Why are Bergman films so underrated on here? This deserves a 8.6 at the very least. This is cinema at its best. Same thing for Persona, Wild Strawberries, Cries and Whispers, Autumn Sonata...
You're not a vegetarian, are you? I've never met a vegetarian I liked.
They're so underrated because of the voting system. Anyone can create an account and give Inception a 10 (which many have done, despite its many flaws), and then give all surrounding films in the top 250 a 1 (check them out), regardless of if they've seen them or not (I don't think anyone with a brain could see any top 250 film and give it a 1- even if you hated it there'd surely be some redeeming artistic merit.).
Just don't pay much attention to the ratings. Some people give 10s sparingly, some like they're going out of fashion. You can't get a fair rating like that.
saw this today and can't say I had a good time so I would say it's pretty darn overrrated!
shareI'm looking at your tastes right now and I can't see any art films in your ratings. Perhaps you would understand it more if you took it from an art film's perspective. The Seventh Seal is not a ride to enjoy, it's a film of great depth which asks questions about life, death and illness, and it's also executed perfectly.
The room's a wreck, but her napkin is folded.
Come on it's not that good! Plus the acting of the artist was just cheesy! I loved wild strawberries and I always look with an open mind to these avant-garde films but this is just massively overrated. Is it the Christians that rate this so high or what?
shareThis film is 100% non-religious. Actually, I think it denounces the inefficiency of religion when it comes to providing answers for life, death, illness and so on. Bergman's characters are unsatisfied men and women, iconoclasts. They challenge social and religious standards, and Bergman never answers their questions with religion (or at all). Certainly not Christian propaganda.
I'm sorry you don't think it's great. I wonder what is your definition of a good art film then?
The room's a wreck, but her napkin is folded.
Mweh I'm not bashing the movie. I just didn't care for it at all.. I guess it is just my personal view on it. Still it is all about religion, doesn't matter if it questions it or not.. That just makes it redundant to me.
shareIt's not about religion. Religion has a part in the movie because it has a part in life. The movie is about life (and death), about the questions which we all ask ourselves at one point or another, and such a subject has never been depicted so truthfully on screen either before or since Bergman. And I'm not even talking about the technical side (yet).
By the way, you were totally bashing the movie in your previous post.
Not to sound martial, but saying The Seventh Seal is an overrated movie is like saying Beethoven's 9th is an overrated symphony, and you haven't brought any valid arguments yet which makes me think I'm crazy for saying that.
The room's a wreck, but her napkin is folded.
I don't think I would say The Seventh Seal has nothing to do with religion. I would agree it is not primarily about religion, but that is a different thing. It is to some extent a film concerned with existential anxiety and a search for answers about the nature of being toward death.
shareMy thoughts exactly. I never said it had nothing to do with religion.
The room's a wreck, but her napkin is folded.
I thin you're right. I am interested in film so I took a course in it and we mostly see these kind of flicks ike citizen kane etc etc. Most are pretty dull in my opinion but I kinda ejoyed The Bicycle Thief. Andreij Tarkovkys films are by far the worst yet. I think The Mirror might even have attributed to the downfall of the USSR
shareOh shut up! Andrei Tarkovsky is one of the top 10 directors of all time, and The Mirror is his magnum-opus. Easily highly in the top 10 films ever made.
Tarkovsky films watched, ranked by personal preference: (I can't be bothered to rank them on the IMDb, hence you won't find them in my "watched" list)
The Mirror~10/10
Stalker~10/10
Andrei Rublev~10/10
Solaris~10/10
The Sacrifice~9.5/10
Nostalghia~9/10
Ivan's Childhood~8.5/10
The Steamroller and the Violin~7.5/10
But to each his own, I guess. Tarkovsky is the embodiment of "not for everyone".
