Greatest Films of All Time (Mid-Revision) - Movies & TV

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

homelessking wrote:

Remember the Angel's Egg anime that I suggested to you a year ago? Scruffy finally rated it 7.2, maybe that would give some motivation to go watch it now?

Well, that certainly doesn't hurt the rec, even if Scaruffi's rating might not be "official" yet (no hyperlink, bio).

I'm trying to wrap up a revisit of my whole 7.3+ "Greatest" list (that I started making my way back through a couple years ago and have been chipping away at for a few months here, a few months there, at a time). This is intended to polish up all ratings and to correct any I over/under-rated, including some extra-revisits or attention to those where there are a little bigger discrepancies between Scaruffi and mine. I am actually getting pretty close to being done, which is a pretty monumental undertaking. There are still some very key ones to revisit, like Inland Empire ... an HQ copy Greed if it ever make its way to Criterion, DVD, Amazon Prime, etc (I haven't seen an HQ copy of the studio cut since I was able to see it on a very good VHS tape some years ago) ... Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte ... Touch of Evil (what the hell happened to the 1998 Walter Murch "Welles memo" cut? It's not available to see anywhere except for purchase. I've already owned it -- just not any more -- and don't want to re-purchase it.) ... Apocalypse Now ... and a handful of others in the 7.3-7.7 range.

Scaruffi kind of put a spin on all this and added some additional motivation when he suddenly started rating cinema pre-1998 last year.

In the meantime, I have been watching some new stuff (ex: Thelma, Joker) or films that I hadn't seen in forever and had never rated (ex: They Shoot Horses, Don't They) so almost like new.

I do still have an urge to go through key works of anime so it's very possible Angel's Egg will be part of that. I just don't know for sure if it will be this round or maybe the next time I re-engage with cinema.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

homelessking

The rating is official, you can check his Mamoru Oshii page. A little bummed that he thinks Ghost in The Shell is meh tho.

Also funny that you finally decide to watch Joker now.

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

homelessking wrote:

The rating is official, you can check his Mamoru Oshii page. A little bummed that he thinks Ghost in The Shell is meh tho.

Also funny that you finally decide to watch Joker now.

Oh, must've entered the name in wrong.

Superhero movies are among my lowest priorities Laughing

(though, turns out Joker isn't really a superhero film but far closer to a psychological thriller and character study of urban alienation, a bit in the vein of a more mainstream Taxi Driver. Though if we place it in the superhero genre it may be the greatest ever made fwiw...)
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

homelessking

Haven't watched it either but I've read takes on Joker being mainly a critique of neoliberalism. Don't know how you would factor politics in your art evaluation but there seems to be a lot of it in this one.

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

homelessking wrote:

Haven't watched it either but I've read takes on Joker being mainly a critique of neoliberalism. Don't know how you would factor politics in your art evaluation but there seems to be a lot of it in this one.

My personal agreement or disagreement with the artist's views has no bearing, or virtually none (maybe there are extremely rare cases where it could matter).

But for all intents and purposes, its just how much emotional, conceptual and creative engagement the artist(s) expresses it with.

Probably well over 90% of my favorite artists and works are mostly or completely incongruous to my views or stances on things, morally or otherwise. But their work and the emotional/conceptual/creative engagement or investment they imbued it with, is as itself, astonishing and awe-inspiring. That purposeful and singular expression alone is important as it tends to be (to varying degrees) unique to them, a piece of their own energy and individuality or unique view conveyed through the work. To the degree one is derivative and less engaged, such is less the case.

And if I were to engage in a discussion with them, that's the sort of thing where I would find something to admire or of great value about them, even if I otherwise disagree with the person.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

matbezlima

bobbyb5 wrote:

It seems like youve seen something by everybody who is always considered a great director. I mean the ones you always read about in books about The Greatest Movies Ever. But are there any supposedly greatest directors that you just totally dont get what all the fuss is about? That you.dont find great AT ALL, but ridiculous? Or even awful? A couple that leave me dumfounded are Federico Fellini, David Lynch, Stephen Spielberg. Do u have any Iike that?

I have a theory of why the albums you mentioned by Beyonce, Taylor Swift Etc get high ratings from critics. I don't believe these critics really think they're any good, but they're in the business of writing about music, and that requires them to say that SOMETHING is great. They couldn't very well keep their job by saying that today's popular music is a bunch of crap. Something simply HAS to be great or else there's nothing to write about. That's the only possible explanation I can come up with.

Sure, some critics might be paid to praise someone. But I would never generalize.

I say that nothing is actually overrated, because art is so subjective, its emotional impact is so unpredictable on each individual (though not entirely subjective, because we are all humans, and I would never be mad to deny the immense skill in the craft of so much great art).

