02-12-2006, 11:45 AM | #41 |
That's how I roll!!!
Posts: 4,437
|
King Kong
Lord of War Crash 40 Year Old Virgin well those are the movies i have seen recently |
02-12-2006, 11:27 PM | #42 | |
\m/(-.-)\m/
Posts: 1,456
|
Quote:
i'm a grown-ass man, okay. i am fully capable of reading into a film. and i can admit and accept if i am wrong or have mis-judged a movie based on my pre-conceived notions, and am pleasantly suprised when that happens. but i am usually right about these things, and it doesnt take a genius to get a read on a movie based on how it's marketed. just tell me if i am right or wrong; Underworld features a (sexy) chick in a tight outfit, making model face as she uses martial arts against monsters, and there is techno sounding music during many of the action sequences. yes or no |
|
02-12-2006, 11:46 PM | #43 | |
Happy Inside
Posts: 18,970
|
Quote:
|
|
02-12-2006, 11:53 PM | #44 | |
Angel Headed Hipster
Posts: 37,942
|
Quote:
But really, what else should you be expecting from it? |
|
02-13-2006, 12:00 AM | #45 |
Angel Headed Hipster
Posts: 37,942
|
Dunno what it is, sometimes I can enjoy mindless special effects flicks (Armageddon), and sometimes, I violently hate them (Stealth).
|
02-13-2006, 12:14 AM | #46 |
Happy Inside
Posts: 18,970
|
We're programmed early to love them blindly, and then we become bitter as we get older and reprogram ourselves to blindly hate them, and we very rarely have the objectivity to just appreciate them for what they are. I loved Underworld, because it had that awesome "chosen one" storyline, which is at its very core the heroic cycle. If you can't appreciate that, you can't appreciate anything.
|
02-13-2006, 03:25 PM | #47 |
Posts: 21,603
|
Watched Legend of Zorro last night. It was OK, but no where near Mask of Zorro.
|
02-13-2006, 05:02 PM | #48 |
Needs More Cowbell
Posts: 113
|
Man on Fire
Green Street Wedding Crashers Swingers Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas Dukes of Hazzard Four Brothers Ong Bak Napoleon Dynamite Batman Begins |
02-13-2006, 07:23 PM | #49 | |
\m/(-.-)\m/
Posts: 1,456
|
Quote:
i stated that i can usually tell from a trailer a lot about a movie. and i could tell from the trailer and the type of actors used in Underworld that it was not something that i would like. YOU then jumped to the conclusion that i did not like 'blockbuster' / (mass appeal) films based on principle. that is not the case. you have apparently misread me as some sort of crazy person who tries to be too hip for the room by belittling the popular and promoting the obscure. that's not me. the problem i have with movies like "Underworld", and i'll go out on a limb and say "Stealth", and any Angelina Jolie movie is this: the acting stinks. the acting is robotic. the characters are not believable. they do not show any emotion, or fear, and they are always spouting off with stupid, smart-ass comments where emotions like fear or anger would be appropriate. the result is characters that you cannot identify with in any way, and invariably a bad movie experience (for me) because i cannot enjoy a movie if i cannot identify with or at least beleive any of the characters. Last edited by KillerWolf; 02-13-2006 at 07:50 PM. |
|
02-13-2006, 07:28 PM | #50 | |
\m/(-.-)\m/
Posts: 1,456
|
Quote:
"there are two kinds of people in this world - Armageddon people and Deep Impact people. i'm a Deep Impact person." |
|
02-13-2006, 07:59 PM | #51 |
Angel Headed Hipster
Posts: 37,942
|
I also like Deep Impact.
|
02-13-2006, 09:47 PM | #52 | |
Happy Inside
Posts: 18,970
|
Quote:
You're taking general comments and putting them 100% on yourself. THAT is what's happening here. I am just saying that I noticed a trend in people, and you took it to heart. So anything after that I may have said is your fault. You obviously thought I was directing my post only at you, so I guess there is some shred of truth to what I said, at least in your case. To get so defensive about it. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. You told me you can tell by a trailer if a movie will be bad. Can't tell how the acting is when you only see the trailer. Sorry. |
|
02-14-2006, 08:26 AM | #53 |
\m/(-.-)\m/
Posts: 1,456
|
well your posts were directed at me, at the least, made in response to what i wrote - because if i had written nothing, you would not have written what you wrote. theres no need to deny that. i dont have a problem with it. maybe we disagree. that's fine. we're just two people having a discussion over the internet.
