I read that this movie won an Oscar in the documentary category, so I rented it believing that if the academy acclaimed it, it must be good. I feel duped.
The wildness of youth revisited, a time before tragic culture defining events, a feat on a feat.
Please help me out. What makes this film so deserving of its critical acclaim? Possibly, I’m missing a critical perspective that will make my future viewings more fulfilling.
Well to the OP you probably just aren't a dreamer. Which is fine. For the rest of us accomplishing something that is near impossible and that can never be done again is amazing to watch. But if that didn't impress you then go and play solitaire on your computer or something.
I don't know why you would listen to the Oscars anyway, I mean Sean Penn won an award just because he is pretty influential in Hollywood. Milk wasn't a particularly fantastic film and I get the feeling he only got it because he played a gay man, and they felt the need to praise Harvey Milk. (I did actually enjoy Milk, just felt other people deserved the Oscar)
[deleted]
You can't dislike this film on its own merits without being labeled "not a dreamer"? Give me a break.
shareActually I disagree.
If you dislike the film on its own merit then you are not a dreamer. Because the basic premise of the film is that it is about a man following his dream.
The fact that you used a cliché such as 'give me a break' makes it clear that you have no imagination.
It's not my fault you are bereft of the ability to dream, and so therefore I will not grant you this break.
(The fact that the OP cannot understand why it deserves acclaim would suggest they cannot understand the principle of following a dream)
You're wrong, and you don't know anything about me. For the record, though, I admire this man's high-wire adventure. That doesn't mean I have to like the film.
Also, you're a jerk for pointing out my cliche (which is really just a stock phrase, not a cliche, which makes it clear that you don't know what you're talking about). Congratulations on accomplishing your own dream of finally rising to the status of Internet jerk.
*applauds*
Touché! ... (oh dear, scottpreston might view this as another "cliché" in his highly original mind!)
Nothing makes this deserving of critical acclaim - for YOU. The only problem here is your first statement - that if the Academy acclaimed it, it must be good. That's just....I love some of the Academy winners and some I feel they got totally wrong and I've never met someone who doesn't think someone was left out or someone shouldn't have won something.
This is just not your cup of tea. Don't worry about it, and if YOU can't think find a reason to like it just move on. If you are young enough your tastes may change and you may find you like it later, but if you're an adult already just find people who you agree with and use their reviews. You're on the net so that's very easy. If you stick with a couple of movie reviewers you will even learn where you disagree and be able to tell if you like a movie based on their review 90% of the time or more, I find. Kubrick never won an AA - you can't rely on them alone.
[deleted]
Where does this self-righteousness come from? People can dislike the movie and still have good taste in film; there are those of us who didn't love it that can still sit through a good movie...
I had the same problem. I kept hearing so much acclaim for the film - not the Academy Awards but more repudiable sources and Netflix apparently thought I would love it. But I was very underwhelmed. It was enjoyable enough and a fairly interesting story but I felt like the film was forced to drag out a 30 minute story in an hour and a half. Also there is only so much "transcendental beautiful" French pretension I can take in one sitting and this almost exceeded that amount.
There's also this strange thematic undercurrent that no one seems to notice: yes, the man followed his dreams; it's so inspiring... but he destroyed his relationship with his best friend and his girlfriend in the process. That's kind of a depressing message: follow your dreams at the expense of other people. It left me feeling very unsatisfied and decidedly uninspired.
So while it was a good movie, it was nowhere near as good as reported; I thought King of Kong was a much better documentary that year. We can be stuck up film snobs too and still dislike the movie.
Titanic won 7 Oscars. Nuff said.
share...you mean 11. Check your facts
Best of 2013:
http://i.imgur.com/lsZe1Ge.jpg
I watch many documentaries and I don't understand why this one appealed more to the average person. It's not a bad film, but there are so many documentaries that are far better. Maybe the reinactment scenes sorta giving it a movie feel helps the average person enjoy it more. ::shrug::
shareFor me is an excellent documentary because of the technical way in how they did it. Editing, Photography, pace and musical score. They transformed an almost non important from some points of view act as wire walking into an art act. Not just because the french guy is a true artist, but because the documentary as very well crafted. I like documentaries and this one is almost a lesson in cinema technics and art
share[deleted]
There is no 'why'.
shareI agree with the OP... i was expecting so much, but i thought Bigger Stronger Faster and Dear Zachary were much better.
sharei couldnt agree with you guys more. being a fan of documentaries the premise and the critical aclaim had me excited to see it, but i was definetly dissapointed. i cant really explain it but i just wasn't really feeling it. definetly recommend king of kong or devil and daniel johnston much more you can really feel those movies, maybe because they had much more actual stuff going on
sharewow.. i was thinking the same thing! the entire film. who said this was so good? bc they were wrong.
shareA recent post brought my attention back this discussion and it is interesting to see how people react. One person simply stated that I was a moron (OP=Moron). That is one of the best things about IMDB message boards is how people relate to movies. Apparently, movies can be personally defining for some.
I agree with Wildhippiechik in that I should find a reviewer that has similar tastes to my own. I also read that another poster noted this film was heavily promoted by Netflix , and this too, was how I became familiar with this film in the first place.
I find that the majority of the posts agree with my original statement. The internet has changed the home movie viewing industry. I must be a moron because I fell for the false hype. I once bought a speed reading course off an infomercial. I won’t ever buy anything from an infomercial again nor will I pay any attention to list from those who stand to gain (9 out 10 doctors we asked).
And as for the age thing, I recently watched the acid crazed baby-boomer sega The Weather Underground and I thought it was captivating. I also learned a few things which I expect from a documentary.
i was captivated.
the feat itself is unique - the only one to have done it. the only one who will ever do it. and at the time, nobody really seemed to be able to properly comprehend the event. that innocence is lost in our times, but brilliantly captured in the post-event press conference.
the story is inspiring to anyone who dreams to live more than ordinarily. few people will chase and achieve such a lofty goal. few achieve simpler goals.
it was a forbidden act, but forbidden by a law that you want the right person(s) to break.
and the driving force of the captivation was the 'how'. forget the 'why'. anyone can guess the outcome as soon as the WTC is mentioned. if you don't want to know the 'how', yeah, you might get a little fidgety.
and it is a treat to have a piece with original footage that would have been shot well before a cinematic documentary of this event could ever have been imagined.
the fate of the WTC adds a mystique of its own to the story. for many of us who never got to witness the towers in person, to see them in their infancy, in footage and from angles never seen before, its has a sombre beauty.
but it all really only works if it is well constructed. and in my personal opinion, it was. there was an atmosphere to the story. but it was not over glossed. not over dramatised. and it didn't stray pointlessly from the core event.
dislike it if what worked for me didn't work for you. i'll never be able to interpret the film without these things in mind, so i'll find it difficult to not appreciate it as i did. but i am somewhat disappointed that the film delivered what it did and people have managed to raise their noses at it.
I'm assuming you're not a fan of documentaries. this film is an INCREDIBLE feat, both in terms of filmmaking and as a documentary. yes, it uses 'fabricated' shots and recreations in order to fill in certain holes (you cant have an entire documentary filled with talking heads and still shots), but the way the film is able to feel like a crime movie - incredible suspense and very fast cuts, its amazing. philipe (or whatever the main guy's name is) narrates his story with so much insight and vivid descriptions. like 'the thin blue line,' it uses recreations blended seamlessly with talking heads and recollections to create a story that is both suspenseful and tearjerking. i think its the best documentary ive ever seen
Ughhh.... Meryl has to wait AT LEAST another year now. FML