I give 10/10 ratings easily, but not because I actually think that what I'm giving such a high rating is perfect, life-changing or among the highest tier of greatest works of art ever made by man. And I'm sure that none of those 5/5 reviews to Beyoncé's albums would even dare to say a such thing. I just like to appreciate anything that I really enjoy.

There is nothing more important in art than the heart and sincerity of the artist making it. In my utopic world, all types of art would be allowed to fully flourish, all niches, even when they are not for me.

Also, a completely fulfillinhlg happy life appreciates the beauty in even the most mundane and simple things. I have great admiration for Yasujiro Ozu because of his humility in how he really gets the "mundane" beauty of life that we so often ignore and take for granted.

There is a place for everything in life, and specially in a world that should be as diverse as possible. There is a place for deeply life-changing art, and for some awesome cheesy pure escapist fun. They are all valid.

Personally, my favorite artform, besides music, is animation. I connect with it in a way I don't with anything else. It's the art of imagination. It fills me with wonder, fantasy and awe. And, as Tex Avery once said: "in a cartoon, you can do anything".

Tex Avery is such an interesting artist because his art is so hard to intellectualize. He only had one single-minded mission: make you laugh. And he chose the medium of the cartoon short to do so, while also changing animation and comedy forever (specially with his influence in the Looney Tunes). Avery is the most unpretentious artist one can think of in how he relentlessly pursued comedy, and yet he was also insanely perfectionist and always afraid his cartoons weren't funny enough.

I have a huge fondness for the Golden Age Disney films (1937-1942). Those films may not be perfect (outside maybe Pinocchio, a masterpiece), but they always showcase huge creativity, skill, charm, heart and passion for the medium of animation, the story and the characters. They were truly the result of a group of animators feeling like they were doing something truly IMPORTANT, and putting all their soul and passion into those films. Soul and passion from the creators are always what I seek and demand in all art: from the most realistic dramas, to the cheesiest and most escapist pure fun fantasy (like the best japanese Super Sentai), and everything in-between in the spectrum, like the classic Disney films, like the best super-hero animated shows, (unlike the MCU machine, I say that Spider-Man Into The Spider-verse wouldn't be such a labor of love and aesthetically inventive film, truly a homage to the artform of comic books, if it had been treated as just another blockbuster by the big studios), fantasy hero journeys (like the Avatar - The Last Airbender TV series), and so on.

I do not seek perfection. The ideal of perfection is the only thing I would ever use the word "overrated" to. A seemingly very flawed work of art can be far more meaningful, can have far more passion and effort put into it, than a "flawless" one.

Well, these are my reflections. I hope you guys liked and appreciated them. I wish the best to everyone.

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

matbezlima wrote:

bobbyb5 wrote:

It seems like youve seen something by everybody who is always considered a great director. I mean the ones you always read about in books about The Greatest Movies Ever. But are there any supposedly greatest directors that you just totally dont get what all the fuss is about? That you.dont find great AT ALL, but ridiculous? Or even awful? A couple that leave me dumfounded are Federico Fellini, David Lynch, Stephen Spielberg. Do u have any Iike that?

I have a theory of why the albums you mentioned by Beyonce, Taylor Swift Etc get high ratings from critics. I don't believe these critics really think they're any good, but they're in the business of writing about music, and that requires them to say that SOMETHING is great. They couldn't very well keep their job by saying that today's popular music is a bunch of crap. Something simply HAS to be great or else there's nothing to write about. That's the only possible explanation I can come up with.

Sure, some critics might be paid to praise someone. But I would never generalize.

I say that nothing is actually overrated, because art is so subjective, its emotional impact is so unpredictable on each individual (though not entirely subjective, because we are all humans, and I would never be mad to deny the immense skill in the craft of so much great art).

I give 10/10 ratings easily, but not because I actually think that what I'm giving such a high rating is perfect, life-changing or among the highest tier of greatest works of art ever made by man. And I'm sure that none of those 5/5 reviews to Beyoncé's albums would even dare to say a such thing. I just like to appreciate anything that I really enjoy.

There is nothing more important in art than the heart and sincerity of the artist making it. In my utopic world, all types of art would be allowed to fully flourish, all niches, even when they are not for me.

Also, a completely fulfillinhlg happy life appreciates the beauty in even the most mundane and simple things. I have great admiration for Yasujiro Ozu because of his humility in how he really gets the "mundane" beauty of life that we so often ignore and take for granted.

There is a place for everything in life, and specially in a world that should be as diverse as possible. There is a place for deeply life-changing art, and for some awesome cheesy pure escapist fun. They are all valid.