now. you cant always tell how good or bad the acting will be by watching a trailer, but you can usually tell what kind of movie it is. and certain kinds of movies typically have bad acting. i would say, that based on the trailer, the movie "Stealth" has people going around talking in "techno-jargain", the main characters make corny comments when they are flying around in those [jets or whatever], and i wouldnt be suprised if they threw in a romance angle with the two white people. (the two pilots besides Jamie Foxx). to put it simply, a movie trailer puts a movie in one of three catagories (for me) example: Jarhead: Fuck Yeah, i wanna see that asap. Steath: Fuck No, you couldnt pay me to see that. Hustle & Flow: Meh. i might rent that when it comes out on DVD. im not always right, but a good 90% of the time, i'm right on the money. btw, have you seen the trailer for this movie coming out called "Ultraviolet?!!" this thing looks like it is going to be fucking awful. possibly the worst movie in years. i swear to God, the first time i saw that trailer, i thought it was going to be a fucking shaving razor or a car commercial. i couldnt believe it was seriously a movie. |
02-14-2006, 08:29 AM | #54 | |
\m/(-.-)\m/
Posts: 1,456
|
Quote:
|
|
02-14-2006, 08:38 AM | #55 |
Posts: 22,695
|
Spongebob Square Pants: The Movie
The Terminator Terminator 2: Judgement Day Love Actually Animal Farm (not the porno) |
02-14-2006, 09:22 AM | #56 |
v.W.o you didn't know?
Posts: 488
|
But I'm A Cheerleader
Resident Evil 2 Career Opportunities Nell Smokey & The Bandit (for the umpteenth time) |
02-14-2006, 12:30 PM | #57 |
Mr. No MITB
Posts: 952
|
Batman Begins
Star Wars: Episode 3 Kung Fu Hustle My Cousin Vinnie Khiladiyon Ki Khiladi (Bollywood film feat. Undertaker and Crush) |
02-14-2006, 02:43 PM | #58 |
Fthagn?
Posts: 10,042
|
From memory and in no real order:
-Cry_Wolf -Red Eye -Unleashed -Fist of Legend -Skyhigh (Kitamura film <3). Probably going to watch Unleashed and/or Red Eye here again later. |
02-14-2006, 03:44 PM | #59 | |
Angel Headed Hipster
Posts: 37,942
|
Quote:
Aeon Flux was awful Yet I want to see Ultraviolet. |
|
02-14-2006, 08:23 PM | #60 | |
Happy Inside
Posts: 18,970
|
Quote:
I just went back to page 1 and realized... YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID. Just because I posted after you doesn't mean I was replying to you. Fucking fuck. Jesus. I'm done with you. You're insane. Go die. You know nothing of movies, and you think you're right because of COURSE you're going to agree with yourself. You probably are too insane to even admit to yourself you're wrong. I suggest you return to page 1 and look at the post you think I'm replying to. You just said that Blade 3 sucked. So what? My post had NOTHING to do with you AT ALL, so my previous post stands. Sorry, I said I was done with you earlier, but I mean it now. :foc: Fucking loon. |
|
02-14-2006, 11:39 PM | #61 |
Franchise of TPWW
Posts: 15,458
|
The Professional
Ong Bak Hustle And Flow Dog Day Afternoon Doom (was pretty good action movie I guess) |
02-15-2006, 01:34 AM | #62 | |
Posts: 6,727
|
Quote:
|
|
02-15-2006, 09:06 PM | #63 | |
Happy Inside
Posts: 18,970
|
Quote:
The way I see it... I grew up on the amazingly contrived trashy films of the 80s, and along the way saw lots of neat older films... then in college I got exposed to so many amazing, mind-blowing films, but I saw them in context, and while I developed a taste for anything unique and powerful, they kept that context, and I can still appreciate a blockbuster without looking down on it if I choose to "suspend my disbelief." But too many people are just so quick to judge, just because a movie is based on a formula and has a 300 million dollar budget. Doesn't mean it has to be bad, if you think about what came before it. Stealth was awesome. I completely expected one thing, and at the end... Awesomeness. It harkened back to such classics as "iron eagle," or "enemy mine." Were they profound? Not at all. But anyone who tries saying they were bad, I will beat they ass. I think the best counter-cinema film I've ever seen was "the harder they come" with jimmy cliff. Awesome stuff, though mostly unintelligible. Gotta have subtitles. |
|
02-15-2006, 09:50 PM | #64 |
Mad
Posts: 26,227
|
Jarhead: Shit
Caddyshack: Legendary Harlem nights: ROFL Kiss Kiss Bang Bang: Good Movie Haggard: Brilliant |
02-16-2006, 12:39 PM | #65 | |
\m/(-.-)\m/
Posts: 1,456
|
Quote:
i was never trying to say that when i see a movie trailer, i sometimes think, "that doesn't look like it's going to be good." you saw through me. what i really meant was that any movie with a budget over $25,000 is just sell-out crap, and that's why i only watch foreign films. your post has caused me to take a long look in the mirror, and it has really opened my eyes to the truth. i now realize that my posts were completely uncalled for, as i never set out to have a polite discussion with someone with an oposing view. i now realize that in my mind, it was all-out war from the start. i would like to take this opportunity to apologize for all the verbal abuse and the insults. i was out of line. finally, i would like to agree with you that you are right to wash your hands of me. i have a lot of issues to work out, and you really shouldn't have to be bothered with it. again, you've really shown me the truth, and i am going to try to get some help so that i can get healthy. thanks. |
|
02-16-2006, 12:55 PM | #66 | |
\m/(-.-)\m/
Posts: 1,456
|
Quote:
those paranoid delusions are why i am trying to get help. LOL. i cannot stop laughing. Last edited by KillerWolf; 02-16-2006 at 04:40 PM. |
|
02-16-2006, 01:27 PM | #67 |
Fthagn?
