this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
297 points (94.6% liked)
me_irl
7807 readers
3354 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because they aren't for you.
They get praise because they are for a different audience.
Just like if someone handed you a 2026 research paper in CRISPR genetics it would be boring/meaningless to you. But it would be very exciting for other researchers in that field.
You don't speak the language. Anymore than you speak Tamil.
Except I kind of am. I'm a big movie afficionado. I love discussing them, reading about them, watching video essays about them. I spend a lot of free time in that space not just watching movies but dissecting them. Themes, imagery, how the color grading or camera work interplays with an actors/actresses choices, etc.
I'm not a professional film critic sure, but I'm very much in the target audience.
OK, and yet you can't appreciate the genius and innovation of so many of those films?
Or is it because you just don't find them entertaining?
I have a minor in film studies. I used to think movies like that sucked, but after 3-4 classes I gradually began to understand and see the genius. I felt the same way about music too. Education got me to see beyond my personal preferences and understand historical context.
Plenty of films are critically or commercially successful outside of our own like of them, but it's important to understand why Love Actually is wildly popular and how/why it's so beloved, and also why it's a shit movie critically speaking.
Sure I can appreciate the innovation in them. I even said I understand their historical value. That doesn't make them amazing now. That makes them amazing for their time. For most of the movies we've continued to innovate and grow since then.
Like 3:10 to Yuma (just the criterion film I've most recently interacted with, no particular shade with it, actually one of the few I enjoyed). Sure it was complex and beautifully shot at the time but we've done so many westerns since then. The Good the bad and the Ugly, Django Unchained, heck even a few years after 3:10 to Yuma we got How the West was Won which all built in scale, production, and cinematography on 3:10. They took what 3:10 showed them and ran.
So yeah, I can appreciate them, but I still think too many people mindlessly praise them just because of their history. They're not necessarily amazing films, they're historically important films.
Edit: Forgot to add. There are two perfect movies in the criterion collection that no one will ever beat. Michael Bay's "Armageddon" and Michael Bay's "The Rock" (I kid)
oh you're one of those 'we're more sophisicated now' types. makes sense.
IMO we are not more sophisicated we do not move beyond old art. thinking we do is the height of arrogance and missing the entire point. art is supposed to humble you, not elevate you into thinking you are superior.
I think that's a pretty unfair reductive take on what I said, a poor logically devoid straw man counter argument, and is putting yourself squarely in the art snob category that often thinks they're better because "they get it". Very much the sheeple mindset I'm complaining about.
I think I'm done here and gonna go watch Backrooms to see what the hype is about.