Personally, my favorite artform, besides music, is animation. I connect with it in a way I don't with anything else. It's the art of imagination. It fills me with wonder, fantasy and awe. And, as Tex Avery once said: "in a cartoon, you can do anything".

Tex Avery is such an interesting artist because his art is so hard to intellectualize. He only had one single-minded mission: make you laugh. And he chose the medium of the cartoon short to do so, while also changing animation and comedy forever (specially with his influence in the Looney Tunes). Avery is the most unpretentious artist one can think of in how he relentlessly pursued comedy, and yet he was also insanely perfectionist and always afraid his cartoons weren't funny enough.

I have a huge fondness for the Golden Age Disney films (1937-1942). Those films may not be perfect (outside maybe Pinocchio, a masterpiece), but they always showcase huge creativity, skill, charm, heart and passion for the medium of animation, the story and the characters. They were truly the result of a group of animators feeling like they were doing something truly IMPORTANT, and putting all their soul and passion into those films. Soul and passion from the creators are always what I seek and demand in all art: from the most realistic dramas, to the cheesiest and most escapist pure fun fantasy (like the best japanese Super Sentai), and everything in-between in the spectrum, like the classic Disney films, like the best super-hero animated shows, (unlike the MCU machine, I say that Spider-Man Into The Spider-verse wouldn't be such a labor of love and aesthetically inventive film, truly a homage to the artform of comic books, if it had been treated as just another blockbuster by the big studios), fantasy hero journeys (like the Avatar - The Last Airbender TV series), and so on.

I do not seek perfection. The ideal of perfection is the only thing I would ever use the word "overrated" to. A seemingly very flawed work of art can be far more meaningful, can have far more passion and effort put into it, than a "flawless" one.

Well, these are my reflections. I hope you guys liked and appreciated them. I wish the best to everyone.

Thanks Mat, thanks for your thoughts on this. I'm not sure bobby is around this site these days, but if I recall correctly that was from a conversation from some years ago between he and I that you're quoting. If you're interested in my thoughts on the matter, regarding "criteria" in detail, than you might want to check out my criteria page. I was going to drum up a response but then I realized it would be basically a copy and paste job from that page. Note that the page does need some (mostly minor) revisions and additions since I last took a crack at it, but it should provide more than enough of an answer from me (perhaps too much) if these sort of concepts about art interest you. Here is the page: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=15503
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

matbezlima

AfterHours wrote:

matbezlima wrote:

Sure, some critics might be paid to praise someone. But I would never generalize.

I say that nothing is actually overrated, because art is so subjective, its emotional impact is so unpredictable on each individual (though not entirely subjective, because we are all humans, and I would never be mad to deny the immense skill in the craft of so much great art).

I give 10/10 ratings easily, but not because I actually think that what I'm giving such a high rating is perfect, life-changing or among the highest tier of greatest works of art ever made by man. And I'm sure that none of those 5/5 reviews to Beyoncé's albums would even dare to say a such thing. I just like to appreciate anything that I really enjoy.

There is nothing more important in art than the heart and sincerity of the artist making it. In my utopic world, all types of art would be allowed to fully flourish, all niches, even when they are not for me.

Also, a completely fulfillinhlg happy life appreciates the beauty in even the most mundane and simple things. I have great admiration for Yasujiro Ozu because of his humility in how he really gets the "mundane" beauty of life that we so often ignore and take for granted.

There is a place for everything in life, and specially in a world that should be as diverse as possible. There is a place for deeply life-changing art, and for some awesome cheesy pure escapist fun. They are all valid.

Personally, my favorite artform, besides music, is animation. I connect with it in a way I don't with anything else. It's the art of imagination. It fills me with wonder, fantasy and awe. And, as Tex Avery once said: "in a cartoon, you can do anything".

Tex Avery is such an interesting artist because his art is so hard to intellectualize. He only had one single-minded mission: make you laugh. And he chose the medium of the cartoon short to do so, while also changing animation and comedy forever (specially with his influence in the Looney Tunes). Avery is the most unpretentious artist one can think of in how he relentlessly pursued comedy, and yet he was also insanely perfectionist and always afraid his cartoons weren't funny enough.

I have a huge fondness for the Golden Age Disney films (1937-1942). Those films may not be perfect (outside maybe Pinocchio, a masterpiece), but they always showcase huge creativity, skill, charm, heart and passion for the medium of animation, the story and the characters. They were truly the result of a group of animators feeling like they were doing something truly IMPORTANT, and putting all their soul and passion into those films. Soul and passion from the creators are always what I seek and demand in all art: from the most realistic dramas, to the cheesiest and most escapist pure fun fantasy (like the best japanese Super Sentai), and everything in-between in the spectrum, like the classic Disney films, like the best super-hero animated shows, (unlike the MCU machine, I say that Spider-Man Into The Spider-verse wouldn't be such a labor of love and aesthetically inventive film, truly a homage to the artform of comic books, if it had been treated as just another blockbuster by the big studios), fantasy hero journeys (like the Avatar - The Last Airbender TV series), and so on.

