.
In fact, I am the one who has repeatedly stated that using "critics" as one's ONLY argument is fucking retarded, so why is there burden of proof on me to use this same idiot pseudo-reasoning? Like, do you understand anything about discussion and an actual exchange of ideas?
This would be the equivalent of us arguing about 19th century literature, and then you bringing up the fact that most food critics prefer using oranges over grapes, then demanding that I show any who prefers grapes, as a "burden of proof".
ayall wrote:Billy Madison was a great film my friend.
Unlike "Crank: High Voltage (2009)," which you have as a T10, most people (and reputable critics) enjoyed BM!
Far more critics/people liked The Hurt Locker, and far more critics/people hated Billy Madison. That was the point.
You're using this pseudo-argument about "critics like", but your own rankings aren't even consistent with it.
ayall wrote:Wrong again!
You must not have a technical background, because when i'm writing/reviewing a proof, it's much easier to list/review knows facts such as "gravity on earth = 9.8 m/s" then to have to prove it out ever single fucking time I use/see the constant g.
Similarly, when talking about basic film concepts, it's easier to use common knowledge backed by experts in the field rather then to explain every point out like i'm talking to a 3 year old. (or am i?)
This might easily be the dumbest thing you have written on this forums, which is a hell of an accomplishment coming from you.
You're seriously conflating an actual scientific FACT with a nebulous critical OPINION as one and the same?
I'm not 3 years old, but mentally, you seem to be, as you have never even learned the difference between "facts" and "opinions".
ayall wrote:Though I know you're not the typical American, you are coming off that way (so does Bigelow) thinking that the US armed forces is the only one who does this crap!
Does what?
ayall wrote:Why not make the movie with the focus on IDF (Israeli Defense Force)?, they've got much more experience on the subject then the US. You could also do it on France or Russia or China. The US is not the only military power in the world, and obsessively focusing on them gives off that view point.
To make it more balanced, the least Bigelow could have done was to throw in some scenes regarding intelligent sharing with foreign govts (or in 0dark30, the purposefully lack of sharing with Pakistan)
So the reason you dislike "The Hurt Locker" is that it focused on the US military instead of foreign armies? Even though the film is ABOUT the US military? This would be like hating "Citizen Kane" because it doesn't focus on other millionaires that have died.
I see now why you focused so much on critical reviews. You can't actually come up with anything remotely intelligent yourself.
ayall wrote:Not true, it was very political and that's the primary reason I didn't like it.
Yes, I wrote about this above; if you're a political extremist, "The Hurt Locker" came across as "very political" to you. If you're a sane person, however, it did not.
ayall wrote:While I agree with some of your posts regarding THL, this thread isn't about THL, but if you'd like to discus the many many flaws THL has, feel free to bump that thread back to the top and we'll get it going again.
Perhaps if you had any worthwhile, well-supported arguments to make about the film.
But so far, I have only read vague allusions to "respectable critics" and anger that a film about the US military was even made to begin with.
I must be unfactual. I personally think The Hurt Locker is better than Citizen Kane. And it isn't even a slight difference. The Hurt Locker is in my tier 10 while Citizen Kane is in my tier 6. IMO Citizen Kane is vastly overrated. Just another piece of evidence that film opinion is subjective. In fact I'm not even sure how one can be objective about film. Every film impacts people differently.
