Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[moviesceleton]

have you seen what I am talking about?

It's all in black and white, of course, except that in a few scenes, some women are wearing color dresses. And in a few scenes, the blasts from gunshots and a dynamite explosion are in red.

Even those scenes are black and white, it's just that those specific things -- the dresses, the gunshots, and the explosions -- are in color, within the black and white scene.

Also, in the final, famous shot of the gunfighter firing at the camera, his shirt is green and his bandana is red (while the rest of the shot is in b/w).

Those scenes are hand tinted. So basically every frame is colored separately. And this needed to be done not just once but for every film copy made of the movie. So the color scenes certainly are original in a sense even though the colors are "added on". But this also means that every single copy of the movie is slightly different because they are hand tinted. I'm also quite sure that there are plain B/W versions around; I think colored versions of films were more expensive to rent than B/W versions, so there were both versions available for movie theaters.

[stanton]

My problem with the film is that it doesn't play by the rules it sets for itself. To wit: what exactly was Gwyneth Paltrow's "sin"?

Her's, none. But her head leads Pitt to his sin.

For me Se7en is a masterpiece. Easily 10/10

And I don't care if everything is really logical, but everything is believable to me.

[stanton]

Because a) the specifics of your criticisms rarely make sense,

D&D that's similar to my opinion too.

Many things you think are unbelievable are easily believable for me, and you are often too much concerned with your understanding of realism in films where it doesn't make much sense imo to think very much about realism. (Whatever "realism" maybe, which isn't an easy question)

By others I mostly see what they mean, even if I disagree. By your posts I mostly think it doesn't make much sense to say this about this particular film. It often seems we life on different planets, or on different levels of reality, and only meet in this forum due to some sort of an amazing space/time continuum.

[drinkanddestroy]

D&D that's similar to my opinion too.

Many things you think are unbelievable are easily believable for me, and you are often too much concerned with your understanding of realism in films where it doesn't make much sense imo to think very much about realism. (Whatever "realism" maybe, which isn't an easy question)

By others I mostly see what they mean, even if I disagree. By your posts I mostly think it doesn't make much sense to say this about this particular film. It often seems we life on different planets, or on different levels of reality, and only meet in this forum due to some sort of an amazing space/time continuum.

I don't believe I have ever used the word realism once on this forum (except in poking fun at you guys who accuse me of being concerned with a word I never used  )

[stanton]

Maybe not the exact word, but if you think that certain things are unbelievable or ridiculous, you were referring to your idea of how it should have worked in the real world, in "reality".

[Groggy]

This past week I transcribed a case where two lawyers spent ten minutes arguing over whether or not one of them pushed their notepad towards their client. Then they spent five minutes debating whether one of them was shouting or not. D&D, I know you're a law student, but do you really want to be that guy?

[dave jenkins]

Her's, none. But her head leads Pitt to his sin.

Yeah, I understood that. But killing Paltrow is in effect cheating, which ruins the whole thing for me.

[Cusser]

War Horse.  Of course the trench war scenes and the two sides running at each other in battle reminded me of GBU, as did the hidden horse markings (so I was ready for that).

[stanton]

Yeah, I understood that. But killing Paltrow is in effect cheating, which ruins the whole thing for me.

Pheww, why shouldn't he be inconsequent? Was there a rule that he only kills people who deserved it, or who are directly connected with the sins?

In the end the thing with the sins is imo more of a MacGuffin. Without it the story can't work, but what counts is the thriller elements and the story and the atmosphere. And it is one of the rare thrillers which really takes the story to an interesting end, and can keep even its "secret" beyond the end. Not the secret of the story but what I would call a film's inner secret. Many films lose this secret long before the film ends.

[Groggy]

War Horse.  Of course the trench war scenes and the two sides running at each other in battle reminded me of GBU, as did the hidden horse markings (so I was ready for that).

Paths of Glory is more appropriate here.

[drinkanddestroy]

This past week I transcribed a case where two lawyers spent ten minutes arguing over whether or not one of them pushed their notepad towards their client. Then they spent five minutes debating whether one of them was shouting or not. D&D, I know you're a law student, but do you really want to be that guy?

not a law student anymore. I've graduated 

I once read a case where some lawyer was telling the other just what he knew the other believed, but....

[dave jenkins]

This past week I transcribed a case where two lawyers spent ten minutes arguing over whether or not one of them pushed their notepad towards their client. Then they spent five minutes debating whether one of them was shouting or not.

Two words, Young Groggy: billable hours.

But the issue here is getting smothered by a pointless semantics argument. Let's all stipulate that films never offer realism; rather, they are composed of elements that by convention have come to stand for realism, what we might call "film realism." Further, within particular genres there are sets of conventions that, although not necessarily codified, operate as expectations in the minds of those to whom such genres appeal. When crafting a movie, filmmakers do well to observe the practices of film realism and genre conventions if they want to avoid alienating their audience. They can depart from those practices and conventions, but when they do they'd better have a damn good reason for it--that is, such departures should never seem arbitrary.

Defining what is "arbitrary", though, comes only from experience, in this case, the experience of watching many hundreds, if not thousands, of films. D&D has, by his own admission, seen very few films. I don't doubt that by the time he has finally seen his thousandth his perception of what makes certain films successful or not will have changed.

[Groggy]

My point in bringing up that anecdote, though, is that D&D seems to be arguing for the sake of argument. We've had this basic discussion a million times in the past month alone and I for one don't find it fun anymore.

[drinkanddestroy]

Two words, Young Groggy: billable hours.

But the issue here is getting smothered by a pointless semantics argument. Let's all stipulate that films never offer realism; rather, they are composed of elements that by convention have come to stand for realism, what we might call "film realism." Further, within particular genres there are sets of conventions that, although not necessarily codified, operate as expectations in the minds of those to whom such genres appeal. When crafting a movie, filmmakers do well to observe the practices of film realism and genre conventions if they want to avoid alienating their audience. They can depart from those practices and conventions, but when they do they'd better have a damn good reason for it--that is, such departures should never seem arbitrary.

Defining what is "arbitrary", though, comes only from experience, in this case, the experience of watching many hundreds, if not thousands, of films. D&D has, by his own admission, seen very few films. I don't doubt that by the time he has finally seen his thousandth his perception of what makes certain films successful or not will have changed.

nice work, dj. I'll call you when I need someone to deliver my closing argument  

will my definition of "believability" change in a few years? who knows. check back in 2020   I don't think anytime I said something in a movie wasn't believable was so outrageous, but hey,  to each their own, I guess. I was actually quite flattered to hear stanton wax poetic about he and I floating around on different solar systems or something like that. I mean, if I was another kinda guy, I'd say that sounds almost romantic  

[drinkanddestroy]

My point in bringing up that anecdote, though, is that D&D seems to be arguing for the sake of argument. We've had this basic discussion a million times in the past month alone and I for one don't find it fun anymore.

o really? you guys may have told me a million times that I am too interested in realism, but this is the very first time that I ever responded when one of you complained about a lack of believability. (Maybe it's the second, but I am about 99% sure it's the first. And 100% sure it happned at most once before ) So while we indeed had this discussion a million times, it has never ever been me who brought it up, till today. So if having this discussion bothers you, whine to stanton or dj or yourself or anyone else who is responsible for bringing this up all the time  . Until today, it's always been me making a comment about a movie and all of you whining about my definition of believability. But hey, it's New Years Day. People have hangovers