I do not seek perfection. The ideal of perfection is the only thing I would ever use the word "overrated" to. A seemingly very flawed work of art can be far more meaningful, can have far more passion and effort put into it, than a "flawless" one.

Well, these are my reflections. I hope you guys liked and appreciated them. I wish the best to everyone.

Thanks Mat, thanks for your thoughts on this. I'm not sure bobby is around this site these days, but if I recall correctly that was from a conversation from some years ago between he and I that you're quoting. If you're interested in my thoughts on the matter, regarding "criteria" in detail, than you might want to check out my criteria page. I was going to drum up a response but then I realized it would be basically a copy and paste job from that page. Note that the page does need some (mostly minor) revisions and additions since I last took a crack at it, but it should provide more than enough of an answer from me (perhaps too much) if these sort of concepts about art interest you. Here is the page: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=15503

Thanks for the attention and reply. I'm the same matbezlima from rateyourmusic, but I'm permabanned with no chance of ever getting back.

I've already given a read on your criteries for rating, and thoughts for art in general. It was fascinating and immensely detailed. I agree with a lot of things, but not all. I also adressed bobbyb5 in my reply because he and you seemed to be sharing some of the points I don't really agree.

Point is: I'm curious to know your thoughts on all the points I made in my reply here.

Cheers, I wish you the best!

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

matbezlima wrote:

Sure, some critics might be paid to praise someone. But I would never generalize.

It's hard to say which are and which aren't but the mainstream mag ones are the most suspicious and the most likely.

matbezlima wrote:

I say that nothing is actually overrated, because art is so subjective, its emotional impact is so unpredictable on each individual (though not entirely subjective, because we are all humans, and I would never be mad to deny the immense skill in the craft of so much great art).

That's a confusing answer in its indeterminacy but maybe I'm mis-reading what you mean. Of course value judgments are ultimately subjective. And anyone is free to say their little sister's scribbles are superior to Rembrandt or that one isn't better than the other. I suppose it comes down to the reality of whether or not that actually works in practice, in real life? WHY is Rembrandt so much more extraordinary, WHY does he stay with those so profoundly and movingly who give him the proper attention (and probably even more so for those that sincerely study and evaluate his works)? Which, if each given similar study and evaluation, would one find a greater expression of substance (emotionally engaged expression; conceptual expression; creative expression) in? Subjective yes (if only for the inescapable fundamental fact that it requires the eye of the beholder in each of us to determine such), but also, I think many of the great artists would always (or almost always) rank among the highest if (a) one understands basically "what" art is, particularly its goal(s); (b) one holds the standards of that definition and goals to the work(s) under consideration (as they will always prove true, even if not in the short run, then in the long run). My criteria page answers those questions (that's my claim, you may or may not find that arguable). It is up to the eye of the beholder to determine relative to those fundamentals, as they will, axiomatically, determine actual impact upon the viewer/listener (provided they are observed by said viewer/listener). So while I don't think anyone would draw all of the same conclusions as myself or another, and I do agree that it is fundamentally subjective, I also think certain artists in each medium would almost universally tend to rank highly more consistently than others, provided this were done.

matbezlima wrote:

I give 10/10 ratings easily, but not because I actually think that what I'm giving such a high rating is perfect, life-changing or among the highest tier of greatest works of art ever made by man. And I'm sure that none of those 5/5 reviews to Beyoncé's albums would even dare to say a such thing. I just like to appreciate anything that I really enjoy.

You should do whatever works for you, so if that does, I wouldn't change.

For me, it would be disingenuous to not differentiate the massive gap between, say, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, and his 1st Symphony. (or even something like Please Please Me and Revolver or, better, PPM to their eventual most mature works like Sgt. Pepper/Abbey Road) ... And it would be underselling the development Beethoven undertook as a symphonist and how much more extraordinary the 9th is than his 1st, to simply declare that they're both enjoyable so therefore 5 stars or 10/10 to each. One's palpable expressive significance, impact, is far far greater than the other. Giving a high percentage of works 9/10-10/10 also downplays the utter miracle and rarity of a work that actually deserves such a rating (like saying Michelanglo's Doni Tondo and Sistine Chapel are equals, de-values just how monumental and singular an achievement the Sistine really is).

