With what level or irony, low standards, or low expectations am I supposed to enjoy this movie, or consider it good, or some kind of classic? If I paid full price for a movie ticket and saw this movie in theaters, I would be pretty pissed. In the same year, The Shawshank Redemption, Quiz Show, Pump Fiction, Forest Gump, The Mask, and The Lion King came out, so there was no shortage of good movies at the time. It looks like shit, the acting is shit, there's pretty much no story. If there's a level of dialogue that could possibly justify this film's status, it's not found here.
I'm not being contrarian. I'm not b8ing. I seriously want to hear someone defend this movie as "good." Think of all the movies that had talent, passion, stars, experience, and years put into to them, not to mention tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars that somehow are worse than this movie in your opinion, and then tell me what the fuck I am supposed to see in it.
With what level or irony, low standards, or low expectations am I supposed to enjoy this movie, or consider it good...
That image is from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. It came out in 2001.
>Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.
Which one is that again? Kevin Smith's movies all kind of blur together in my head.
Correction. It’s from Clerks 2. It came out in 2006.
It's actually from the reboot, fat kevin smith CGI cost millions
it's a comedy asshole and so all that matters is did you laugh, if you are normal (but I doubt that based on your post) then you laughed your ass off
To save billions
Sleep it off, Kev
It was before reality TV. Movies with small stories about regular everyday slobs were not done to death. It was a fresh take. Add the characters and the dialogue and there you go.
It's just stupid stoner comedy that was funny when we were in high school.
I don't think I laughed once. I might have, but I doubt it. I think I laughed at the "37 dicks at one time" lines years ago when I saw a clip of it, but no, I was not laughing my ass off. If people actually had that reaction, then this movie has not aged well, but that's an obvious understatement.
I sort of get this, but even in 1994, I don't think it would transcend how shitty it is.
It's unironically better and more relevant to it's era than Quiz Show, The Mask or the fucking Lion King.
>It looks like shit
It looks like what it was - an exceptionally cheap DIY movie. Which was a popular aesthetic in early 90's culture.
>I'm not being contrarian. I'm not b8ing. I seriously want to hear someone defend this movie as "good."
You WERE born in the 90's though. Otherwise you wouldn't need to ask this question.
I haven't thought about it, but I will concede that it is probably extremely dated and like Slacker loses much of it's impact removed from the zeitgeist.
This refers to Clerk btw, even though your image is from one of the sequel-spin off turds.
It transcended it's budget limiations because
1. Grunge
2. You didn't see movies or TV shows like that about people like that
From Ebert's contemporary review
>Much has been written about Generation X and the films about it.
>"Clerks" is so utterly authentic that its heroes have never heard of their generation. When they think of "X," it's on the way to the video store.
The film you really should have listed as comign out in the same year was Reality Bites.
Two films that came out in the same year covering the same subject. One was a commercial, inauthentic project, the other was genuine.
>You didn't see movies or TV shows like that about people like that
Then I'm too young too appreciate it. Needless to say, the movie has aged like shit.
>inb4 movies don't age
Some do, and this one has, especially when you have to stress so much the context to make it seem redeemable.
Btw, Ebert's a hack whose positive review of the film makes me more certain it's shit today, and was shit in 1994. It would be too easy to find a film that he gave less than three stars to that would be absurd to say is worse than Clerks. It's still an instance of thinking, "It's supposed to be shit, and knows it's shit, so it's okay if it's shit," or, "This an indie film made on a shoestring budget, therefore I'm going to have lower standards for it even though tickets in theaters cost the same for it."
>cheap DIY movie.
And? How does it that excuse how shitty it looks? The process of moviemaking in determining the aesthetic worth of something is irrelevant. I'm not going to think a movie is better because it was made with an extremely limited budget, or because it's the work of one guy, or something.
>Which was a popular aesthetic in early 90's culture.
This has not aged well. I would like to think that people with good taste could recognize that it looked like shit because it was shit and not be swayed by a temporary cultural appreciation for shit.
