1. I think it’s perfectly valid to say (from the perspective of someone who has not seen the films but has had the storyline described to them in detail by people who think the movie is clever) that the level of physical and emotional torture people are put through in the movie in order to make the point that ‘life is precious’ is unwarranted (and if I understand you have to wait for the second movie to even get that lame-assed explanation of crazy dude’s motives) and renders the movies very much torture porn. I mean for fuck’s sake, even Tyler Durden managed this by just holding a gun to someone’s head and threatening them, and he’s the king of chaos.

    There’s no denying some cleverness in it all. I just don’t think the price you pay to get to it is commensurate with the payoff. And yeah, disagree all you want. I don’t need to judge you for loving them. I don’t care about that side of it. What I do care about is the false notion that I need to watch the movies in order to have a valid opinion about them.

  2. It is a false notion that you can have a valid opinion about a film without experiencing it as such. Film is a visual and auditory medium. Yes or no?

    Under my annoyance clause this does not preclude anyone from discussing the themes or premise of the films in question but films and other entertainment mediums are also about execution. If you wish to have a valid opinion on the quality of a work it’s a vital component.

    I see your above argument as more an objection to the premise as you understand it. Since you have no first hand knowledge of the execution, we can only discuss the films in broad terms. That’s why I used the aliens in Indy 4 as an example. Because once you object to the premise, and close off discussion of the execution, where can the conversation as it relates to the work itself go?

Comments are closed.