This is where, again, there are these unspoken assumptions I have to include to keep my definition working. Maybe I feel like is a baser value, but suspense as a effect I honestly could not dismiss as very different than arousal. I agree it is, I can't rationalize why I don't want it included. That's a stimulation we look at as cheap. There's no denying porn would satisfy my definition very well, but I think it's an unspoken belief of most people that when discussing the merits of narrative film, you do not include arousal-centric material. The other issue with my definition is there are forms of stimulation I don't wish to include. Those moments may not have payoffs but they have individual value. I don't want to dismiss narrative films that don't have conclusions or endings if scenes in themselves earlier satisfied me. I don't want to dismiss a film with great acting that has plot holes. I love saying a great film stimulates me in some way, because I don't want to dismiss a poorly acted film with visuals that I thought had value. Get passed those variables and get to the definition. It's a test of the ego and trust you have for your own ability to measure. It's probably my biggest fear to rewatch a film I dismissed and find something new I value in it. I'm changing and have changed since the last time I've seen something. I believe everytime you watch a film it's different, because we're all in flux. There is also variables beyond different people, and it's different time. I think people should aim to treat films as empirical subjective experiences, and then try to reason with others to find something true about it. I think it's assumed from the uttered words "Great Film" that the speaker is using themselves as the measure of great, though many believe their view is every view fraudulently. Personally when I call something great, I hold my own appetite for stimulation as the measure, and that's clearly a bit egoist and unreasonable to do and accept it as true for all. I hold the belief that there is objectively great video and audio and storytelling, I think there are so many variables to the audience and way we measure that it makes it very difficult to suss out.
I personally hate when somebody tells me that everything is subjective to exit a disagreement on film.
And that relativism makes this difficult. So clearly it was satisfying for someone and not everyone. The audience is a variable, Justice League was a very uneventful experience for me internally. And the requirement that is stimulates me in some way is so broad it makes me nauseated for two reasons. Video and audio are pretty solid stipulations. I personally define a great film as a video/audio narrative around 1-4 hours that stimulates it's viewer on some level. I tried to establish this one time so that I could argue more reasonably.
#Roger ebert all about lily chou chou how to#
And it has burrowed its way into the culture so indelibly that like "I wish I knew how to quit you", the phrase" "Groundhog Day" is frequently understood as a metonym for re-living the same day over and over. It feels like an ordinary comedy, and blossoms into something far more lofty than perhaps Ramis and Murray even intended at the time. He's always himself, but striving "to be a better Phil" as Roger Ebert put it. and Phil Connors is real to us because he never turns into someone else.
#Roger ebert all about lily chou chou movie#
A movie can slip in terms of cinematography, sound, editing, direction, acting, production design, art direction, etc., but go through any list of films that have achieved universal acclaim and you'll find the vast majority of them have a well-conceived, well-constructed and well-executed narrative with compelling characters.Įxample: GROUNDHOG DAY is a film that isn't particularly notable for its editing, production design or cinematography, but it has a story that, like the Capra-esque BACK TO THE FUTURE, draws you in and holds you there. Sometimes, a film can lack one quality or another, but be so redeeming in other aspects that it achieves greatness.īut if I had to, as a critic, point to one or two attributes shared more than any others by great movies: Story and characters. It's also more than just the sum of its parts. Ultimately, of course, "great" is a subjective metric but that subjective metric is built upon objectively observable components. What makes a film great cannot be boiled down to a formula or a crash course in "How Do I Know If A Film Is Great".