The lack of budget resulted in an aesthetic that was consistent thematically. It's a perfect package.
>was shit in 1994
I mean, you listed Quiz Show, The Lion King and The Mask as "good" movies. Your taste is every bit as questionable as Ebert's.
>And?
Because cheap and crude DIY aesthetics were big at the time - from zines to pop music (In Utero was released at the end of the previous year) to fashion. It was a "thing" at the time. There were more expensive media productions that would mimic these aesthetics.
>Excuse
It doesn't. No one had a problem with how shitty it looked, so there was no need to excuse it. Feature/Bug etc.
>The process of moviemaking in determining the aesthetic worth of something is irrelevant.
Statement doesn't really make any sense.
>I'm not going to think a movie is better because it was made with an extremely low budget
You mean handicapping? That was the point of it's success - it didn't need to be handicapped, because the aesthetic given off by it's budget limitations suited the material, as opposed to working against it.
>This has not aged well. I would like to think that people with good taste could recognize that it looked like shit because it was shit and not be swayed by a temporary cultural appreciation for shit.
Sure. There are plenty of people who can't watch old movies because they're in black and white, have cheesy music, poor special effects etc. Just like there are plenty of people who won't watch movies with subtitles and so forth. You can't please everyone.
it's a shit movie but you're retarded
it was praised because when it came out it felt fresh and unique, it had zero budget but gen x geeks identified with smith's voice (everyday nerds didnt make indie movies like this that market was cornered by artsyfartsy types still trying to be cassavetes or allen, nor did they have a voice in hollywood; understand that smith came at the right time before hollywood realized self-conscious geeks were a huge market, before raimi/jackson/wachoskis changed the blockbuster industry etc) and his business model became influential (weinstein built his empire on people like smith and tarantino, nolan emerged with the same method, etc), it's integral to the zeitgeist of the mid90s because it changed how movies and filmmaking careers were made
OP, maybe there's noting to get except that you just don't have a sense of humor, wouldn't that be the easiest explanation?
>The lack of budget resulted in an aesthetic that was consistent thematically.
Okay. It still looks like shit. There are plenty of movies that are thematically consistent that look like shit.
>Your taste is every bit as questionable as Ebert's.
I meant to write "or decent movies," but all three of those movies fucking timeless classics compared to Clerks. And if you're implying Ebert's taste is questionable, why the fuck would you reference his review?
>Because cheap and crude DIY aesthetics were big at the time
And what? I have no idea what a movie would today look like if it captured a "big aesthetic." Maybe it would look like it was made by a YouTuber. Yes, I can actually imagine it. Maybe it could be an entire movie that would look like it was a let's play. Needless to say, this would age like shit, (unless this somehow becomes a timeless style, which is more likely to happen than for Clerks' style), and people with taste would hopefully be able to recognize that it's shit. The movie Unfriended captures very well the modern aesthetics of people using social media. It looks like shit, is a shit movie, along with Clerks.
>No one had a problem with how shitty it looked
People constantly excuse the dumbest shit in writing by saying, "Film is a visual medium," but it applies here. I would feel fucking ripped off if I went to a theater, paid full price for a movie that looks like it was filmed in day. The total lack of value for the price of the ticket shines through. Does the acting make up for it? Does the writing? "No!"
>Statement doesn't really make any sense.
Yes, it does. Try diagramming the sentence and then get back to me if you don't get it.
The budget of this movie was less than nothing, shot on one camera on site with no sets. It's an Indy movie that follows the lives of post-grunge delinquents.
You can't compare it to anything Hollywood makes.
You don't like it cause it's different that from what you are used to and different from what you expected. That's what makes you a fucking pleb. Go back to watching rehashes of the same shit over and over again. Also I'm sorry you are a gen z pleb who missed out on the 90s
>because the aesthetic given off by it's budget limitations suited the material, as opposed to working against it.
