12-12-2009, 09:46 PM
Hi,
First off, let me welcome you to the Lounge. I hope you have a long and pleasant stay.
Actually, 300 is hardly universally admired. It did win a number of lesser awards, and it was a financial success, but it received mixed reviews, and it was (as far as I know) not even nominated for any Academy Awards. I've already discussed why I didn't care for it, and have nothing to add there.
You are a little more correct in claiming that Titanic was admired. It did make a lot of money and it did receive a number of significant awards. There is no question that, technically, it was a brilliant film. But a number of critics have panned it for its lack of a significant story, for its one dimensional static characters, and for its blatant attempted manipulation of the audience's emotions.
In addition to those flaws, the movie was ruined for me by the character of the female lead, Rose DeWitt Bukater (played by Kate Winslet). She starts out as a vapid twit who is willing to prostitute herself for the comfort of herself and her mother. She lacks the firmness of character to abide by her decision and the intelligence to plot another course of action. And after a lifetime of experience, she's still a vapid twit who, somehow, sees destroying (in effect) the Heart of the Ocean as a valid gesture -- of what is not clear.
The movie is a tribute to mindless romanticism overcoming intellect. The most obnoxious example of this is the unneeded death of the male lead (Jack Dawson played by Leonardo DiCaprio). The only character with even a hint of three dimensionality, Jack is a smart, creative, active individual. Against all odds, he manages to find a way to save one person from freezing and drowning. That person should have been him, but instead it is Rose. Rose, as a woman and a first class passenger, would have had no difficulty entering a lifeboat. Had she done so, she would have ensured her survival and greatly increased the odds for her <strike>love toy</strike> beloved. In one of the most revolting examples of stupid sentimentality ever filmed, she refuses to save herself and spare Jack the responsibility of protecting her, thus insuring his death. The only things she accomplishes in the course of this film is to destroy two worthwhile objects, Jack and the Heart.
If you want to see a movie with character development, plot, interesting emotions, try Gone With the Wind, or Casablanca, or Fried Green Tomatoes. But three hours of great cinematography unsupported by plot, character development, or anything more than a hint of intelligence is not entertainment, it is torture. Had I not been taken to it by friends, I would have walked out within the first half hour -- and I would have mildly disliked it instead of violently loathing it.
--Pete
First off, let me welcome you to the Lounge. I hope you have a long and pleasant stay.
Quote:I am sorry but I am totally opposite to you. I could consider Titanic and 300 as one of the best movie I have ever watched.Very well. However, since you state an opinion without supporting it, there is not much else to say other than that we disagree.
Quote:I don't know what kind of movie you prefer but these are the ones, which the whole world have admire.The opinion of 'the whole world' is not a great indicator. 'The whole world' preferred VHS to BetaMax, WinTel to Mac or Linux, RAW to Universe.
Actually, 300 is hardly universally admired. It did win a number of lesser awards, and it was a financial success, but it received mixed reviews, and it was (as far as I know) not even nominated for any Academy Awards. I've already discussed why I didn't care for it, and have nothing to add there.
You are a little more correct in claiming that Titanic was admired. It did make a lot of money and it did receive a number of significant awards. There is no question that, technically, it was a brilliant film. But a number of critics have panned it for its lack of a significant story, for its one dimensional static characters, and for its blatant attempted manipulation of the audience's emotions.
In addition to those flaws, the movie was ruined for me by the character of the female lead, Rose DeWitt Bukater (played by Kate Winslet). She starts out as a vapid twit who is willing to prostitute herself for the comfort of herself and her mother. She lacks the firmness of character to abide by her decision and the intelligence to plot another course of action. And after a lifetime of experience, she's still a vapid twit who, somehow, sees destroying (in effect) the Heart of the Ocean as a valid gesture -- of what is not clear.
The movie is a tribute to mindless romanticism overcoming intellect. The most obnoxious example of this is the unneeded death of the male lead (Jack Dawson played by Leonardo DiCaprio). The only character with even a hint of three dimensionality, Jack is a smart, creative, active individual. Against all odds, he manages to find a way to save one person from freezing and drowning. That person should have been him, but instead it is Rose. Rose, as a woman and a first class passenger, would have had no difficulty entering a lifeboat. Had she done so, she would have ensured her survival and greatly increased the odds for her <strike>love toy</strike> beloved. In one of the most revolting examples of stupid sentimentality ever filmed, she refuses to save herself and spare Jack the responsibility of protecting her, thus insuring his death. The only things she accomplishes in the course of this film is to destroy two worthwhile objects, Jack and the Heart.
If you want to see a movie with character development, plot, interesting emotions, try Gone With the Wind, or Casablanca, or Fried Green Tomatoes. But three hours of great cinematography unsupported by plot, character development, or anything more than a hint of intelligence is not entertainment, it is torture. Had I not been taken to it by friends, I would have walked out within the first half hour -- and I would have mildly disliked it instead of violently loathing it.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?