Movies

[Habitforming]

In your opinion. I found beauty in other departments of the movie (not to mention hundreds of thousands of others) - did I imagine it? Was I wrong? Or could there be a message that you missed? I know that there are tons of layers to this movie that I missed out on as well. But I understood some and I can see there that is meaning to it.

Another person might see something different in it and another might see nothing at all. But I think it wrong to just outright say that there is nothing there. If other people see something there then surely there must be some sort of meaning at least. No?

If I have to look that hard for "a message I might have missed" is it really worth it or did it really have an impact?

Will it suddenly make the other 3 hours a good movie, or make an actuall story line?

Edited July 27, 2008 by Habitforming

[BTH]

If I have to look that hard for "a message I might have missed" is it really worth it or did it really have an impact?

Will it suddenly make the other 3 hours a good movie, or make an actuall story line?

That depends on what you take from it. But it seems to have satisfied many many people so it must at least be possible.

For me, the war going on between Day-Lewis and Dano alone is enough to satisfy me when it's accompanied by the unbelievable acting, cinematography and music. For you, I guess you need more. But there is clearly something to like there or else the entire world would feel the same way as you.

[jetsniper]

Why are you guys wasting your time?

Did you completely ignore this topic for all of 2007?

It's just going to end up in an endless circle of annoyed posters who think they're right. Seriously.

[Fanpuck33]

Why are you guys wasting your time?

Meh, you got a new sig out of it!

[jetsniper]

Meh, you got a new sig out of it!

Thats true. And the endless cycle of people telling BTH to stop being so uppity about movies is fairly amusing.

Honestly though, I actually had Clockwork in my top 10 list a couple pages back and Fanpuck here has called it a flaming pile of crap a few times. Do I care? No. The fact he didn't enjoy the movie takes nothing away from how much I liked it so whats the point in arguing about it?

I mean, I said I like Pirates 3 more then 1 last year and I became the god damn Antichrist.

[Doktor Kosmos]

I mean, I said I like Pirates 3 more then 1 last year

You did what?!?

Blasphemer!

j/k

[jetsniper]

You did what?!?

Blasphemer!

j/k

Alright, alright, alright, heres the thing (I know you said you were joking) people are always like "How, Johnny Depp was so much better in the first one, he was old and tired in the 3rd one, story was weird, blah blah blah" but guess what, I don't give two craps about Jack Sparrow. He was cool in the 1st one but after that I just didn't care what happened to him.

I like them all actually but I was into Pirates 2 and 3 for 1 reason and 1 reason only. I wanted to see Keira Knightley kick some ass. And if I haven't made it abundantly clear yet, she's easily my favourite person in Hollywood so thats a big deal for me. And what movie did Keira Knightley kick the most ass in? At World's End. So thats my reasoning for liking World's End the most.

And speaking of Keira, the trailer for her latest movie has been released. It's called The Duchess. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G_2WUUQ05A Obviously another period piece for her but I think she's pretty well suited for them. This role is supposed to make her a front runner for an Oscar next year. Like I've said, I don't put much stock in them but I'll admit it would be awesome to see her get one (and she will get at least one in her career, I'll guarantee it). It's kind of like seeing the Avalanche win the Cup on a much lesser scale.

[Habitforming]

That depends on what you take from it. But it seems to have satisfied many many people so it must at least be possible.

For me, the war going on between Day-Lewis and Dano alone is enough to satisfy me when it's accompanied by the unbelievable acting, cinematography and music. For you, I guess you need more. But there is clearly something to like there or else the entire world would feel the same way as you.

Let's not forget the "thousands of people" who followed cult leaders to the punch bowls, or millions of people that have fought for all the crazy world leaders killing millions more.

Do I really need to go on?

The point is...no matter what is made or how bad it is there will always be "thousands of people" who like it. It doesn't make it good or right.

Edited July 28, 2008 by Habitforming

[JoeLassister]

You are right. I didn't like TWBB. I think it is a beautiful movie because of good acting, pictures, etc. But it is a boring movie because of the story, lack of action (and by action I don't mean bombs, guns, etc). It is almost a tribute to GVS.

True. Many of my favorites movies are slow. Juno, Collateral, The Last Samouraï. But when you shoot a slow movie, you better have a SUPER interesting story, something i think TWBB doesn't have.