I think the main difference between our views is that appreciation (on some level) is illustrated from 5/10 on up on my scale (even below 5/10, to a much lesser degree as low as 2.6 even, there is some part of any work I can appreciate -- its just an increasingly smaller percentage of that work the lower you go, maybe a song or some songs from an album, maybe some of the scenes of a film.. etc).

And, one might say, such appreciation solidifies as a bit more stably/consistently/less reservedly, from 6.5-7/10, and increasingly on up. So, whichever one of these points one starts, it illustrates a very wide scale of appreciation, all the way up to works that one is overwhelmingly awed by and are some of the most profound artistic experiences possible, as opposed to just saying "all good works are 10/10 or close" (which, again, is fine if that's truly what you feel ... just not for me).

matbezlima wrote:

There is nothing more important in art than the heart and sincerity of the artist making it. In my utopic world, all types of art would be allowed to fully flourish, all niches, even when they are not for me.

Also, a completely fulfillinhlg happy life appreciates the beauty in even the most mundane and simple things. I have great admiration for Yasujiro Ozu because of his humility in how he really gets the "mundane" beauty of life that we so often ignore and take for granted.

There is a place for everything in life, and specially in a world that should be as diverse as possible. There is a place for deeply life-changing art, and for some awesome cheesy pure escapist fun. They are all valid.

I might state it somewhat differently (criteria page) but, little nuances/semantics aside, I'm pretty sure we agree here (and you will see that a huge variety of genres or types of expression are represented on my "greatest" lists, whether film, paintings, albums, classical...). For instance, my top 10 films features the likes of a spy/thriller that is practically an all out comedy, Hitchcock playing an endlessly meaningful (and meaningless) joke of colossal proportions (North by NW) and sci-fi/fantasy/dystopia satire that is hardly less a comedy (Brazil), the pinnacle of "Hollywood" filmmaking where one might say the art/experimental film seamlessly merges with the entertainment of classic film-making (Citizen Kane), to Art/Experimental films like Persona, Nostalghia, Werckmeister Harmonies. The visual extravanganza of Metropolis (influencing so much future sci-fi fantasy, comic book and super hero films), to perhaps the peak of horror (Rosemary's Baby), to ensemble film/comedy/near-musical with a hundred other themes inter-mixed (Nashville), to the greatest B-movie, the crime/mystery/thriller and culmination of film noir (Touch of Evil), but really using those genres as a front to express more profound themes... And so on down the list... Similar variety abounds on each of my lists in their respective mediums.

matbezlima wrote:

Personally, my favorite artform, besides music, is animation. I connect with it in a way I don't with anything else. It's the art of imagination. It fills me with wonder, fantasy and awe. And, as Tex Avery once said: "in a cartoon, you can do anything".

Tex Avery is such an interesting artist because his art is so hard to intellectualize. He only had one single-minded mission: make you laugh. And he chose the medium of the cartoon short to do so, while also changing animation and comedy forever (specially with his influence in the Looney Tunes). Avery is the most unpretentious artist one can think of in how he relentlessly pursued comedy, and yet he was also insanely perfectionist and always afraid his cartoons weren't funny enough.

I have a huge fondness for the Golden Age Disney films (1937-1942). Those films may not be perfect (outside maybe Pinocchio, a masterpiece), but they always showcase huge creativity, skill, charm, heart and passion for the medium of animation, the story and the characters. They were truly the result of a group of animators feeling like they were doing something truly IMPORTANT, and putting all their soul and passion into those films. Soul and passion from the creators are always what I seek and demand in all art: from the most realistic dramas, to the cheesiest and most escapist pure fun fantasy (like the best japanese Super Sentai), and everything in-between in the spectrum, like the classic Disney films, like the best super-hero animated shows, (unlike the MCU machine, I say that Spider-Man Into The Spider-verse wouldn't be such a labor of love and aesthetically inventive film, truly a homage to the artform of comic books, if it had been treated as just another blockbuster by the big studios), fantasy hero journeys (like the Avatar - The Last Airbender TV series), and so on.

Right on man, I do have an idea to go through animated films a bit more thoroughly at some point. (I've seen quite a few, including Pinocchio and the major works of Disney, etc, but there are just as many "anime greats" that I haven't). I agree that Pinocchio is probably Disney's best work.

matbezlima wrote:

I do not seek perfection. The ideal of perfection is the only thing I would ever use the word "overrated" to. A seemingly very flawed work of art can be far more meaningful, can have far more passion and effort put into it, than a "flawless" one.

Well, these are my reflections. I hope you guys liked and appreciated them. I wish the best to everyone.

