6.6 out of 10? WTF?
This film is incredible...story, music, cinematography, acting, all combine to make an imaginative, unforgettable experience. Yet it rates only a 6.6?? I don't get it.
shareTerrible acting, dreadful plot, horrific wooden dialogue alone make this a sub 5 on any scale.
It did look very colourful and beautiful, the soundtrack is quite wonnderful - but putting butter on the toast doesn't make beans on toast a gourmet meal.
I think this one is another case of Emperor's new clothes. People are voting is so high because other people did - and because it's Wenders. When in reality this is a non-film that should be alongside Police Academy 6 in the history of bad film.
"People are voting is so high because other people did - and because it's Wenders."
Ad hominem isn't opinion. Until you submit a list of people who gave the film favorable reviews for the reasons you've stated, reconcile yourself to the possibility they might not agree with your assessment.
"Terrible acting, dreadful plot, horrific wooden dialogue alone make this a sub 5 on ***any*** scale."
See above: There's no such thing as absolute taste. Better to persuade others by stating your case well than suggesting no one with taste would dare to argue.
BTW: a bad film is not a "non-film" any more than an unsightly plate is something other than a plate. Saying so puts you on the same level of literacy as a person who tries to dismiss dissonant music by calling it "so-called music." I doubt that's the impression you wish to make, so you might want to choose different terms and strategies.
Thank you for setting this person straight.
As for the movie, I liked it very much for the "style" of the movie. I watched it again today (The Italian 3 disk Director's Cut} and for a movie from 1991 it sure has held up well. Most movies that predict a near-future seem very dated when the "future" arrives [or has past, as in this case] yet I still feel this movie is "fresh'. I would still rate this movie personally as a "10", for me, but I can see others rating it a "6" for different tastes.
"Ad hominem isn't opinion."
Please research terms before using them in public. An ad hominem is an argument against a person instead of an idea. If he said, "People are only voting high for this movie because they are stupid." That would be an ad hominem. As it is his statement is simply an unsupported assertion. He made no value judgements against the people themselves.
"There's no such thing as absolute taste."
Ironically this actually IS a logical fallacy, the straw man. He never said everyone would rate it sub five, he said the movie is a sub five on any scale. Meaning he would rate it as a sub five by any measurement. However poorly worded the idea is quit clear.
"A bad film is not a 'non-film'..."
If a thing does not serve the purpose for which it is intended it can be said that it is no longer, or has never been, that thing. For instance a cup which has a hole in the bottom does not serve the function of a cup therefore it could be called "not a cup."
More to the point if a giant uses a silo to drink water from then to him it is a cup but to us it is not. Similarly to us what is a cup to him would be nothing more than a thimble.
You yourself argue that there is no such thing as absolute taste so if, for the reviewer, the movie does not serve the purpose that a movie should, whatever that purpose might be, then it can be argued that it is indeed a "non-film" for him.
Your message was full of logical fallacies and errors in reasoning. I'm sure this is not the impression you wish to make, so you might want to understand the terms you are using better before using them again.
---------------------
All religions are fairy tales.
Oh please. If you're going to presume to be the logic police, you should get your terms straight.
An ad hominem is an argument against a person instead of an idea. If he said, "People are only voting high for this movie because they are stupid." That would be an ad hominem.
Wrong.
Ad hominem is "an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."
Example: "The Theory of Relativity is religious nonsense because Einstein was a Jew" is an example of ad hominem.
What you said: "People are only voting high for this movie because they are stupid" is an example of non sequitur. There is no link between stupidity and voting for Wim Wenders, so it doesn't follow.
Can we get back to discussing the movie now?
share
Yeah, let's get back to discussing it. Just what I was thinking.
shareOne would claim one found it, but if it could talk it would probably claim it found one. So we say met - one met it. And not it met one, since the story is largely expressed in ones confrontation of one.
In confrontation with it one was in love, but it couldn't, so one was disappointed. One denied it, one became demented and forgot it. Once one was confronted by it, one became paranoid, and one tried to kill it. And even after the most complex struggle in history of morekind, one finally managed to kill it. But one was even more disappointed when one found out one could never claim one's reward of sucsess, because one could never look without seeing it.
As one was disapointed, one was not living in truth. One was living in an illusion embraced in an early stage upon meeting it. One took one look at it and would feel ones every need fulfilled, he thought: This is it! But one didn't get close enough before thinking this, and of course this was not it, this was something new, and one got scared instead of excited, because one was looking for it that doesn't even exist outside one's mind. And one still do, so one will always find something new and be a frightened little one.
