Sometimes I think we give too much credit to films that are original and not enough credit to films that are just good.
If one thinks Hereditary would've been a great film if it had been released a long time ago, then I think you might as well call it a "classic"
I mean, it would still be an amazing experience for someone who hasn't seen those other films.
Side note: I'm not saying
Side note: I know one can argue that many shitty films from 2018 would have been called "classics" if they had been released in the 60s, simply because they would have been ground breaking back then.
But, to me, a "classic" is not just a ground breaking film. If you ask "would this have been as good if it was released in 2018?" and that answer isn't YES, then maybe it's not really a great film. It can still be a milestone in film history, but if it doesn't hold up today it's more of a historical document than a great watch.
I often think film buffs give too much credit to films just because they were ground breaking.
I hate when someone says: "Ok, this film is not the best film in this genre. But it was a pioneer, so it's still a great movie".
If that was the case then it would mean all films who were released a long time ago would deserve higher scores, and films that are released later in the same style, are automatically punished with a lower score.
reply
share