Posts: 10,042
|
Just watched Saw II last night. Good stuff. Little more gruesome than the last one.
|
02-16-2006, 04:48 PM | #68 | |
Happy Inside
Posts: 18,970
|
Quote:
|
|
02-18-2006, 03:20 PM | #69 |
Where is the laughter
Posts: 17
|
I'll put in my two cents for what's being brought across.
I think AlphaBean is right, but to an extent. Short and sweet: Pro: People should accept things for what they are, and try to enjoy them. Film majors who ONLY watch foreign and independent abstract films scoff at King Kong and Batman. Why? Film can captivate in many different ways, and I think that people need to not limit themselves to their comfort level. Con: There are a WHOLE LOT of shitty, passionless, redundant, garbage movies. You mean to tell me I should go see Big Momma's House 2 and "try to enjoy it?" It sucks. The concept is retarded, and they're just trying to make money off of a crappy first comedy. I think the reason why people are so quick to judge is because they are always let down by these terrible Hollywood movies like "Fantastic Four" and "Stealth." So, in turn, I can usually spot crap when I see it, because it's usually pretty obvious. However, I'll also try to take into consideration what the movie is trying to do, and if it does what it's trying to do well, I'll usually like it. |
02-18-2006, 03:21 PM | #70 |
Where is the laughter
Posts: 17
|
Oh, right. Last five movies:
-- Tim Burton's The Corpse Bride -- Broken Flowers -- Princess Mononoke -- Saw -- Audition |
02-18-2006, 06:17 PM | #71 |
Posts: 22,695
|
Audition is such a fucked up, yet amazing film.
|
02-19-2006, 02:02 AM | #72 | |
Happy Inside
Posts: 18,970
|
Quote:
How can you judge a film, just because it's a Hollywood film? Most people judge films in this manner, as though they were art critics who rejected photorealism or pop art. A film like Stealth, which advertises one film when it's an entirely different film, gets critiqued for being a big-budget CGI fest. In reality, it's not man vs machine. It's man + machine vs man. So at least to me, there was a soft spot in my heart for this film. Because it's not just any cookie cutter film. If you took any film study courses, there is a rhyme and a reason to every type of film. I have critiqued silent films. These films were 20 minutes with no dialogue. How do you critique such a film? It's easy: Context. Every film has an inherent quality within its own context. Blockbusters are no exception. They are an entire genre of film, and should exist by their own rules. To judge Stealth based on your own feelings of action films in the context of "Hard Boiled," you will be greatly disappointed. If you judge "pretty woman" based on your experience with romance in the Truffault sense of the word, there is no comparison. Movies are unique -- some are less unique than others, and some are a lot more similar to certain others than some other films may be. To hold all films to the same standard is idiotic. It is like saying Gretsky was a pathetic sportsman because he couldn't score as many points as Karl Malone. |
|
02-19-2006, 08:12 AM | #73 |
Where is the laughter
Posts: 17
|
So "Alone in the Dark" has an underlying context that I'm missing that makes it worth spending ten bucks on?
