I am not sure how to put it nicely.
It isn't a 'message' film really - it is an art film. Meant to be looked at as a moving painting. People who try to put structure around it ... eesh.
It is what it is - brilliant.
Don't be jealous that I have been chatting online with bucketheads ALL day.
<^>oO<^>
[deleted]
It's a great film. I'll only add that I've never heard of someone with over a room temperature IQ criticize anything as 'pretentious.'
shareAs I said in another post most of the people who only watch stupid Hollywood films think that "movies" can only be theater captured on celluloid: actors playing a story. They simply cannot comprehend such a work of art as this.
"A voice from behind me reminds me. Spread out your wings you are an angel."
Although I liked it, the fact it is artistic doesn't change anything. There are plenty of artistic films that are still utter crap.
share[deleted]
Actually, Koyaanisquatsi has a structure and a clear message to it.
It's relatively easy to miss it though for anyone who is not familiar with filmmaking techniques, especially "montage" (Eisenstein's original definition of montage, that is).
I think we should be careful with calling people idiots just because they have another taste. What is a genius in one person's eyes is a fool in another's, same with movies - all of our experiences are unique and it is indeed quite an arrogant and - ironically - ignorant statement to make.
I in general like weird movies which requires a lot of thought, but I can definitely understand that a lot of folks are into movies just for passing time and don't want anything too deep - it doesn't make them less intelligent, just of a different taste. Quite a difference.
That's a fair point (no point in calling people 'idiots'), but I note the word 'sucked' though. It's fair enough not to like a film, but if you don't 'get it' and don't have anything more to say than 'it sucked' (and there are a lot of comments like that on IMDB), what is the point of entering into a discussion about it? People who do that are only going to provoke arguments they are unprepared for, leading to defensiveness and even inferiority complexes, leading to more trolling (which only reinforces their complexes), and so on ad nauseam... In the 'old days', they'd just say 'oh well, that was rubbish', and rent a film they liked instead (as you suggest), thereby saving a lot of time and humiliation! Time enough even to broaden their tastes/ideas naturally, perhaps?
btw, I've just seen your other post SoulShouter, and good for you for essentially asking '...or is it just me?', which is another question often missing on IMDB boards!
No, I agree withthe OP that anyone who thinks this film 'sucks' is likely an idiot. Or so dense with self loathing as to not see the beauty of themselves and the world about them reflected through this film. I found it beautiful, deliberate, and inspiring.
Perhaps the person who hates this film also thinks Gogh's 'Starry Night' looks sloppy, or that 'Mona Lisa' looks ordinary?
And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.
You guys are ridiculous. Is this the first art film you've ever seen?
Just because it's art doesn't mean it's brilliant. Just because it accomplished its goal doesn't mean it's brilliant. If I set out to film my cat for several months, then i took the best clips and made them into a movie, and tried to imply certain meaning through the camera angles, would that make me a genius? Would my film be brilliant?
Art films can be criticized just like "message" films. Just criticized in different ways, depending on what the viewers personal preferences are. You can't tell anyone their critique is terrible, because everyone has their own opinions and there are many people much smarter than you that don't like this movie.
Yes, it is what it is, and if it doesn't connect with you, then you're kind of entitled to think it sucks.
You're right though, far too many people will not take it as what it is, and that's sad.
___
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PTJHhUeAfc