Match Cut Madness 3: Best of the 00s

[Yxklyx]

I re-watched Hot Fuzz last night. It's a decent film until everyone starts pulling out the guns (after which I couldn't stand it anymore)- it's got 452 views though which is a lot which means there are few replacements. I wonder why the superior Spider Man (vs Spider Man 2) is not in this tournament?

Anyway, I propose Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl to replace Hot Fuzz.

[Dukefrukem]

Taken to replace In Bruges

[Dukefrukem]

Taken to replace In Bruges

If not, Burn After Reading to replace In Bruges

Edit: fuck, nevermind

[baby doll]

The third best film of 2003 The Matrix Reloaded to replace City of God

I've seen The Matrix Reloaded. It's not better than All the Real Girls, Bad Santa, Bright Leaves, The Brown Bunny, Café Lumière, Capturing the Friedmans, The Corporation, Cowards Bend the Knee, Crimson Gold, Dogville, Down with Love, Elephant, Goodbye, Dragon Inn, Los Angeles Plays Itself, Pas de repos pour les braves, Pas sur la bouche, The Saddest Music in the World, Tarnation, Les Triplettes de Belleville, Young Adam, and many, many others. It is a completely average movie. It may not even be the third best Wachowski sisters film.

[Dukefrukem]

The Life Aquatic replace The Hurt Locker

[Skitch]

The Life Aquatic replace The Hurt Locker

I'm okay with that one. I think the Hurt Locker is pretty overrated

[baby doll]

Although I'd probably watch The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou again before The Hurt Locker, it doesn't seem very necessary when The Royal Tenenbaums (a better Anderson film, in my opinion) is already in the running.

[Skitch]

Life Aquatic > Royal Tenenbaums.

Most of Wes Anderson's schtick to me is "privileged kids of super-rich people think life is hard", and I find a lot of it annoying and out of touch with most people's reality, even if he's a great visual director and editor.

[Idioteque Stalker]

These rules are so arbitrary it's hard to take anything serious here.

Of course it's mostly arbitrary, and no one said it should be taken seriously.

If you or anyone else is having a hard time getting movies accepted, my suggestion would be to think less about what movies you like/dislike and more about what movies you think will do well/not do well. The goal is to create an interesting, diverse, and competitive line-up -- and instead of a simple "yes" or "no", I provide +/- comments to reveal my thought process and set a precedent for others to follow. Take a look at those, read the room, and then decide whether or not you feel like registering an official complaint with the MC Madness Board of Trustees.

[baby doll]

Most of Wes Anderson's schtick to me is "privileged kids of super-rich people think life is hard", and I find a lot of it annoying and out of touch with most people's reality, even if he's a great visual director and editor.

Roger Ebert: "A film is not what it is about, but how it is about it. A good film or a bad film can be made about anything. Therefore, to dismiss (or praise) a film solely because of its subject matter, it is not necessary to see it. That is why people who make statements beginning with the words 'I don't like films about...' are idiots, or censors."

[Dukefrukem]

Fahrenheit 9/11 replaces YiYi

[baby doll]

Fahrenheit 9/11 replaces YiYi

I can't think of any reason to watch or think about this documentary in 2021.

[Dukefrukem]

I can't think of any reason to watch or think about this documentary in 2021.

Roger Ebert: "A film is not what it is about, but how it is about it. A good film or a bad film can be made about anything. Therefore, to dismiss (or praise) a film solely because of its subject matter, it is not necessary to see it. That is why people who make statements beginning with the words 'I don't like films about...' are idiots, or censors."

[Ezee E]

Fahrenheit 9/11 replaces YiYi

Ew, why?

[quido8_5]

I am so confused why Yi Yi is on the chopping block so frequently This is a seriously amazing film that has not left me since I watched it over 15 years ago. It is one of the most pure and quiet depictions of life as it is actually lived that I have seen.

[Skitch]

Roger Ebert: "A film is not what it is about, but how it is about it. A good film or a bad film can be made about anything. Therefore, to dismiss (or praise) a film solely because of its subject matter, it is not necessary to see it. That is why people who make statements beginning with the words 'I don't like films about...' are idiots, or censors."

Then lets abandon all film discussion or criticism, because this extremely generalized statement could be applied to many reviews of movie characters and their stories.

Its perfectly valid to say I don't relate to certain characters.

[baby doll]

Roger Ebert: "A film is not what it is about, but how it is about it. A good film or a bad film can be made about anything. Therefore, to dismiss (or praise) a film solely because of its subject matter, it is not necessary to see it. That is why people who make statements beginning with the words 'I don't like films about...' are idiots, or censors."

The form and style of Moore's film are purely instrumental, assembling a rhetorical argument that George W. Bush should be voted out of office. As Bush is no longer running for office, the film exists now purely as a historical document with little aesthetic interest. On the contrary, Moore's sounds and images bludgeon his the spectator with his points. Yi Yi--in addition to its interest as a historical document bearing witness to certain aspects of life in Taipei in the late '90s--is also masterful as storytelling and elegantly directed. And it's still "only" the fourth-best Yang film I've seen, after A Brighter Summer Day, Taipei Story, and The Terrorizers.

[baby doll]

Then lets abandon all film discussion or criticism, because this extremely generalized statement could be applied to many reviews of movie characters and their stories.

Its perfectly valid to say I don't relate to certain characters.

