The Aardvark Speaks : essence, effervescence, obscurity. Established 2002. A weblog by Horst Prillinger. ISSN 1726-5320


January 25, 2005

Film buffs

Found this on the Internet Movie Database:

Bollywood=2movies/day on an average n only 2 good movies/year!!this is one of them!!
Author: [removed]

I personally don't watch many hindi movies bcause normally they are dumb n stupid and treat their viewers on same line!!

but this is one of the best movie coming from Bollywood!!only seeing is believing!........Direction,Camera Work,Back ground score, editing(superb),acting from all lead cast and one n only song(which is played in background during a chase sequence)are all top notch!!...........can put some of best hollywood flicks to shame!!

You know, sometimes I wonder why people even bother to write reviews if all they can come up with is typos, clichés and factual errors (let's see if you can spot at least two of those). And why the editors on IMDb don't even bother to clean up the mess. And that's despite that fact that in this case I even agree that the film is good.

In countless other cases, however, I wonder how often people go to the cinema or how many movies they've seen because I don't think there's hardly any movie on the IMDb where someone hasn't written a review that says it's the best movie in the world. Now while I know that tastes are different, this makes me wonder what people expect from movies and what they get from it, and to what extent they really believe it's true or whether they simply apply the term "best movie in the world" to the last movie they've seen and liked.

Honestly, I couldn't say which film I'd call the best movie in the world. Certainly none of the Top 15 on the IMDb Best-of list anyway.

Posted by Horst on January 25, 2005 03:17 PM to reviews | Tell-a-friend
Trackbacks


Comments
gibarian said on January 25, 2005 06:35 PM:

So, you don't at least have a list of your most favourite movies? You do like to categorize your music to quite an extent, so why not the moving pictures?

Horst said on January 26, 2005 12:52 AM:

I'm not sure I even have a list of favourite movies. There are a few movies that I think are pretty good, but I think that's about it. But "best movie in the world" -- impossible.

It's easier with music, I think. Nominating the 12 most blissful minutes in rock music history is really a cinch.

dieter said on January 26, 2005 11:19 AM:

I do not quite agree, Horst. Child in time alone is more than 12 minutes long ;-)
On a more serious note: When asked about my favorite music, I either think of music I heard recently (selecting the better ones) or I think of music that impressed me when I was a teenager. The latter is more common, since having children also implies having almost no time to listen to good music anymore. Maybe that is the reason why I think that the greatest pieces of music were written in the 60s and the 70s...

Horst said on January 26, 2005 11:35 AM:

Please forgive me, but I cannot seriously believe that you would refer to "Child in Time" as "bliss". In fact, it's anything but. And unless you are referring to some live version, it's only 10 minutes long anyway.

sabine said on January 26, 2005 03:01 PM:

"citizen kane" is quite a good film but i agree that a best-of-list does not make sense (especially as there are probably thousands of best-films-lists on this planet)

Horst said on January 26, 2005 04:01 PM:

Hm, I saw "Citizen Kane" again only last summer and I'm less impressed by it every time I see it. I'm beginning to think it's a bit overrated.

But even with films that I find really good, it seems impossible to compare and grade them: how on earth would it be possible to say whether Apocalypse Now is better than Hana-bi or vice versa? They're both so different that a comparison seems impossible! Even comparing The Godfather to Company seems next to impossible, and they're on a very similar subject.

Btw, has anybody spotted the factual errors in the quotation above yet?

laura said on January 28, 2005 04:34 AM:

I like Kubrick, and will never tire of watching 2001. It's great to listen to, too. You've already found the errors, so we don't need to. :)

Deb said on January 28, 2005 11:18 AM:

I tried to spot factual errors, but I could only find one factual statement. The closest thing was the opening declaration about bollywood movies, and I don't know and can't be arsed to find out if 2 per day is the rate at which they are made or not. (And even that is subject to interpretation, sort of like census-taking or accounting, it depends on your metering method.) "Only 2 per year are good" is value judgment, as are all the remarks about the elements of this film being good. If your excerpt noted what film it was referring to, I missed that, so again, no way to know if there's a factual error in any of that.

Horst said on January 28, 2005 12:22 PM:

You're right -- "only 2 per year are good" is a value judgement, but I felt this was so ridiculously wrong that it can count as a factual error.

And no, Bollywood doesn't make 2 movies per day -- that would be 730 per year, when in fact it's something like 100 per year.

Also saying that Bollywood films treat their audience as if they were dumb and stupid shows a remarkable lack of understanding for Indian movies and culture.

dieter said on January 28, 2005 01:02 PM:

Horst, a value judgement cannot probably be "ridiculously wrong". OK, you can demand that the writer says that she or he only likes two films per year, but I think the author can start from the assumption that everybody understands a review written in the style above as a personal statement. And as such it is absolutely valid.

A hundred films per year come up to one film every 3 to 4 days which is still quite impressive.

I agree with you that the statement is extremely personal and written in horrible style, but talking about factual errors is going too far.

dieter said on January 28, 2005 01:09 PM:

And by the way. Yes, you are right, only live versions of child in time are more than 12 minutes long. However, I was only trying to make a humorous entering remark, so, don't sue me for being inaccurate. Still, my point was that even with music, I would end up with a "top five list" (that was quite a good but not necessarily great film, too ;-) that differs almost on a daily base.

And, yes, I do enjoy child in time. It is a wonderful exercise in crescendo. Well, maybe not all 10 to 12 minutes are blissful...

Horst said on January 28, 2005 03:45 PM:

Okay, so perhaps "wrong" was the wrong word. Maybe I should have said something like "out of touch with reality".

nora said on January 31, 2005 09:15 PM:

the following is a statement and not a judgement, it is personal and of questionable value: i have never managed to stay awake when watching 2001, although i have repeatedly tried.

Comments have been closed for this entry.


© Copyright 2002-2008 Horst Prillinger, 

Most of the stuff on this page is fiction. Everything else is my private opinion. Please read the disclaimer.

Valid XHTML 1.0! Powered by Movable Type Made with a Mac