Thank God you're here to set us straight! Yeah, so the idea that SoTL is pretty much on every top 100 list there is by a reputable source means nothing.
Link? Sure it makes a few and it makes AFI, and maybe some critics, which you oh so label me as one, and it always depends on the "point" of the list.
If the question was "greatest suspense movies," or "greatest movies post 1970," then yeah there's an argument. "Great film," is ambiguous, and if it means "One of the Greatest Films of All-Time," then yeah, there's some issue.
Great films. There's a level of appreciation for a movie like Metropolis and what it did for film going forward. It's so "great" because of that. Let's remember a huge part of watching a movie is entertainment. It's not all just art or opening doors.
I'll agree here. Of course there's more to film than art. And there's more to film than entertainment too.
You and your buddy Blue Velvet are probably the type of guys to put Blue Velvet in your Top 100. Maybe even add Naked Lunch in there to show how different and artsy you guys are.
You can check my posted Top 40, neither film is in there. BV would maybe make my Top 100. Maybe not. Naked Lunch is an awesome movie, far from great, but awesome. And no it's not in my top 100 either. But way to generalize people at all and make assumptions. I notice you attack the people, not the opinions, with, you know, real arguments.
What exactly are you overly harsh about?
Maybe you should read my other posts, about other films. I admittedly look for top quality, try to have an objective, balanced and clear opinion as possible and make sure not to get over-excited about things just because I felt some emotion while watching it. I'm harsh in that I really believe the qualities of a "great film," should be so tight in that having one requires many things to go right and be perfect. That inside of and outside of pop culture, the film is relevant. And that, same rule applied to innovation and historical importance. Etc. And I try to be consistent.
I'm harsh relatively speaking because I don't throw the "great" label around willy nilly. Which, to me, devalues the idea of a "great film."
I mean, other than wanting to be different than the masses I guess. Where did the film fail?
Just because something isn't "great," doesn't mean it failed. Your main problem is that simply because I didn't lavish the movie with praise that the movie is crap. Far from the truth. So does something either "achieve greatness," or "fail," is that really your point? That's a really big gap and maybe you should rethink your approach.
In short, you are over reacting, you can tone it down. The movie is very good.
You wanna know how easy it is to dismiss your "critiques"?
Did I say you have to accept them? Acting, more so than film, is almost completely subjective. To each his own. I already expressed my opinion on Cox above. Hannibal, to me, was too close to a cartoon to be scary. It just didn't work for me
. Great performance though. Wonderful even.
Yes! Because we all know someone who murders and eats people is perfectly normal. You're trying too hard.
Haha, what? It would be creepier to me if my normal next door neighbor was secretly a cannibal, Someone who said Hi in a normal way, waved, and smiled, rather than the slick haired, creepy guy who stares at me and licks his lips constantly.
I don't think I'm alone in that belief. Sorry. And no I'm not trying too hard, Hopkins' performance was great. I commend him and Demme for giving us that version. That version just wasn't effective for me as an agent of horror.
I know you really, really want to try to paint me as some crazy, super pretentious person, nice try, but not true.