I think I see where you're coming from, but it all comes down to what I like to watch. Blockbuster movies aren't EXACTLY the same; of course not. But they all follow a formula that gets old after a while. It's past "allowing myself to enjoy it" because I just can't. I'd rather watch something a little more challenging emotionally. It's just my preference. And the bottom line is, today, there are a lot of films being made that just shouldn't be made. The only context they have is "let's milk these people for money with an effortless movie." |
02-19-2006, 03:09 PM | #74 | |
Happy Inside
Posts: 18,970
|
Quote:
I am pretty good about avoiding most French movies, and most things released at Cannes. What I look for is the best of both worlds: Hollywood films, ones that are not "critically acclaimed " yet push the envelope. I want to be challenged without being reminded that it's a movie. I hate try-hards. 40-50 years ago and beyond, when film was still new, a lot of film makers played with conventions, and truly experimented -- just to see the limits of the media. But nowadays, when people "play," it's always things that have already been done before, so all they're doing is trying to see "who is the most profound." Fucking gay cowboys eating pudding. Who cares? The only way you're going to truly play with conventions now is with a big budget. Blair Witch turned everything upside down. But movies like Sin City, Big Fish, these were new. These kinds of movies excite me. They're made by people who give in to the formula, but know how to work within the formula to create something unique. You have a way of making me ramble on, Bent. I guess I can say I love you for that. I've gone off track. But my point is... if you cannot enjoy something, you are not trying hard enough. Movies that are inherently bad, that were created for the sole purpose of never beeing watched... the true B movie... there is a criticism for them. They have a place. There are articles about what they do/what they're about. The worst movies one can imagine have their place in the world (MST3K), or AKA "cult classics." Keep that in mind. If you can open your mind, you can find a way to appreciate the blockbuster. Compare it to others... try to figure out what the emotions are of characters that are wooden and lifeless. It can be quite fun, and make you understand... the age of melodrama in films is over. If we wanted our leading man to cry in every movie, Cuba Gooding, Jr. would still have a career. |
|
02-19-2006, 03:11 PM | #75 |
Happy Inside
Posts: 18,970
|
Also, no idea what "Alone in the Dark" even is.
|
02-19-2006, 03:22 PM | #76 | |
Where is the laughter
Posts: 17
|
Quote:
I completely agree with you that people get set in their ways and put up defenses about liking anything formulaic. Pop songs and Hollywood blockbusters aren't cool to like, because people are afraid they won't feel intelligent if they do. I think formula is a big part of our connections with things, and whether it's blatant or not, everything is formulaic in some way, no matter how chaotic it may seem, because we draw conclusions from it. I like what I like, and I understand that stupid comedies are stupid comedies, and meant to be enjoyed in that way. However, there is a difference between people who do formulas WELL and people who do not. I don't care how popular something is. I'm allowed to say, "well, that was crap." I always want to enjoy something, but if I see a movie that just sucks and doesn't capture my interest, then I think I'm allowed to form my opinion of the movie. All movies are released for money, because these people are involved in a profession. But it's when movies basically cry out "we think you'll see this just because of the tagline we put on it, you fucking jackass, give us your money," it makes me avoid them, because I don't think these people deserve to be putting out movies like that. Honestly, formula is fine with me. It just depends on whether or not I like the context, which you actually brought up in a previous post about this. So, yeah, context is really makes or breaks it for me, and if the context is crappy, I won't like it. I think you are exactly right about movies that are formulaic, but still push the boundaries of that formula. They rule. P.S. I really like Jim Jarmusch. P.P.S. "Alone in the Dark" is a movie by Uwe Boll. Tara Reid plays a scientist, and it's probably the worst reviewed film in history. It's a pile of shit, and there's no way anyone can convince me otherwise. |
|
02-19-2006, 03:56 PM | #77 | |
Happy Inside
Posts: 18,970
|
Quote:
But I think what you and a lot of other people are getting wrong is that the studio does the trailers, not the director. Some of my favorite movies ever have had some pathetic trailers. Like Kung Pow! the trailer is like 75% the scene where he fights the cow... easily the worst scene of the film. It was not funny, nor was it relevant. But it cost a lot of money, so the studio used that. They want to use what they think will bring people in, but they're often too stupid to realize what makes a movie good. Like Stealth, all they did was market Jessica Biel's tits, and the same, tired formula that every air force movie has... plus the man vs machine aspect. It was really, really unappealing to me. But I was drinking, and the movie was there... so I watched it... and I loved it. The swerve in the end is something the trailer never even hinted at. I was duped. And I'm happy that I was. But then, a lot of the times when there is a really awesome trailer, and you get pumped to see the movie... 1) Your expectations are too high and 2) What you see in the trailer is all you see in the movie. So basically, it's worth it to give every movie a shot, unless it's "coffee and cigarettes," which is the only film I've gotten up and left part-way through TWICE. That's right. I got talked into sitting back down and finishing the film, but I just couldn't. I wanted to chop my penis in half and stick a fork in my testicles after watching part of that. |
|
02-19-2006, 05:38 PM | #78 |
Posts: 21,603
|
Don't remind us of that video again, Bean. *shudders*
|
02-19-2006, 07:44 PM | #79 |
Posts: 8,795
|
Watched Domino and Class of 1984 last night. Along with finishing up the first season of Veronica Mars. Great show.
|
02-19-2006, 09:03 PM | #80 |
Franchise of TPWW
Posts: 15,458
|
House of Flying Daggers
Schindler's List Godfather Part I Godfather Part II Kingdom of Heaven |