ratings (I)
to rate something - a movie, a tv show, a book - is one hell of a hard job. it's quite subjective. i mean, a great book for me might be the biggest piece of shit to you. for example. i once told this friend of mine i was reading the catcher in the rye, by salinger, and she said "it's an o.k. book and all, but are you turn into a bloody psycho? i mean, you know the guy who shot john lennon had that book with him? and a lot of american psychopaths read that one too."
well, if a lot of american psychos read that book, then allow me to congratulate them - they might be murderers, but they have taste. they would kill a man, but they wouldn't burn a book, and that's a nice thing. then again, yes, i'm a bit psychotic - not the type that goes out in a rampage with a .44 or a pump action shotgun, but still.
but i digress.
take v for vendetta as example. the internet movie database (imdb) rates it with 8.2 stars out of 10. fair enough, i think for myself. it doesn't beat some of my favourite movies (like the matrix, the return of the king, the night of the hunter, barry lyndon, yada yada, it goes on endlessly). this portuguese gal named rute gonçalves gives it 4 out of 10 (while the public on the online poll in the same site gave it 9 out of 10). crappy acting, bad script, bad characters, bad plot, "low quality anarchic phylosophy" (gal's being redundant, mind you), she says all this and more, but i'm too damn lazy to quote it all. i, for one, would say just the opposite. hugo weaving does one hell of an acting, enough for the entire movie. nice shots (not a kubrick, but hey). the script is very nice, even though some points are not as clear as they are on the comics, good plot, very nice characters - even though the big boss could be a little more evil.
but rute says something that i loved. i really did. allow me to translate (or die trying): the idea of a so-called freedom fighter to think wonderful the act of bombing a building that stands for democracy itself. this is to die for. really. probably she'd never studied semiotics or semiology, for if she had, she'd understand v's lecture on symbols. it makes sense all along. allow me to digress again: if a democracy becomes stained, corrupted, then it must be torn down so from the ashes it can be reborn again. and its symbols (which have no meaning themselves, it is we who give them one; i've already explained it on another post) shall fall with it, and new symbols shall be made anew.
back to the topic. a movie that i'd rate with 8 stars out of 10, rute rates with 4. can anything be more subjective than this? anyway, all this load of bullshits to tell that, from now on, i'll randomly post something like-a-review-but-not-too-much-like-it about a movie, a book, a tv show. and now i remember i'm supposed to do the same about some of my friends. meh, i'm getting busy i guess.
well, if a lot of american psychos read that book, then allow me to congratulate them - they might be murderers, but they have taste. they would kill a man, but they wouldn't burn a book, and that's a nice thing. then again, yes, i'm a bit psychotic - not the type that goes out in a rampage with a .44 or a pump action shotgun, but still.
but i digress.
take v for vendetta as example. the internet movie database (imdb) rates it with 8.2 stars out of 10. fair enough, i think for myself. it doesn't beat some of my favourite movies (like the matrix, the return of the king, the night of the hunter, barry lyndon, yada yada, it goes on endlessly). this portuguese gal named rute gonçalves gives it 4 out of 10 (while the public on the online poll in the same site gave it 9 out of 10). crappy acting, bad script, bad characters, bad plot, "low quality anarchic phylosophy" (gal's being redundant, mind you), she says all this and more, but i'm too damn lazy to quote it all. i, for one, would say just the opposite. hugo weaving does one hell of an acting, enough for the entire movie. nice shots (not a kubrick, but hey). the script is very nice, even though some points are not as clear as they are on the comics, good plot, very nice characters - even though the big boss could be a little more evil.
but rute says something that i loved. i really did. allow me to translate (or die trying): the idea of a so-called freedom fighter to think wonderful the act of bombing a building that stands for democracy itself. this is to die for. really. probably she'd never studied semiotics or semiology, for if she had, she'd understand v's lecture on symbols. it makes sense all along. allow me to digress again: if a democracy becomes stained, corrupted, then it must be torn down so from the ashes it can be reborn again. and its symbols (which have no meaning themselves, it is we who give them one; i've already explained it on another post) shall fall with it, and new symbols shall be made anew.
back to the topic. a movie that i'd rate with 8 stars out of 10, rute rates with 4. can anything be more subjective than this? anyway, all this load of bullshits to tell that, from now on, i'll randomly post something like-a-review-but-not-too-much-like-it about a movie, a book, a tv show. and now i remember i'm supposed to do the same about some of my friends. meh, i'm getting busy i guess.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home