Thanks Mat. I pretty much agree. My comments on "perfection" are pretty well summed up on my criteria page in the description of a 10/10:

"A 10/10 does not necessarily mean "100% flawless", though probably approaches this in many regards. One could probably conceive of flaws in anything being qualitatively judged, so this is not the claim. "Flawless" can also be quite relative to the task or ambition undertaken. As a simple demonstration and comparison, there are many flawless paintings of bowls of fruit, where the technique and rendering looks so detailed and realistic that one could say that it is a perfect painting. In comparison to this, one could view Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel and yet perhaps conceive of some minor flaws in the work. So is the bowl of fruit the greater work of art because it's "more flawless"? Or should we take much stronger consideration of the creativity, expressive impact and significance of each work when comparing them? What is the flawlessly painted bowl of fruit expressing? A bowl of fruit.

A 10/10 represents an unsurpassed combination and accumulation of creativity, expressed emotional and conceptual engagement, relative to all forms and genres of art throughout the history of mankind. It is the ideal from which all others are judged."
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

matbezlima

AfterHours wrote:

matbezlima wrote:

Sure, some critics might be paid to praise someone. But I would never generalize.

It's hard to say which are and which aren't but the mainstream mag ones are the most suspicious and the most likely.

I feel like looking at the person's history and the way that person expresses him/herself, it is possible to identify, to feel the pure and sincere personal passion that emanates from such person when talking about what he/her loves.

I admit, though, that it tends to be easier to see when that passion is emanating freely and sincerely when it comes to people who are not official critics and writers for mags. Specially in YouTube. It's easy to spot someone who is just pandering to the audience, and someone who is sincere.

In the latter camp, I put youtuber James Rolfe. He became famous for the AVGN series. But from a serious perspective, I love the videos when he sits down and just talks about movies he loves, and you can see the sincerity of his raw passion coming from him, there's not a hint of stuffy pretentiousness. That is true for everything he talks about: from when he praises big blockbusters he loves (he is a big fan of 80s blockbuster cinema), to comics, to Hitchcock, to 50s cheesy sci-fi B-movies, and specially to horror movies (from the most famous to the most obscure, and he also loves German Expressionism).

One of his most interesting takes is liking the Tim Burton Batman films more than the Nolan Batman films. James Rolfe says that while Nolan's Batman films might be technically "better" films in general, specially in the writing, the Tim Burton films had a much stronger personality, specially in the gothic out-of-this-world aesthetic of the colors, architecture and visuals in general, which are much closer to actually bringing a comic book aesthetic to life in the screen, while Nolan's Batman films tried to distance themselves as much possible from anything that we might call "over-the-top" and "unrealistic" from the medium of comic books. I think Rolfe also said something more or less like: "the Nolan Batman films feel more like just another generic crime drama with the character of Batman shoehorned in".

AfterHours wrote:

matbezlima wrote:

I say that nothing is actually overrated, because art is so subjective, its emotional impact is so unpredictable on each individual (though not entirely subjective, because we are all humans, and I would never be mad to deny the immense skill in the craft of so much great art).

That's a confusing answer in its indeterminacy but maybe I'm mis-reading what you mean. Of course value judgments are ultimately subjective. And anyone is free to say their little sister's scribbles are superior to Rembrandt or that one isn't better than the other. I suppose it comes down to the reality of whether or not that actually works in practice, in real life? WHY is Rembrandt so much more extraordinary, WHY does he stay with those so profoundly and movingly who give him the proper attention (and probably even more so for those that sincerely study and evaluate his works)? Which, if each given similar study and evaluation, would one find a greater expression of substance (emotionally engaged expression; conceptual expression; creative expression) in? Subjective yes (if only for the inescapable fundamental fact that it requires the eye of the beholder in each of us to determine such), but also, I think many of the great artists would always (or almost always) rank among the highest if (a) one understands basically "what" art is, particularly its goal(s); (b) one holds the standards of that definition and goals to the work(s) under consideration (as they will always prove true, even if not in the short run, then in the long run). My criteria page answers those questions (that's my claim, you may or may not find that arguable). It is up to the eye of the beholder to determine relative to those fundamentals, as they will, axiomatically, determine actual impact upon the viewer/listener (provided they are observed by said viewer/listener). So while I don't think anyone would draw all of the same conclusions as myself or another, and I do agree that it is fundamentally subjective, I also think certain artists in each medium would almost universally tend to rank highly more consistently than others, provided this were done.

Oh, I certainly agree that some of works of art are ultimately more meaningful than others in the grand scheme of things, whether everyone loves them or not (nothing is loved by everyone), and art is not entirely subjective. That said, art is still ultimately a subjective and emotional experience, that's what matters the most for each one of us, and specially for any artist trying to fulfill his/her vision. The greatest purpose of art. And in name of diversity and respect in general, I avoid using the word overrated.

