In Reply to: Life is always simple at 15 posted by Victor Khomenko on March 22, 2004 at 05:52:53:
You do not know film because you've seen more, you do not know good literature because you've read more. Quality in the analysis over quantity of watching. Attempting to fish for my age I find odd. Unless you think maturity and age are correlational...I doubt you're this stupid though so I'm assuming you're just curious.How bout we go to Roger Ebert(he's in his 60s). A Pulitzer Prize writer, a man who a has seen more than you no doubt. He has seen probably 30+ movies for every one that I have seen. He has probably seen 30,000+ films.
The difference is most movies critics see I don't need to see. I don't need to see this week's cop buddy movie...I scroll through what critics say are the best ones and I try and make time to watch them. But after 10 years in accounting I left to go back to school and don't have time to see as many anymore.
Now if you actually thought about it I have probably 20-40 films in my top 100 that EBERT has in his top 100. Even though he has seen way more movies. He has weeded out the rubbish. I don't deny most are crap...but many are very good.
You look at his list from "The" film art critic. There is a reason he voices the alternate tracks on some major films like Kane among others.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Staggerring EGO - RGA 11:14:55 03/22/04 (3)
- You are foolish to think it had to do with age - Victor Khomenko 11:46:45 03/22/04 (2)
- When someone sees 10 mins of - wik 11:31:30 03/24/04 (0)
- Re: You are foolish to think it had to do with age - RGA 22:28:02 03/22/04 (0)