The Blood of a Poet (1930)
Better, more watchable, and more intriguing than Bunuel’s over-reaching juxtapositions, Coteau’s odd creation is good, but, like most early surrealism, vastly overrated. 77/100
Don’t listen to me, though. Most surrealism is still enough to make me run crying to Speilberg or Jackson. Maybe one day I’ll figure out just what the hell is going on in these movies and re-evaluate them.
By the way, I’m constantly re-evaluating my movie ratings. For example, just in the past few days, both The Matrix and The Road Home have dropped two points each, and The Sheik has gained one. But, I won’t usually keep you abreast of such changes unless I discuss the films again.
Do you require yourself to see a movie again before adjusting the rating, or do you just change it after giving it some thought?
Comment by Kza — December 28, 2004 @ 12:56 pm
Excellent question.
Generally, my ratings change due to two factors.
One is re-watching a film. The most radical example is seeing Kubrick’s 2001 at the age of 12 and thinking it was boring and weird. Then, after my cinematic vocabulary had increased by the age of 18, upon rewatching it I thought it was easily one of the very best films I’ve ever seen. Usually, of course, changes in my estimation of a film are far less radical.
The other has nothing to do with the film, but my own ratings scale. My scale is still recovering from a change I made a few months ago, and so I’m constantly shifting ratings to fit the new scale better. For example, I discover other ratings I’ve given, compare the two films, and realize that I think more highly of one that had the lower rating of the two, because they were rated several months apart and the scale has changed since then.
In the cases listed in this post, they were all due to #2.
Comment by Luke — December 28, 2004 @ 1:59 pm