I don't doubt that it suits the material, but if the end result of this material made is a movie this shitty, it's questionable if the movie should be made at all. Just because something is thematically appropriate doesn't mean it's good. I could criticize every other element of the movie, and you could justify it by saying it's thematically consistent, which would ultimately be circular reasoning. Btw, when certainly is not thematically consistent is the acting, which is extremely stilted at times. Unless "shitiness" really is the theme of the movie, in which we both agree the movie is shit and does that very well, which leads me back to my previous question of asking about low standards, low expectations, etc.
>Sure
There are some movies that age well, as in you could release it in theaters, charge full price, and it might be in black and white, or other clearly obsolete aspects and it would still be a good movie experience. Then there are movies that maybe really haven't aged so well, but if you watch them with the mindset of when they released, or make some allowances for the movies being old, they are still enjoyable. And then there are movies that are really only worth watching for historical reasons. I would say Clerks would belong to the latter category, but the early 90s culture was so utterly worthless and transitory, there's no point, and I say that as a le 90s kid.
>Okay. It still looks like shit. There are plenty of movies that are thematically consistent that look like shit.
Yes. Working in a corner store and being poor and directionless and having no special value is shit. The movie looks like what it's about and who it's about.
>but all three of those movies fucking timeless classics compared to Clerks
The Mask is a crappy kids movie that came out after Jim Carrey became big. I guess for some people their is nostalgia value (like Generic 90's Disney Musical #393) and Quiz Show? That film was forgotten a week after it came out.
>And what? I have no idea what a movie would today look like if it captured a "big aesthetic."
Go look at whatever the fuck is popular in pop music and fashion. It's not rocket science.
>needless to say this would age like shit
Already been covered.
>People constantly excuse the dumbest shit in writing by saying, "Film is a visual medium," but it applies here.
Do you have any identification proving you are the final arbitrator of what is and isn't an acceptable way to enjoy movies?
>I would feel fucking ripped off if I went to a theater, paid full price for a movie that looks like it was filmed in day.
The movie came out in 1994. No one back then would mistake this for being filmed in a day.
>Price ticket value is reflected in movie budgets
Nope. Send in a suggestion form to your local AMC
>Does the writing?
1. It doesn't have to make up for it.
2. Yes. It was widely regarded as one of the best written films of it's year.
>Yes, it does.
It really doesn't.
>The process of moviemaking
Then...
>In
?
>determining the aesthetic worth of something
This doesn't connect to the earlier portion of the sentence at all.
>is irrelevant
What is irrelevant?
I guess you might be trying to communicate, going by context, that the moviemaking process is irrelevant to the aesthetic of the movie.
Which is, needless to say, utterly moronic.
>you just don't have a sense of humor
Again, the "37 dicks" jokes was funny when I saw a clip of it on YouTube. I also might have chuckled when all the porn names were being read. But it's really an example of a movie where you had to be in high school to find it funny.
Fuck Jay and Silent Bob. Fuck them up their stupid asses.
>You can't compare it to anything Hollywood makes.
I can, and I can especially compare it to other movies you could have seen around the same time, because there are people who made the choice to see this movie over others.
But the end result was a good movie. Not a shitty movie.
>I could criticize every other element
Sure. No one would care or take your seriously though.
The acting is bad, the subject matter is dumb. It still works for most people. The same way most people can suspend disbelief while watching Big Cartoon Cats singing or Jim Carrey pulling stupid faces among garbage CGI effects.
It's a film carried by it's writing. It's not the first film to get over the line because of one element being good enough to elevate the lesser elements.
>There are some movies that age well
And there are others that don't. If The Wizard Of Oz came out today, kids would whine that the effects looked stupid and that the acting was weird. If The Godfather came out today, people would whine that the VFX were warmed up garbage.
>but the early 90s culture was so utterly worthless and transitory, there's no point, and I say that as a le 90s kid.
Thanks for your input. BTW being born in the 90's doesn't make you a 90's kid.
...