BTW, I didn't post about it, but went to see TDK wednesday : ! :bow: to Nolan and Ledger.

I saw City Lights since then and it was pretty much the same thing.

The Dark Knight was good or even very good but didn't nearly live up to the hype for me. The Joker reminded me of Hannibal Lecter, especially his escape from capture.

Joe, it is the abstract story that is super interesting, not the concrete story. Not the actual things going on but what those things represent.

I know, but it failed. Bigh Fish suceed, TWBB failed.

I'm saying neither.

But I do not use my subjective opinion as the final word on how good a movie is. There are movies that I didn't really like but that I can recognize are well done. If you asked me what I thought of it, I would say I didn't like it. Personally. I wouldn't say "It failed" or "It sucked".

Or in other cases, if I didn't like a movie, let's say No Country For Old Men, yet plenty of people love it and see the beauty in it, I have to assume that I just didn't understand the movie and didn't get the point the Coen Brothers were trying to send to me. It would be ignorant for me to say "this is a piece of shit" because I recognize the Coens as true artists, I like plenty of their other movies and I'm aware that I just didn't get the the point they were trying to convey. I'm not going to tell people I thought it was amazing, I'm going to tell them I didn't like it at all but that I could at least recognize it as an honest attempt at art.

I just recognized it all thread long. How could you not take my posts as an opinion ? This is a message board dude, unless there is a link or a quote in the post: THIS HAS TO BE AN OPINION.

I was able to get the

"each of the 2 characters represent a side of Tommy Lee Jones father (or at least i think i'm right on this)"

in NCFOM or the "you sometimes has to try your best to see the life how others see it to understand how beautiful it can be" in Big Fish. Like you said, I can see the "Not the actual things going on but what those things represent" when these things are just enough skillfuly brought.

I didn't see anything close to that in TWBB, and this is why I THINK they failed. They just didn't tell me a good story in a 158 minutes slow movie. This is MY opinion.

Edited July 28, 2008 by JoeLassister

[Psycing]

Magnolia = krazy movie... lol. FROGS!?

[BTH]

Fanpuck, when did I say I like movies based on how much other people liked them? Get that thought out of your head and start actually reading posts. What I said is that you can realize that a movie is great and still not like it, or like it while realizing that it's really not so great. Hence, if I loved a movie but could tell it was pretty simple and dumb I would say I wouldn't tell people it was an amazing movie, simply that I loved it.

As to your "cinematography, acting, direction, etc. don't make a movie better, they only enhance it" comment - cinema is becoming a science now. These things are all very valuable parts of a movie, especially the camera work. Might I remind you that the entire point of cinema is telling a story with images? The way a director shoots his movie is possibly his most valuable and accessible outlet of artistic expression. If you take all these things away, you are left with a script. A script is not a movie. Throw in everything else and it becomes a movie.

I'm aware that you are talking about simply entertaining movies while I'm talking about artsy movies but adding meaning to a movie does make it better as long as it doesn't get in the way. You could give the right man the script of some action movie (let's reuse the example of Jumper), he can make a couple of changes, film it in his own way and the movie could look totally different. It could suddenly hold more meaning and substance and blah blah blah. It would, if done properly, become a better movie - or at least, if you find the term "better" offensive, a more complete movie and a more honest attempt at art. Gets respect from me. As it happens, I thought whoever was shooting Jumper did a surprisingly good job.

Why are you guys wasting your time?

Did you completely ignore this topic for all of 2007?

It's just going to end up in an endless circle of annoyed posters who think they're right. Seriously.

This is the Movie thread. If you have a more appropriate idea for a discussion here go ahead and start it, I'm sure we'll all join in.

Maca, what did you think of it?

[Fanpuck33]

Fanpuck, when did I say I like movies based on how much other people liked them? Get that thought out of your head and start actually reading posts. What I said is that you can realize that a movie is great and still not like it, or like it while realizing that it's really not so great. Hence, if I loved a movie but could tell it was pretty simple and dumb I would say I wouldn't tell people it was an amazing movie, simply that I loved it.

Just like you read posts so well that I had to tell you three times I have never seen the movie you kept harping at me about? Anyways, I personally don't think you would acknowledge a movie's brilliance if you didn't like it unless the movie was widely respected. If, for example, 2001 and Stanley Kubrick weren't so critically acclaimed, would you still say the movie is brilliant despite your dislike of it? I don't think you would. I think if it were some run of the mill movie that you didn't like, you wouldn't give it a second thought.

