>>61992502 Literally everything about your post makes you look like a snobby contrarian with shit taste. >posting a list of films on a music board >old, obscure and acclaimed films rated not too high to show your patricianism >asking for suggestions, when you're "clearly" someone who can find quality stuff or get into certain fields easily >rating a highly rated film low just to be against the hype, probably being highly biased when watching it too
It's not about my taste or yours. It's about recognizing a good movie when you see it. I wouldn't have said anything if you had shit like TDKR rated 5 on that list next to the Anomalisa rating because I would have thought it was based strictly on opinions, but since you seem to actually watch good films, that shows a lot more about how bad you are at this. Anomalisa is a pretty good movie, whether you liked it or not. That's like rating something a 1 because of it being memed to death, while ignoring the actual quality of it. I bet you think you're a pretty good critic and have superior tastes to most people.
>>61993032 The fact that you're so quick to go against the majority proves my point that you're just contrarian. If you actually read my post properly with your eyeballs, you'll see that I never said that. Rating something based on the majority is obviously dumb, but something that's already highly rated in general (especially by critics) means that that film (or whatever) has a higher chance of actually being good, and it usually actually is.
>>61993180 Of course not. Neither is F for Fake. I just meant in comparison to a new, mainstream release, which looks out of place.
>>61993563 It's like you're deliberately ignoring every point I make and substitute it with your own wrong ideas. I already said that's not what I meant. I thought I made myself clear enough, but apparently I'm just wasting my time. Just watch whatever the fuck you want to watch and believe whatever you want to believe about your superior patrician tastes and how everyone who doesn't like what you like has shit tastes, because trying to not be a shitty person is pointless and not rewarding at all.
>>61993970 Jeez, are you 14 or what? I'll try to explain it again. Last time. It wasn't about your taste, or mine, or how much you like something compared to other people or what rating you give it. It's about you being a biased asshole who thinks he's way too cool because he watched a few historically important films without understanding them. This is clear because despite you having watched good movies, you immediately jumped on the "your different opinion along with most popular opinions are shit and unimportant" bandwagon. If you actually knew quality cinema you would understand that those kinds of things don't matter. That's why I'm saying you're just a bad wannabe critic.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.