>Pump Fiction
>it's the story of a man and how he lied to his friends about going to the gym
>who missed out on the 90s
I didn't. I was born in 1992. The 90s were garbage, pointless generation with nothing to preserve of value in terms of lifestyle. Sure, there were great movies and sitcoms, but the lifestyle and aesthetics belong in the trash. We would be getting a lot more 90s nostalgia series if it was good. So in short, you're wrong about me not experiencing the 90s.
>That's what makes you a fucking pleb.
Yes, because only true connoisseurs can appreciate Kevin Smith's artistic genius.
>But it's really an example of a movie where you had to be in high school to find it funny.
Strange that a movie aimed at, and about, people in their teens and early 20's was a hit with people in their teens and early 20's.
Crazy.
You can compare it to Hollywood movies. I said it above - Reality Bites. It was the same material/topic produced by a major Hollywood studio and it was fucking cringe inducing, despite being far more technically proficient with real actors.
The only thing that even comes close to its source material is Reality Bites which is a soulless piece of shit. You are building a strawman against a 23 year old indy film you aren't socially capable of understanding. Not because of your age, but because you don't understand the merit of truth in cinema.
You obviously didn't like it and no amount of 'explaining' will change your mind. Movie on. People can like things you don't like without the world fucking breaking and shit.
Jesus fucking christ the autism you have.
I thought Interstellar was a piece of shit but I don't shit my pants in anger because people loved it and I didn't.
>I didn't. I was born in 1992
So...you literally missed out on the 90's.
>The 90s were garbage, pointless generation with nothing to preserve of value in terms of lifestyle. Sure, there were great movies and sitcoms, but the lifestyle and aesthetics belong in the trash.
Sex Lies and Videotapes. Great movie.
If you were born in the 90s, you didn't experience them and you're not a 90s kid. *7 is the cut-off for the next decade.
>I didn't. I was born in 1992
lol you are dumb as shit dude. not only are you a pleb, but you are also stupid, and truly pathetic for choosing to spend your time typing up paragraphs about a movie you don't even like. quit being such a negative nancy faggot
That movie was The Voice of a Generation.
Indie guy making his dream/movie come true with 25 cents, some friends and a jar full of hope.
Why does hope smell like a mix of pee, weed and jizz?
>Yes.
Okay, how can I put this? The visuals of the movie were utterly awful and inadequate, and to the extent that this film was supposed to appeal on a visual level, it failed. Furthermore, the acting and writing did not make up for it. Do you get me now? How can I explain that every element of this movie wasn't just stylistically and thematically "bad," but "bad" in terms of quality, resulting in a bad movie? Or do I not have to explain, and you get it now?
>The Mask
Great special effects and Carrey gives a very animated performance. Those are two positive aspects that go beyond defending the movie by saying, "It's stylistically supposed to be shit," or, "le 90s XD."
>That film was forgotten a week after it came out.
I could go on about it's merits, but in terms of preserving it's time period, it does a better job than Clerks, making real the era where quiz show panelists were celebrities, and actually telling a real story.
>Go look at whatever the fuck is popular in pop music and fashion.
I gave several examples, one speculated and one real, and I don't see a good film. Feel free to recommend a movie that captures something "popular in pop music and fashion" that's actually good.
>It's not rocket science.
Maybe not figuratively, but if it were that easy to come up with a good idea meeting such criteria, it would have been done by now, because I can only think of stupid ideas. Unless, again, you can come up with something else, (if you fashion yourself an "ideas man,"), or, again, you can mention a "good" movie that captures some style like Clerks does.
It's the stuff dreams are made of.
How come liberals can’t make art?
>and to the extent that this film was supposed to appeal on a visual level, it failed.
>supposed to
Cool.
>How do I explain to you that it was bad
How about explaining why it was bad instead of just saying "it was bad". Or are you just offering us an uninteresting subjective opinion?
>The Mask
>Carrey gives a very animated performance
You mean cringe inducing mugging?