As to your "cinematography, acting, direction, etc. don't make a movie better, they only enhance it" comment - cinema is becoming a science now. These things are all very valuable parts of a movie, especially the camera work. Might I remind you that the entire point of cinema is telling a story with images? The way a director shoots his movie is possibly his most valuable and accessible outlet of artistic expression. If you take all these things away, you are left with a script. A script is not a movie. Throw in everything else and it becomes a movie.

But even if all those other things are great and the script sucks, then the movie is going to suck. The script is the most important part of a movie. Everything else simply builds on the script. Without a script or a plot, you're simply filming randomness. If there is no story to tell, then the images are meaningless.

[jetsniper]

Ahhh, psh, it's not worth it.

Apparently Step Brothers is pretty good. I'm still hoping I can find a CAM or a TS instead of paying for it though. My sister and brother in law (who both hated Semi Pro) said it was worth the 10 bucks. Found an R5 of Zohan recently too so I watched that, it was alright. I could probably file it under "This movie is lame as hell but I still end up laughing like crazy" along with White Castle.

At the very least, I didn't walk away pissed I just lost 2 hours of my life like I did with Chuck and Larry. That movie didn't even have any lame laughs, it was just irritating. I kinda wish Sandler would stop trying to make vague political statements in his comedies too.

Oh and the current Pineapple Express spot is gold.

*Seth Rogen is crying* "I'm so sorry. I'm willing to do anything to make this work!"

*his girlfriend begins to cry* "Ok, I love you! Let's get married!"

"Ohhhh....I made a mistake!"

or

"Did they follow you here!?"

"I don't know, we gotta go! Grab some food, grab the snacks. Grab the fruit roll-ups!"

James Franco annoys the holy hell out of me but damn, I really want to see Pineapple Express. Seth Rogen should balance it out for me.

Edited July 29, 2008 by jetsniper

[Psycing]

Add Juno and Requiem for a dream to my recently seen movies.

Still haven't seen Batman or Step Brother tho. The fact that I'm going to be working 19 straight days sure doesn't help my movie going either...

[Doktor Kosmos]

Kung Fu Panda was a kickass movie. Possibly the best animated movie I've ever seen.

Night On Earth - greatness beyond my ability to express in words.

[JoeLassister]

Guys what about Tropic Thunder ?

I found this "red banned" preview. Looks CRAZY !!

http://www.blackfilm.com/20080516/features...hunderred.shtml

Gotta luv that they hired John Toll as the director of photography, the man who had this job in The Thin Red Line.

[jetsniper]

Guys what about Tropic Thunder ?

I found this "red banned" preview. Looks CRAZY !!

http://www.blackfilm.com/20080516/features...hunderred.shtml

Gotta luv that they hired John Toll as the director of photography, the man who had this job in The Thin Red Line.

Yeah, I've mentioned Tropic Thunder a couple times, me and my friend are seriously psyched for it. RDJ looks like he's going to steal the movie and I don't find Stiller as annoying as everyone else does.

[JoeLassister]

Yeah, I've mentioned Tropic Thunder a couple times, me and my friend are seriously psyched for it. RDJ looks like he's going to steal the movie and I don't find Stiller as annoying as everyone else does.

I don' t find Stiller annoying, but I don't like him neither. Just like Morgan Freeman.

[Habitforming]

I find Stiller to be annoying, no doubt about it. He uses the same styles of comedy over and over (see the monkey with the fake stolen keys scene in Night At The Museum for example) and it is old and annoying and way overused.

I like some of his movies for sure, but he is also a difference maker in my decision to see a film as well in the bad sense.

As for Tropic Thunder itself, my first reaction when I saw the trailer was "Oye" (while rolling my eyes) and so far my opinion hasn't changed.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Habitforming

[JoeLassister]

I find Stiller to be annoying, no doubt about it. He uses the same styles of comedy over and over (see the monkey with the fake stolen keys scene in Night At The Museum for example) and it is old and annoying and way overused.

I like some of his movies for sure, but he is also a difference maker in my decision to see a film as well in the bad sense.

As for Tropic Thunder itself, my first reaction when I saw the trailer was "Oye" (while rolling my eyes) and so far my opinion hasn't changed.

