Well I guess what I mean by personal taste is its a matter of opinion....my wife didn't like the movie not because of the quality of the film but because it was not her kind of movie...she's more the Notebook kinda person....and that right there is a personal taste...
Now I understand that you didn't like the movie but that is your personal opinion and I respect the hell out of that...I for one did enjoy the movie - granted I agree its definetely not what it could have been had there been a stronger director and maybe even a stronger lead actor attached but there wasn't....and I think they made the best out of the situation....again that is JMO...
I guess I think that it could have been a LOT worst...
But IMO it is a matter of personal taste....virtually everything is these days....and just because it didn't suit your taste doesn't mean that it didn't suit others....that was my only point...
We're on a disagreeing streak here and thats a good thing....I enjoy hearing others opinions...
Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree on this because what I'm saying has little to do with my individual taste, a component that doesn't enter into my film criticism. What I am talking about has to do with the set of criteria that measures a capable film--script that makes sense, acting that is good, cinemtography that is appropriate to the material, editing that moves the film along--all of these things that coalesce into what makes good filmmaking. In this regard The Da Vinci Code is a failure.
Now I have liked many a poorly made film in my time from Dune to Myra Breckinridge to Showgirls to, it pains me to say it, Alexander, and have scores of them in my DVD collection to prove it. I fully recognize that they are poorly directed, badly shot or acted, otherwise less than capable in many ways and that anyone objectively critiquing them can rightfully call them the spades that they are. However, I still like them with that caveat. But I am under no delusion that any of them are "good" films in any way just because I happen to have found some personal window into them that affords me fun.
I posted on this subject recently (maybe on this thread even) about the role of a film critic and the questions to ask. Personal taste may enter into evaluating the merits of the next American Idol or U.S. president but it doesn't usually apply when you are objectively critiquing a film, boxing match or an Olympic skating competition.
If it does, then we have no way whatsoever of establishing any quality standards or best practices. I mean, is there a case to be made that Citizen Kane is a bad film if for some reason I don't like B&W films? Or that Not Another Teen Movie should have gotten an Oscar (not that those hold any weight) if I somehow got excited by Chris Evans and liked the soundtrack?
Sorry to go on here but this is a very important topic in my life and more so as time goes on, and so to be fair in our judging we should always ask:
1. What did the director intend to do?
2. And how well did he do it?
I may not personally, in my taste, be up for a documentary on the mating habits of skunks, but if someone makes one that blows me away in its approach and they got exactly what they wanted with their end product, then maybe the subject did not appeal to my taste but I'll be the first to trumpet how well done it is while making that very distinction. At the same time, I cannot in good conscience give Alexander a full pass just because I dearly like Colin Farrell, as much as he blinded me to that film's deeper flaws with his endearingly naive and too large performance.
rt