>Great special effects
You mean YouTube tier CGI?
>I could go on about it's merits, but in terms of preserving it's time period, it does a better job than Clerks, making real the era where quiz show panelists were celebrities, and actually telling a real story.
You're aware Quiz Show isn't set in the 90's right?
>telling a real story
A really uninteresting story.
>I gave several examples, one speculated and one real, and I don't see a good film. Feel free to recommend a movie that captures something "popular in pop music and fashion" that's actually good.
Spring Breakers.
It's a movie you liked as a teenager and made you feel like you had better taste than the other kids in your class, then don't think about again until you're at a party years later and someone says something about it and you all have a little chuckle and say something like "haha yeah dude would you like to suck my cock berserrkerr" then forget about it again.
In a row!?
>comparing it to all those big budget blockbusters
are you literally high? this was a garage indie movie that kevin smith poured everything he had into and more just to get it made.
kevin smith dialogue is characters setting each other up for "witty" comebacks but it doesn't work at all because his writing is shit and everything everyone says sounds unnatural. it's like a bunch of kevin smiths talking to each other wearing different outfits but all smirking like "this is about to be really clever and smart, hold on to your hats!" the only actor who can make the dialogue sound somewhat natural is jason lee and that's only because he's a skateboarder and not an actor at all.
>Do you have any identification proving you are the final arbitrator of what is and isn't an acceptable way to enjoy movies?
I don't know what prompted this question. Strictly speaking, I wasn't judging that approach, only referring to how other people judge movies. Some people say good visuals excuse bad writing, (too many to list). Some people say good writing excuses bad visuals, (like movies of Woody Allen). Some people say if it captures some aesthetic or whatever, it excuses bad writing and bad visuals. That seems to be you, and the movie is by Kevin Smith.
>The movie came out in 1994.
Not literally, but maybe a week? I guess standards were lower then, but I mean to say that little collective effort was spent on this movie, which is transparent.
>>>Price ticket value is reflected in movie budgets
I wasn't implying that. I mean to say, that the value of the movie you chose to watch for the price of your ticket and your time should be more than the opportunity cost, at least among movies. This movie in terms of budget looks like it's only a few leagues away from a student film. This means that the other elements have considerably make up for it and be immensely better than other movies you might see. I don't think that's the case.
>Some people say
They must be experts.
>but I mean to say that little collective effort was spent on this movie
Objectively false. Far more effort was spent on this than the majority of major motion pictures released in that year.
>his movie in terms of budget looks like it's only a few leagues away from a student film.
So you were implying "that".
With what level or irony, low standards, or low expectations am I supposed to enjoy this post, or consider it good, or some kind of classic? If I paid full price for a Sup Forums pass and saw this post in a thread, I would be pretty pissed. In the same year, *breathes in*, UAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, Sneedposting, and XXX days until Avatar 2 came out, so there was no shortage of good memes at the time. It looks like shit, the writing is shit, there's pretty much no content. If there's a level of dialogue that could possibly justify this post's status, it's not found here.
I'm not being contrarian. I'm not b8ing. I seriously want to hear someone defend this post as "good." Think of all the posts that had talent and passion put into to them, that somehow are worse than this post in your opinion, and then tell me what the fuck I am supposed to see in it.
Would you say that if you didnt know so much about smith? Hes made every facet of his life available so its tempting to impose that on his films but is it fair to retroactively say that about clerks?
>1. It doesn't have to make up for it.
Why not? If I could see two movies, one with shitty visuals and okay writing, and one with fantastic visuals and okay writing, unless I have some predilection for one aspect of the movie more than the other, while would I see the former movie? I guess if I wanted that "grundgy" aesthetic, Clerks would be my only movie, but that seems like a niche audience, and then objectively, as much as is possible, the latter movie has to be considered superior. If a movie, (philosophically, like all aspects), is the sum of its parts, of which is its visuals, how could it be good if the visuals are terrible and the writing doesn't make up for it? Where does this "goodness" come from? Where am I to find it? People like Woody Allen films, especially his earlier ones, which were practically eyesores, almost entire because of the writing, and if they look like shit, it's okay because they're well written. Does the same balance in quality happen here? Again, "No!"