AfterHours wrote:

matbezlima wrote:

I give 10/10 ratings easily, but not because I actually think that what I'm giving such a high rating is perfect, life-changing or among the highest tier of greatest works of art ever made by man. And I'm sure that none of those 5/5 reviews to Beyoncé's albums would even dare to say a such thing. I just like to appreciate anything that I really enjoy.

You should do whatever works for you, so if that does, I wouldn't change.

For me, it would be disingenuous to not differentiate the massive gap between, say, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, and his 1st Symphony. (or even something like Please Please Me and Revolver or, better, PPM to their eventual most mature works like Sgt. Pepper/Abbey Road) ... And it would be underselling the development Beethoven undertook as a symphonist and how much more extraordinary the 9th is than his 1st, to simply declare that they're both enjoyable so therefore 5 stars or 10/10 to each. One's palpable expressive significance, impact, is far far greater than the other. Giving a high percentage of works 9/10-10/10 also downplays the utter miracle and rarity of a work that actually deserves such a rating (like saying Michelanglo's Doni Tondo and Sistine Chapel are equals, de-values just how monumental and singular an achievement the Sistine really is).

I think the main difference between our views is that appreciation (on some level) is illustrated from 5/10 on up on my scale (even below 5/10, to a much lesser degree as low as 2.6 even, there is some part of any work I can appreciate -- its just an increasingly smaller percentage of that work the lower you go, maybe a song or some songs from an album, maybe some of the scenes of a film.. etc).

And, one might say, such appreciation solidifies as a bit more stably/consistently/less reservedly, from 6.5-7/10, and increasingly on up. So, whichever one of these points one starts, it illustrates a very wide scale of appreciation, all the way up to works that one is overwhelmingly awed by and are some of the most profound artistic experiences possible, as opposed to just saying "all good works are 10/10 or close" (which, again, is fine if that's truly what you feel ... just not for me).

I understand that you want your ratings to be truly reflective of how great a work of art is in the grand scheme of things. That's impressive and very interesting and detailed. I guess I'm just not dedicated or decisive enough to do such, I constantly change my mind about the exact rating all the time if I think about it hard enough, and I'm sure my standards aren't as high as yours really. If I love something a lot, I'll give it a 10/10 or close. And if I think that one 10/10 is greater than another 10/10, I will probably just say it and why, rather than try to make all my ratings reflect what I think is better (because that's just an exercise in frustration and indecisiveness from me). And I also feel bad giving a rating lower than an 8 or 9/10 to anything I love, even if it's maybe not that great in the grand scheme of things.

AfterHours wrote:

matbezlima wrote:

There is nothing more important in art than the heart and sincerity of the artist making it. In my utopic world, all types of art would be allowed to fully flourish, all niches, even when they are not for me.

Also, a completely fulfillinhlg happy life appreciates the beauty in even the most mundane and simple things. I have great admiration for Yasujiro Ozu because of his humility in how he really gets the "mundane" beauty of life that we so often ignore and take for granted.

There is a place for everything in life, and specially in a world that should be as diverse as possible. There is a place for deeply life-changing art, and for some awesome cheesy pure escapist fun. They are all valid.

I might state it somewhat differently (criteria page) but, little nuances/semantics aside, I'm pretty sure we agree here (and you will see that a huge variety of genres or types of expression are represented on my "greatest" lists, whether film, paintings, albums, classical...). For instance, my top 10 films features the likes of a spy/thriller that is practically an all out comedy, Hitchcock playing an endlessly meaningful (and meaningless) joke of colossal proportions (North by NW) and sci-fi/fantasy/dystopia satire that is hardly less a comedy (Brazil), the pinnacle of "Hollywood" filmmaking where one might say the art/experimental film seamlessly merges with the entertainment of classic film-making (Citizen Kane), to Art/Experimental films like Persona, Nostalghia, Werckmeister Harmonies. The visual extravanganza of Metropolis (influencing so much future sci-fi fantasy, comic book and super hero films), to perhaps the peak of horror (Rosemary's Baby), to ensemble film/comedy/near-musical with a hundred other themes inter-mixed (Nashville), to the greatest B-movie, the crime/mystery/thriller and culmination of film noir (Touch of Evil), but really using those genres as a front to express more profound themes... And so on down the list... Similar variety abounds on each of my lists in their respective mediums.

That's a great reply! Diversity is the spice of life!

AfterHours wrote:

matbezlima wrote:

Personally, my favorite artform, besides music, is animation. I connect with it in a way I don't with anything else. It's the art of imagination. It fills me with wonder, fantasy and awe. And, as Tex Avery once said: "in a cartoon, you can do anything".