God it's hilarious to watch someone attempt and fail at sounding intellectual.
share"...in reality this is a non-film that should be alongside Police Academy 6 in the history of bad film."
Wow! That is almost certainly the least insightful comment I have ever come across on IMDB, if not the whole of the internet. If you don't care for the movie, that's all well and good, however, comparing what was clearly a labor of love for the filmmakers to a seemingly "paint by numbers" sequel is just absurd. Beyond that, neither of your assertions about peoples' reasons for voting stands up to scrutiny. Attributing it to the identity of the director is mere supposition, and saying that people are rating it highly because others have done so is seemingly contradicted by the overall 6.6 rating and over 1000 people rating it 6 or lower.
Since we're pointing out logical fallacies today...
"...comparing what was clearly a labor of love for the filmmakers..."
This is an appeal to emotion. How much the filmmakers loved making the film is irrelevant to the quality of the film itself. When people make this claim is has no merit and makes me suspect they actually agree with the counter claim but don't want to hurt others feelings... but I don't want to straw man you.
In addition this logic is in error, "saying that people are rating it highly because others have done so is seemingly contradicted by the overall 6.6 rating and over 1000 people rating it 6 or lower."
Stating that a few others are doing the opposite of what the majority are doing does not refute the claim, however baseless, that people are following the majority simply to follow the majority.
--------------------------
All religions are fairy tales.
For most film lovers, if we can tell by watching it that the film was made with joy and love, it is a very good film.
That's actually quite logical, for any reasonable person, mister logic police...
That is not an appeal to emotion. It is an appeal to the value of ART and the value of FILMMAKING. Police Academy is a piece of *beep* that certainly was not done by someone with a specific artistic worldview trying to get that across though extremely specific choices in everything from the color of a wall to the movement of a door to a softly spoken word. Wim Wenders WAS doing that. He was producing art representing his worldview and exploring something artistically through minute detail on a grand scale. The original rough cut was 20 hours of painstaking, deliberate art. Art of this kind has value to most humans, and virtually all humans who have an interest in art, filmmaking and intellectual pursuits. Your attempt to say that has no value is baseless. What does not have value to you does have value to millions of others and entire countries of people who care more about art than you seem to.
shareLOL, I couldn't understand how this film was popular after watching it, the scifi set design is so cheesy it's nearly a joke
shareI think this one is another case of Emperor's new clothes.I haven't even seen this film yet, but you're wrong.
I can guarantee that a good majority of those who praise the film are being honest in their praise, and aren't just "pretending" so they look cool (because nothing's cooler than bragging to all your coworkers and relatives about how much you loved that four-hour long German film by that Wenders guy.)
People are voting is so high because other people did - and because it's Wenders.It's fine that you hate the film. It's another thing entirely to then begin to judge the motivations of others who disagree with your assessment. You desperately want to believe that everyone who comes to a different conclusion than you is less honest, is somehow being devious in their intentions. That is to say, you're so arrogant that you honestly seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is lying to themselves.
But here's a secret:
Not everyone agrees with you. It's not that they're pretending or rating things highly because they like some of the other stuff the director did - they actually, genuinely like the film. Just as I assume that you actually, genuinely, disliked the film.
Either that or you're actually just a contrarian who likes to attack certain films just for the sake of attacking them. You secretly loved "Until the End of the World," but your dedication to a philosophy of Armond White-esque contrarianism occasionally causes you to pick random, fairly well-liked films and attack them. You actually rank the film among your top ten favorites, but you can't admit it to anyone because then you'd lose credibility with all your contrarian hipster nihilist buddies.
One or the other. share
Seems to me that neil has given no justification at all, since any of us can simply say "terrific acting, deep plot, flowing beautiful dialogue," and negate his idiotic opinion... look at the lineup of actors in this flick, for openers... yes, every one of them is so wooden and such a poor actor. And Wenders is known for letting actors get away with junior-high school grade acting, isn't he, I mean, where'd the man get the idea he could direct... I would suggest that neil cut back on the heroin a bit, get off his pedestal, unclench the cheeks of his ass and watch this movie again.
shareGood thing we always have authoritarians on imdb, here to present their opinions as fact! Not only that, but presenting his opinions of other people's opinions as fact, as well! Bravo, on to the logical fallacy olympics for you!
share