>2. Yes. It was widely regarded as one of the best written films of it's year.
I can't even say it was a slow year, because I can think of Quiz Show, Nobody's Fool, The Madness of King George, Pulp Fiction, Bullets over Broadway, etc. as being better written.
>It really doesn't.
It really does. Try making a Reed–Kellogg of it, scan it, and then post it. If you aren't willing to do that, I'll explain what the sentence means and point our what a fucking idiot you would have to be not to get it.
>I guess you might be trying to communicate, going by context, that the moviemaking process is irrelevant to the aesthetic of the movie.
Wrong.
Clerks is a better film about the matrix than "The Matrix." That's all you need to know.
Every fucking day you retards make threads about this idiot
the sheer amount of reddit spacing ITT scares me
i've made it a point to know as little about him as possible. i don't watch his gay q&a podium talks. i've just seen too many of his movies, i've been saying the same about his writing since the early 2000s. all i know about him besides that is he wears jorts and hockey jerseys and gets kicked off planes for being too chubby.
Itt:op is frustrated at himself for not understanding why a film respected for its diy/indie ethic, zeitgeist capturing qualities and funny dialogue is rated by most and not him so starts an argument to prove that hes not wrong.
spend your entire life growing up in new jersey and watch it again ;it will all make sense
That's not reddit spacing, unless you're a nufag.
Why couldn't it have been an entire movie with just banter between Randal and Dante?
It was filmed with a 16mm film camera on Eastman black and white 16mm film stock in a new jersey convenience store. What the fuck do you want it to look like?
>there was no shortage of good movies
> The Mask
The only good thing about it was Cameron diaz
a fleshlite with 4 sticks and a ballon would make a better Cameron Diaz than Cameron Diaz
Don't reply to me or my wife's son ever again.
>But the end result was a good movie.
Well I suppose that's the thesis in question.
>No one would care or take your seriously though.
I imagine they would care just as much as your persistent defense of the movie.
>The acting is bad, the subject matter is dumb.
Which leaves?
>The same way most people can suspend disbelief while watching Big Cartoon Cats singing or Jim Carrey pulling stupid faces among garbage CGI effects.
I can actually defend elements of the movie beyond saying it "works for most people," or saying it captures some aesthetic, or whatever was your justification.
>It's a film carried by it's writing.
And then we get to the particular complaints about the writing, which is that's in incohesive, there's no satisfying conclusion, several scenes are forgettable or pointless and unfunny, inconsistency in tone,
> If The Wizard Of Oz came out today, kids would whine that the effects looked stupid and that the acting was weird. If The Godfather came out today, people would whine that the VFX were warmed up garbage.
The Wizard of Oz is like half-way between categories two and three, while The Godfather, relying on very few special and practical effects, is mostly timeless and belongs in category one.
>BTW being born in the 90's doesn't make you a 90's kid.
I'm pretty sure I meet the cutoff year, whenever that would be.
>I'm pretty sure I meet the cutoff year
i'm about to cutoff year meet
You are supposed to see that a guy got some friends together, maxed out multiple credit cards, filmed a movie in a convenience store in the middle of the night, and basically single handedly started the indie movement of the 90's. If you want to act all willfully retarded about the quality and uniqueness of the dialogue and writing relative to its time period, or bitch about the shitty aesthetics and/or low economy of the filmmaking utilized in a movie about capturing the shitty aesthetics of low economy life that's your prerogative, but if you weren't shitting your diapers when the movie came out or were capable of doing some cursory research you'd realize you come across like someone brain damaged from sucking on his own farts for too long.
K. I would say the same thing about the 00s. What the fuck is memorable was memorable about that? HD gaming? YouTube? Facebook? Literally everything that was just improved in the last seven years. Again, I go back to the point that there are remarkably few retro 90s films and series compared to 80s films and 70s film and 60s films and 50s films, etc. They basically don't exist unless it's about a historical event.