Tex Avery is such an interesting artist because his art is so hard to intellectualize. He only had one single-minded mission: make you laugh. And he chose the medium of the cartoon short to do so, while also changing animation and comedy forever (specially with his influence in the Looney Tunes). Avery is the most unpretentious artist one can think of in how he relentlessly pursued comedy, and yet he was also insanely perfectionist and always afraid his cartoons weren't funny enough.

I have a huge fondness for the Golden Age Disney films (1937-1942). Those films may not be perfect (outside maybe Pinocchio, a masterpiece), but they always showcase huge creativity, skill, charm, heart and passion for the medium of animation, the story and the characters. They were truly the result of a group of animators feeling like they were doing something truly IMPORTANT, and putting all their soul and passion into those films. Soul and passion from the creators are always what I seek and demand in all art: from the most realistic dramas, to the cheesiest and most escapist pure fun fantasy (like the best japanese Super Sentai), and everything in-between in the spectrum, like the classic Disney films, like the best super-hero animated shows, (unlike the MCU machine, I say that Spider-Man Into The Spider-verse wouldn't be such a labor of love and aesthetically inventive film, truly a homage to the artform of comic books, if it had been treated as just another blockbuster by the big studios), fantasy hero journeys (like the Avatar - The Last Airbender TV series), and so on.

Right on man, I do have an idea to go through animated films a bit more thoroughly at some point. (I've seen quite a few, including Pinocchio and the major works of Disney, etc, but there are just as many "anime greats" that I haven't). I agree that Pinocchio is probably Disney's best work.

Great reply! It's crazy to think how the soulless gigantic media empire of Disney today wasn't such. The company actually really cared about the art, specially in the 30s and early 40s, when they still primarily just an animation studio. As the Disney company began to really expand beyond animation in the 50s (as Walt Disney increasingly and sadly lost most of his genuine passion and drive for animation as an artform, and also became more conservative and cleaner in his image than ever), its soul was also being lost. Though to be clear, Disney Animation Studios still had a lot of passionate artists making good films (and still has passionate artists working there today, even if they are often stifled by the company). And Walt Disney himself, even with his flaws, would probably dislike how big the Disney company has grown, specially when considering his obssession for close control of as much as possible (and it's impossible to do that if your company is way, way too big).

There is one thing I would loved to have seen you also talk about though. I'm talking about what I said on Tex Avery. I find fascinating the artistic purity of Avery in his relentless pursuit for comedy. Nearly all comedians try to do grander themes, satire, social commentary, critique on politics, often in the effort of being taken seriously as artists. Avery didn't care about any of that. He was always doing pure comedy, laughs were all he ever cared about, and he was relentlessly perfectionist in trying to do that. Certainly no one could accuse him of being pretentious. Avery's work defies any sort of intellectualism in analysis. And yet I have no doubt calling him a great artist, someone who truly broke the boundaries of absurdist comedy and specially of the artform of animation obviously, showing how cartoons can truly do anything and be as insane as you want. Avery at his best truly played with what animation can do with a pure joy and energy. The purity and simplicity of Avery's ultimate goal is beautiful for me.

AfterHours wrote:

matbezlima wrote:

I do not seek perfection. The ideal of perfection is the only thing I would ever use the word "overrated" to. A seemingly very flawed work of art can be far more meaningful, can have far more passion and effort put into it, than a "flawless" one.

Well, these are my reflections. I hope you guys liked and appreciated them. I wish the best to everyone.

Thanks Mat. I pretty much agree. My comments on "perfection" are pretty well summed up on my criteria page in the description of a 10/10:

"A 10/10 does not necessarily mean "100% flawless", though probably approaches this in many regards. One could probably conceive of flaws in anything being qualitatively judged, so this is not the claim. "Flawless" can also be quite relative to the task or ambition undertaken. As a simple demonstration and comparison, there are many flawless paintings of bowls of fruit, where the technique and rendering looks so detailed and realistic that one could say that it is a perfect painting. In comparison to this, one could view Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel and yet perhaps conceive of some minor flaws in the work. So is the bowl of fruit the greater work of art because it's "more flawless"? Or should we take much stronger consideration of the creativity, expressive impact and significance of each work when comparing them? What is the flawlessly painted bowl of fruit expressing? A bowl of fruit.

A 10/10 represents an unsurpassed combination and accumulation of creativity, expressed emotional and conceptual engagement, relative to all forms and genres of art throughout the history of mankind. It is the ideal from which all others are judged."

Great comment! I will also use your example, though, to say again how everything has its place and worth in life. A painting of a bowl of fruit is most likely not gonna shake the world, but it's nice. Not everything needs to shake the world.

Huge cheers and thanks for such a detailed and careful reply!