It's perfectly valid to say one didn't "relate" (god, I hate that word) to certain characters; what's invalid, I think, is to dismiss certain works of art on that basis. I can't empathize with Oedipus but that doesn't mean I think Sophocles is deficient as a playwright. Off the top of my head, I can think of a great number of truly great films that purposely preclude the spectator from forming a sympathetic attachment to their characters (e.g., virtually the entire filmographies of Oshima Nagisa and Straub/Huillet). Judging films on their "relatability" implies a profound lack of curiosity about the world and about film: the characters in this movie are like me, therefore it's good; the characters in this movie are not like me, therefore the film is bad. It precludes the possibility that one may want to watch films about people who are absolutely nothing like oneself (one of the customary pleasures of going to the movies is escapism, after all), and is thus extremely limiting as an aesthetic criteria. If I only watched films about obese, middle-class Nova Scotians of mixed European and South Asian heritage who are married to Hong Kongers, I'd have very few films to watch.

[Skitch]

Judging films on their "relatability" implies a profound lack of curiosity about the world and about film: the characters in this movie are like me, therefore it's good; the characters in this movie are not like me, therefore the film is bad.

That was never said.

It precludes the possibility that one may want to watch films about people who are absolutely nothing like oneself (one of the customary pleasures of going to the movies is escapism, after all), and is thus extremely limiting as an aesthetic criteria. If I only watched films about obese, middle-class Nova Scotians of mixed European and South Asian heritage who are married to Hong Kongers, I'd have very few films to watch.

Once again you're splitting hairs and moving goal posts. I didn't say any of his films were bad, in fact I said he was good filmmaker, I just said I didn't relate to a theme of characters that runs through a good bit of his filmography. Which you've first quoted Ebert to call me an idiot or a censor and then said it was okay to do so then said it was not.

[Skitch]

what's invalid, I think, is to dismiss certain works of art on that basis. I can't empathize to Oedipus but that doesn't mean I think Sophocles is deficient as a playwright.

Okay, let me pick an equally silly comparison: I don't know particularly what you think of Man of Steel, but I'm guessing you would probably have the same complaints as a fair amount of people. So I can say just because you don't associate what its like to be an alien raised on Earth your negative review of a movie based on his character motivations makes you a censor?

God this argument is dumb. Why do I let you hook me this stupid shit all the time.

[baby doll]

That was never said.

You said his films are "out of touch with most people's reality," which strongly implies that it is more noble to depict the problems of working- and middle-class characters than the super-rich.

Once again you're splitting hairs and moving goal posts. I didn't say any of his films were bad, in fact I said he was good filmmaker, I just said I didn't relate to a theme of characters that runs through a good bit of his filmography. Which you've first quoted Ebert to call me an idiot or a censor and then said it was okay to do so then said it was not.

And in saying that you don't relate to this theme, you imply that the presence of this theme in his work causes you to enjoy his films less, and that The Life Aquatic is superior to The Royal Tenenbaums on the grounds that said theme is not present in the former.

[baby doll]

Okay, let me pick an equally silly comparison: I don't know particularly what you think of Man of Steel, but I'm guessing you would probably have the same complaints as a fair amount of people. So I can say just because you don't associate what its like to be an alien raised on Earth your negative review of a movie based on his character motivations makes you a censor?

I haven't seen Man of Steel so I have no idea what you're talking about.

[quido8_5]

I can't empathize to Oedipus

Well, that makes one of us.

[quido8_5]

Life Aquatic > Royal Tenenbaums.

Most of Wes Anderson's schtick to me is "privileged kids of super-rich people think life is hard", and I find a lot of it annoying and out of touch with most people's reality, even if he's a great visual director and editor.

Regardless of the argument (which I find mostly semantic), I think there's a number of people who would pick Life Aquatic over Royal Tenenbaums. I've seen more people name the former as their favorite Wes Anderson film than the latter. For me, Royal Tenenbaums >>>> Life Aquatic, but I can see the appeal. Part of what makes Tenenbaums a fantastic film is that the characters are inherently unrelatable*, to an almost surrealistic extent. But the central struggle of all the characters becomes a gut punch: we're all looking for something to invest our lives in and, most of the time, it comes up hollow. The Life Aquatic approaches the idea of parental distance more directly and is more about the dyadic relationship of father and son. It's also got the Anderson quirk-level set to max, which is why I have a hard time ranking it highly.

Having said all that, Life Aquatic is a much more interesting dark horse in the madness and I think would have a good chance of going far in the competition.

[Skitch]

You said his films are "out of touch with most people's reality," which strongly implies that it is more noble to depict the problems of working- and middle-class characters than the super-rich.

And in saying that you don't relate to this theme, you imply that the presence of this theme in his work causes you to enjoy his films less, and that The Life Aquatic is superior to The Royal Tenenbaums on the grounds that said theme is not present in the former.

Nope, didn't say it was more "noble", only said that it didn't relate to anything I understand. And considering the ideas hes presenting of the fraction of a percent of a percent of a percent of the populace, I was relaying that that fraction of a fraction of a fraction who do should maybe quit herumphing films that play to 99.99999% of the planet. The Life Aquatic isn't necessarily out of the criticism I've already named, but at least its some researchers who still require funding rather than crybabies who have weeks to ride trains around the world while bemoaning their personal existential life crises. Not that we all dont go through that turmoil, but its a hard sell when the vast majority of us cant take a few months or years rent free to roam and contemplate.

To say that I inferred it was more noble to write characters that are relatable to the vast majority of people is akin to telling me I dont understand the emotional struggle Jeff Bezos goes through everyday.