>Strange that a movie aimed at, and about, people in their teens and early 20's was a hit with people in their teens and early 20's.
I guess moronic adults and teenagers found things like Adam Sandler and Family Guy funny, but only the latter audience has an excuse.
>You can compare it to Hollywood movies.
I'm comparing it to other movies, because some people seriously think that this is one of the best movies, if not the best of that year, and it would be bullshit to say films like Forest Gump, The Shawshank Redemption, Quiz Show are much better, but then get the response that you can compare Clerks to those films, and why not?
The 90s were depressing. Impeachment trials, ethnic cleansing, warswarswars, Grunge; being a 90s kid is all about the music, film, drugs and the Alcopops.
Clerks is literally "only 90skids will get this: the movie"
I remember when I used to be excited for a new Kevin Smith film.
Why is The Mask suddenly now conspicuously absent from your list of masterpieces of the 90's?
My theory is that people of a certain age still feel like theyre in the nineties but with more gadgets and music, film and everything else went to shit. Or maybe its just me.
Sounds good to me. Wouldn't mind reliving it.
Right except for the booming economy, cultural revolution, and apex of popular culture.
Okay, good points, but I was looking for something that would scream 90s, like something screams 80s. You would have to make annoying obvious to make something scream 90s, like Bill Clinton on television, and... Pokemon? I'm sort of at a loss. Otherwise, it just could just be a less distinctly 80s 80s. Compare this to the 80s where within seconds with the cars, clothing, and music, even if you had never heard it before, it's so totally 80s. Same thing with every previous decade up until the 40s, where it's easy to confuse the decades, not that they weren't more distinct than the then 90s, but audiences might not know the distinctions between those early years.
I'm really talking about aesthetics, which I don't consider the music, clothing, designs to be of that era, at least compared to previous decades.
Well, I'm now more informed about the issue because of this discussion, and sort of get that it's a very distinct movie, especially for it's time. But so was The Blair Witch project, and while I think that had a little more craft put into it, it's a aged piece of crap. But people unironically like that, so I'm at a loss.
Clerks.
All good points, but not an argument :D
It's just good old fashioned cultural and creative bankruptcy.
So you really have no taste and no idea what you are talking about.
>Cool.
And then I mentioned the other elements. Basically, the visuals were so terrible, all the other elements had to make for them. And you've already admitted the acting sucked, which leaves only the writing, which basically had to be some of the greatest writing in any film to make it even decent. I don't see writing of such calibur in this film.
>You mean cringe inducing mugging?
Mugging? Anyway, it's still a draw and entertaining, and better than the non-acting we got from Clerks.
>You mean YouTube tier CGI?
For it's time, it was great. Oh, what, movies can only be judged by today's standards, in which Clerks is totally irrelevant and pointless? Which is it?
>You're aware Quiz Show isn't set in the 90's right?
Yes, and it does a better job of preserving its own period than Clerks does its own period. Nothing about my statement implied I thought it was made in the 90s. I don't even think the movie even preserves that 90s feel that well. Maybe the 90s, being so bland and flavorless, requires a much more subtle treatment than previous decades, but it is what it is. That movie is more distinctively and obviously 50s than Clerks is 90s.
all your posts and all I hear in my head when reading them is kikikookookaka
>A really uninteresting story.
It's a fucking roller coaster ride compared to the story in Clerks. When Dante couldn't finish his hockey game, I collapsed and wept, truly feeling his pain. When Randal sold those cigarettes to that child, I was obsessed in determining what momentous event was being brilliantly foreshadowed, and when Dante was fined, I was shaken with distraught, yet admiring of Smith's ingenious ability to set up events. Truly, it's a flawless story, with the one exception that it didn't resolve the fate of whether Dante ended up with Veronica and Caitlin, a lack of resolution that drove me mad for days and resulted in my considering suicide. So I guess it's totally appropriate and not throwing stones in your glass house to attack Quiz Show's story for being uninteresting, when Clerks is simply the most interesting story of all time in any medium, perhaps more interesting than all facts, pursuits, stories, and experiences combined, and Smith has truly created the physical manifestation of what would be the Platonic ideal of interesting.