Tropic Thunder is for sure the 1rst ever 16+ war comedy with gore scenes.

[BTH]

I've got Once, Harold and Kumar: Escape From Guantanamo Bay, Y Tu Mama Tambien and Trainspotting here to watch. Should be good, the only new thing I've seen is the first Harold and Kumar, it was pretty much what I expected.

I personally don't think you would acknowledge a movie's brilliance if you didn't like it unless the movie was widely respected. If, for example, 2001 and Stanley Kubrick weren't so critically acclaimed, would you still say the movie is brilliant despite your dislike of it? I don't think you would. I think if it were some run of the mill movie that you didn't like, you wouldn't give it a second thought.

I'm sure a movie's popularity has a subconscious effect but I can recognize the wizardy while watching it, I could point out things in the movie that make it great. It isn't just me saying "This movie sucks but Ebert & Roeper like it so I'm sure it's good." There are plenty of things in there that were awesome and way ahead of its time. The opening sequence was unique until PTA paid it a tribute in the opening 15 minutes of TWBB.

I wouldn't say I dislike it either. I just don't find it entertaining so I wouldn't really ever have the urge to start watching it.

But even if all those other things are great and the script sucks, then the movie is going to suck. The script is the most important part of a movie. Everything else simply builds on the script. Without a script or a plot, you're simply filming randomness. If there is no story to tell, then the images are meaningless.

The script probably is the most important part but remember that in many, many movies (I would guess around 80%but I totally made that number up) the guy who directs the movie is not the guy who wrote the script. This results in artistic broken telephone. Ten different people can take that script and create ten different movies depending on how they understood it. Besides, I'm not defending any movie that had no plot - I don't even think it is possible for a movie to have no plot. I suppose a show like Seinfeld would be an example of something with "no plot" but even then, there is a story to every episode and above all, it is entertaining even without a final goal.

Ahhh, psh, it's not worth it.

You realize this is a totally different discussion from what we had last year? If not these type of conversations, what else would we talk abot in the Movies Thread other than "I saw Movie X last night and it was awesome!"? It's perfectly appropriate and if Fanpuck chooses to answer, why make comments like the one above? No one's forcing you to join in our conversation. Like I said last time, if you're not interested in it, start another dicussion and hope it catches on - as you did.

Add Juno and Requiem for a dream to my recently seen movies.

So you've now seen two of my top 4 in the span of a week. Requiem and Magnolia, both are ######ed up though.

[Psycing]

So you've now seen two of my top 4 in the span of a week. Requiem and Magnolia, both are ######ed up though.

Indeed, but neither would make my top 10 sadly.

[jetsniper]

I don't know what the hell you took out of my comment BTH but I meant it's not worth it for me to engage in yet another fruitless argument with you.

WAIT, WAIT...thats not what I came in here for, haha.

I saw Step Brothers today and it was basically Reilly and Ferrell doing improv and working off each other but holy shit it was funny. It's absolutely nothing like the Ferrell formula of his past few movies either so if you thought Blades of Glory or Semi-Pro sucked, go see this one. Shit it was funny. I don't think I'll get over both of them beating the shit out of a playground full of kids.

This is like the sixth time I've edited this post but one last thing, the first Half-Blood Prince trailer was released this week and is going to be attached to The Mummy III (so basically everyone is going to miss out on it. lol cwhatIdidthar. >_>)

It doesn't really show much though, basically just Dumbledore's meeting with Riddle as a kid.

Edited August 2, 2008 by jetsniper

[BTH]

That trailer makes it look better than the other ones but I bet it'll be the biggest disappointment yet (being the best book yet to be put on screen).

I watched Trainspotting this morning. Pretty sick, but I got a bit bored. In terms of funny UK movies, I prefer In Bruges and This Is England and in terms of drug addiction movies I prefer Requiem For A Dream and Blow so it was nothing special to me. I've never really been a fan of disturbing drug images (which for me includes just watching someone shoot heroin) so I didn't really want to watch some parts or get too involved. The way this movie's presented gives the viewer the chance to tune out unlike Requiem that just attacks you. I'm wondering how much Requiem and Magnolia were influenced from parts of this.

[Doktor Kosmos]

Trainspotting was a pretty big deal back in the day but I haven't seen it. I've seen a few clips and I was too grossed out to dare watch the whole movie.