Should we rank a movie based on how much we enjoyed it?
Absolutely. Intrinsic to that is figuring out what makes us enjoy it.
Does personal taste matter?
There's no other taste to aspire to, and we should always aspire to broaden ours.
Can art be appreciated if no emotions are involved?
I wouldn't think so.
How come people usually list "Citizen Kane" as one of the greatst movies, if they personally can't stand it?
I'd be very surprised if anyone who "can't stand"
Citizen Kane lists it among the greatest ever made.
How many can truly explain why they think it is one of the best? would you still list it had you not learned of its reputation?
It's one of the best for its formal innovations, its ambition, its harmonious, uniform strengths, its balance of individual vision and collaborative creativity (its script, its score, its cinematography, and so on), its argument that in America the expansion of one's private property ("no trespassing") is at the expense of those threads that connect one to the rest of humanity. This last point is telling of Welles's political and artistic maturity; the film is remarkable by any account.
It's at the very high end of my favourite films - which means it's among the very best I've seen.
But I'm not one against two lists; I don't think I'd love to rewatch every movie I appreciate. They don't have to be my favs.
You might find
this of interest: a piece I wrote last April on the film(s) I always go back to. "For me, revisiting a film seems less about giving it 'another chance' [...] than wanting, for whatever reason, to re-confirm or reassure an (old) outlook. [...] There might be something conservative at work here, of course; but it might also be progressive, cathartic."
Die Hard is a movie I'd love to rewatch again and again, but it's pretty simple and light. It is fun, it is entertaining. But artistically it doesn't offer much. There's no real content to work with.
There's
plenty of content to go at in
Die Hard. I think it also offers a lot artistically: one of the reasons it is so fun and entertaining is through its formal control. As I wrote
here, "I have the film down as one in which the cops are relentlessly bumbling, the Feds are thirsty to re-live "fuckin' Saigon", journalists are parasitic and, in one brief scene, an academic shows up to tell the world how the hostages are feeling, though he's never met any of them (all swipes pleasurable, for me)"; "the film is beautifully shot by Jan de Bont, who makes much use of anamorphic lenses and a shallow depth of field to create meaning (tension, space, power relations, even spectacle) in creative and economical ways."
I think saying the film is fun and entertaining but doesn't offer much implies that anybody could have shown up on set to make it and its unique qualities would have still been there. But the film is directorially precise, editorially exciting, has wonderful performances and a complex look at Reagan-Era finance capitalism in a thrilling way.
It too is on the high end of my favourites list.
Kane has more content; but it fails to connect to most viewers like Die Hard.
That's a bold statement without some kind of survey to back it up.
Die Hard is also very highly regarded critically.
also, please mention how many times you've watched "Citizen Kane". That should be interesting. I saw it three times; I've no desire to watch it again anytime soon.
I'm not sure. Four? The most recent viewing was August 2011.
__________________________________
FWIW, here's the Top 100 Favourites list I compiled last summer:
Some observations on a Top 100 Films list.
Also, here I discuss some parametres in considering a film a favourite:
When all before you is barren...And, some thoughts on the process of making of a favourites list:
Top 100s and why we make them.