>Spring Breakers.
Back to seriousness: I don't follow the Sup Forums meme that this is actually good: it's irredeemable shit that doesn't even have the quaintness of Clerks. Still, I think that movie certainly has more of a "period" style than Clerks, and it could be set ten years before or after it actually takes place, as party culture probably doesn't get much more excessive and nihilistic within that period. Yet, Spring Breakers does a better and more stylistic job of capturing that setting than Clerks does of a convenience store, for another thing.
When people start saying it's better than some or all the films I mentioned, they are making that comparison, meaning I'm no worse than they are.
>Pump Fiction
Have you worked a job like in clerks? Because its pretty accurate.
It's the gas station spin-off of Clerks.
>Pump Fiction
haha holy fuck
Whadda you care you bootpolish smellin' motherfucker?
>"haha yeah dude would you like to suck my cock berserrkerr"
Would like to know what fucking reference I was supposed to know, or what drug I should have been on to find that anything other than confusing and embarrassing.
Its a random russian guy.
Not all of us are sad cunts living in mom's basement posting on a cathode ray tube tv specially rigged up to run the internet on a c64.
The font in my browser is tiny, around 2-3mm, and 'reddit spacing' actually makes posts on a fast moving internet forum easier to read.
I am not the user you quoted by the way.
As you can see there are fucking legions of us who put spaces in between some sentences on an internet forum to make it easier to read.
Please explain to someone like me who has spent much time on Sup Forums over many years and minimal time on reddit exactly what it is you think 'reddit spacing' means to you when you see it?
What is it that you assume can be derived about the person posting? inb4 Op is a etc.
OP here. I think there are much worse examples in that regard among writers, and it gets really bad with the exchange between Caitlin and Dante, where he's trying so hard to be clever and the writing is tonally very different and inconsistent to what it was up until that point.
Not him, but:
Oldfags know that reddit spacing is two blank lines between lines of text (because of the reddit interface)
Nufags think it's a single blank line because they can't even read the archive or google it to find out.
I once run, just for fun, a barebone internet browser using an old Atari 2600, a linux software and a pocket calculator as the 'screen'.
you will need a time machine to enjoy it
That's awesome dude, seriously and non-sarcastically. What happened to it?
Also, you didn't specify if you were living in mom's basement when you did it as befitting my comment.
It was in 93, the net was different. It stopped being able to access the net in 98. Not that I used it much (or at all), but I did try it again a few years later to see if it was still working.
I lived in my dad's basement at the time. I was 13.
Now I'm older and I can't do anything special. Or at all.
>They must be experts.
What is your point? I wasn't talking about particular film, just how some people respond to certain film criticisms. If you haven't been here long enough to see somebody to point out a plot hole, and somebody dismisses it saying, "Film is a visual medium," then you're at least a little new. That was my point, but showing how somebody value aspects of films over others, or how some aspects of films can make up for others being deficient.
>Far more effort was spent on this than the majority of major motion pictures released in that year.
How exactly do you justify that? Big-budget movies regularly have tens, if not hundreds of people working full-time for years to finish a movie, as well as dozens of contractors, the maintenance of assets rented by the film studio, executives allocating resources, to the point where big-budget movies have credits in the thousands. Please explain to me how, collectively, such movies require less effort than a movie, made on less than thirty grand? How does the sweat and toil of hundreds of people somehow not count as effort just because you don't like the movie, or whatever else might be your reason?
The reference you were suppose to know was of actually having had friends who were fun in the 90s. or even now.
I knew Russian heavy metal dudes in the 90s in Sydney, and they were pretty fucking funny.