[deleted]
You got me curious, so I checked the top 250 to see if I gave any of them a 1. Sure enough, Guardians of the Galaxy - one of the worst films I've ever seen, and somehow in the top 250 - is the only 1. But there are a couple 3's in there.
shareSeriously people, a 1!? I've never given a 1! I even gave The Room a 4 because it was so bad it made me laugh. And I at least had fun laughing at it.. I just don't understand how people rank movies below a 4 or 3, although everyone's rating system is different.. I've given out very few 10s and each 10 means something to me... For instance I don't think Shawshank is a 10, but the nostalgia from that movie, the score, the cinematography, overall acting, and the big payoff is one reason I gave it a 10. It's also the movie that got me into film at a young age.. It will always mean something to me. It's completely over rated and should be rated around 7.7-8.7, but for me a 10. The only way I give a 10 to a movie is if it's more than a film to me. Not just great, but something I'll always learn from and go back too. I saw The Seventh Seal for the first time tonight and gave it an 8, although I feel this movie falls somewhere between a 7-9(for some maybe a 10). This movie may be slow and death have some of the best parts; this film is more about life and death and dealing with the mystery of the ultimate destined unknown.. That's just my opinion, didn't proof read this and hopefully it makes sense. All in all everyone has an opinion, but a 1 for any movie... Cmonnn
shareDude, I seldom give points to movies on this site so you only see a couple of them. David Fincher is like the most overrated dude ever. Seven was a pretty ok thriller but Alien3, Fight Club, Benjamin Button(all the films of his I've seen) are utterly dreadful. Will give him credit for MJs Who Is It video which is nice. I went in with an open mind on Deer Hunter, actually thought I would enjoy it, I have liked other old war dramas. But Deer Hunter is slow, very unrealistic and has a dance scene that goes on forever for no reason, a total bore fest. I happen to like other movies that people call masterpieces like 2001 for example, that is one of my favourites. I judge movies according to how they entertain me. It can either be mindless fun, so bad it's good or a movie that touches you in some way. Neither Fight Club nor Deer Hunter did that and I think they are hugely overrated. I had such a better time with 2001 or Sly Stallones Cobra
shareYou can't blame a movie for being slow and then praise 2001: A Space Odyssey. I agree David Fincher is overrated, but dreadful? It's pretty decent cinema, both technically and thematically.
The room's a wreck, but her napkin is folded.
Fight Club is one of (if not) the most original movie of all time. It is a charmingly nihilistic statement on capitalism, freedom, and government as a whole. Project mayhem is about anarchy. Your complaint about The Deer Hunter is valid on a first look, but the 40 minute wedding scene was important. It is to contrast the happiness that they are enjoying (how many things are more joyful than a wedding?) And the hell they are about to endure (whats worse than war?) Its boring on the surface but when thought about, its almost essential. And with the stellar preformances in each movie, how could you be bored? I gave Fight Club a 10, and The Deer Hunter a 9. 2001: A Space Odyssey on the other hand, is all about meaning. Without an inclination about the deep philosophical meaning in the film, its otherwise very boring, the very thing you complained about with Fight Club and The Deer Hunter. Without judging you, I see no consistancy in your complaints. I base my ratings on 2 things, 1. Entertainment Value and 2. Quality. When I saw Apocalypse Now Redux Edition at age 14, I was very bored by the length. Same with The Godfather which I saw the following year, but I could appreciate the artistic value so I scored them accordingly, on the other hand, when I saw Suicide Kings, I loved it, despite it not being a superior quality, and scored it around the same.
shareThe only thing original about Fight Club is the book, and the only thing original about the book is how the story is told. Pretty much every aspect of what the film is had already been done before.
The room's a wreck, but her napkin is folded.
Can you explain what Fight Club copied. In what way was it not original.
shareForgive me in advance, these quotes are from different people throughout this thread
Andreij Tarkovkys films are by far the worst yet. I think The Mirror might even have attributed to the downfall of the USSR
Anyone can create an account and give Inception a 10 (which many have done, despite its many flaws), and then give all surrounding films in the top 250 a 1....
This film is 100% non-religious. Actually, I think it denounces the inefficiency of religion when it comes to providing answers for life...
I think I made it quite clear that the film had something to do with religion, of course. I was replying to this one guy who made it seem like christian propaganda, which anyone who's a bit familiar with Bergman would know is untrue.
Later that day, after tea... I died, suddenly.
Fight Club is one of (if not) the most original movie of all time.
Unfortunately the main criteria to rate a movie specially for a lot of American audiences is how entertaining it was. This kind of rating method is also used in sites like rotten tomatoes. A lot of critics overrate comic films and animated movies because they find them entertaining.
Regular movie goers and a half the journalists/bloggers that end up writing reviews/rating are not people with enough knowledge of artistic aspects of films. If a movie is not entertaining or is humorless they'll rate it low.
Most Bergman's, Jorodowsky and fellini's film will be way underrated because of this.Guardian of the galaxy and hunger games will always have better ratings at sites like IMDB, and rotten tomatoes than artistic films.
Unfortunately the main criteria to rate a movie specially for a lot of American audiences is how entertaining it was. This kind of rating method is also used in sites like rotten tomatoes. A lot of critics overrate comic films and animated movies because they find them entertaining.
Regular movie goers and a half the journalists/bloggers that end up writing reviews/rating are not people with enough knowledge of artistic aspects of films. If a movie is not entertaining or is humorless they'll rate it low.
Most Bergman's, Jorodowsky and fellini's film will be way underrated because of this.Guardian of the galaxy and hunger games will always have better ratings at sites like IMDB, and rotten tomatoes than artistic films.
For those who argue this isn't entertaining...what is entertaining to you? Define the line between entertaining and not entertaining. Everyone has different opionions and views on different movies. Each person is unique through the lives they have lived and experiences theye've been through.
A lot of people argue that this movie is to "arty." Are all movies not art? A person/s expressions on a story or subject portrayed into moving PICTURES. Are photography and paintings not art? They all are art. The problem nowadays in society with movies and judging what's good or bad is what Hollywood has done to it....of course Corporate America...capitalism, but I wont go there, is that they have created this art form of filmmaking into an industry where they can make money off the mass audience, us! They have manipulated what is made and goes on the big screen, this resulting in what we have seen in theatres for the past almost 100 years.
Other smaller "art" films have not got the support from major studios and have had to work with smaller budgets. Through the good use of Internet and technology we are capable of today viewing many films from all over the world.
Due to the creation of Hollywood and money making films, we created critics, reviews, and film school...trying to establish a technical side to the art and create "rules" to filmmaking. We started giving ratings thus changing everyone's perspectives unconsientously to believe certain movies are superior to others (IMDB Top 250, Rotten Tomatoes etc). That's all fine and dandy as those are just lists from the mass audience, and we should not argue about what should be above or below what in the list.
Now you're wondering what's
my point? My After all that blabber, my point is who are we to judge what is good and what is bad art. What is a good movie and what is a bad movie. A rating of 9.0 just means that a higher majority of people got something good out of that movie in their opinions, some people might not have. A movie with a rating of 1.0 means the majority of the people didn't get something good out of it. But what if someone did? Does it give us the right to bash them because they liked it? No! Of course not. Art is art as long as you get a feeling, and emotion,an experience out of it. Whether it be good or bad. If it was bad rate it bad give your opinion on why you think it's bad. There should never be no insulting people on their opinions or flat out rude unintelligent remarks on a movie being bad or *beep* without there being some reasoning behind it.
Let's enjoy the art of film/movies to ourselves
and share it with others intelligently and amicably.
Regarding the word pretentious we should try and refrain from using that word when describing people's expressions and views of art. I believe it should be solely used when describing a person you know and are seeing them act pretentious.
In the end let's enjoy the art and discuss it,whether it be Persona, 2001, Shawshank, Interstellar, The Muppets, Godzilla,Fifty Shades or whatever the movie is.
As for trolls...well that's a sad lost cause there as they are a reason why the internet is the most awful place in this earth.
Great words, friend. Spread the art.
Later that day, after tea... I died, suddenly.
Thank you my friend. I agree with a lot of your comments on this board. This movie is phenomenal. 10/10. Bergman is a genius, seeing that this movie was made nearly 60 years ago blows my mind. Imagine him making this movie today?...we need another Bergman-like director to step up
shareAgree
shareIt's 8.1/10 now.
I guess the young generation who have no attention span and get their intellectual stimulation from Marvel movies will end up kicking it off the Top 250.
Since when is 8.3 or even 8.1 a low rating? "Citizen Kane" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" are both an 8.3. You can't get any higher than that. Nothing gets a 10/10 in a democracy!
shareI didn't say 8.3 or 8.1 are low ratings. The OP said 8.3 is low, or too low for this movie in their view.
8.1 is good, but my point is that it's been lowered.
Well, but thankfully it has not been lowered by an appreciable amount. I'm generally addressing the entire thread and I thought you may have agreed. I also think the OP was being facetious.
share