Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 13, 2017, 09:32:28 PM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Rate The Last Movie You Saw
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 663 664 [665] 666 667 ... 1169 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rate The Last Movie You Saw  (Read 1835359 times)
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9960 on: January 01, 2012, 11:02:52 AM »

Actually yeah, every time you discuss a movie you complain about its lack of "realism" or "plausibility." Oftentimes you're simply applying your personal standards, which is understandable. Oftentimes you complain without knowing what the hell you're talking about; remember the Tom Horn exchange a few months back?

Anyway: It's hard to avoid having this discussion when your critique of every movie is identical. But hey, if you'd rather we ignore your posts that could be arranged. Afro

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9961 on: January 01, 2012, 11:08:09 AM »

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - 5/10 - A lot of people have problems with the non-PC portrayal of India, which I suppose is fair enough. A bigger problem though is that the story isn't half as interesting as Raiders and the action and settings aren't varied enough; how many scenes in that damned mine do we need? The Shanghai bits early on are the best part, while the rest of the film plays like a sorry rehash of Gunga Din. Kate Capshaw is annoying as hell though I didn't mind Short Round as much as I'd remembered.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Online Online

Posts: 8445

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9962 on: January 01, 2012, 11:33:12 AM »

Actually yeah, every time you discuss a movie you complain about its lack of "realism" or "plausibility." Oftentimes you're simply applying your personal standards, which is understandable. Oftentimes you complain without knowing what the hell you're talking about; remember the Tom Horn exchange a few months back?



it may be true that I often complain about elements of a movie not being very believable, but that necessarily means that i do it just for the sake of argument? Really? I promise you, my life doesn't suck that much  Grin


« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 11:37:22 AM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Online Online

Posts: 8445

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9963 on: January 01, 2012, 11:39:38 AM »



Anyway: It's hard to avoid having this discussion when your critique of every movie is identical. But hey, if you'd rather we ignore your posts that could be arranged. Afro

that's quite a nonsensical generalization, but whatever...

wtf is "we"? (hey maybe Richard W was right, you do control this board???!!!  Wink) It's your choice what you respond to; nobody puts a gun to your head. (I recall one person saying in the past that he doesn't respond to my posts  -- I think it was the idiot formerly known as Tuco Harmonica, but I am not certain, forgive me if I am wrong -- if you wanna join him, go ahead and make my day  Wink)

Anyway.........

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 11:42:02 AM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2987



View Profile
« Reply #9964 on: January 01, 2012, 12:47:23 PM »

it may be true that I often complain about elements of a movie not being very believable, but that necessarily means that i do it just for the sake of argument? Really? I promise you, my life doesn't suck that much  Grin


"Believable", that's the word you very often use (and "ridiculous"). At least you must notice that others are very often wondering about what you find believable, and what not. And are only rarely complaining about the believability of others here on this board. And I have so far only responded to 10 or 20 or maybe even 30 % of all these "unbelievables" where I just was wondering on which planet you live, or how old you are (27, I know since today). While I have often different views about other members opinions here, I don't wonder that much about their origin cause I can understand what they mean.

I don't think you are arguing for the sake of argument, but I think that your way of thinking is very different from mine and probably from others here. Apart from realising that difference I don't mind your posts.

Logged

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Online Online

Posts: 8445

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9965 on: January 01, 2012, 12:56:23 PM »

"Believable", that's the word you very often use (and "ridiculous"). At least you must notice that others are very often wondering about what you find believable, and what not. And are only rarely complaining about the believability of others here on this board. And I have so far only responded to 10 or 20 or maybe even 30 % of all these "unbelievables" where I just was wondering on which planet you live, or how old you are (27, I know since today). While I have often different views about other members opinions here, I don't wonder that much about their origin cause I can understand what they mean.

I don't think you are arguing for the sake of argument, but I think that your way of thinking is very different from mine and probably from others here. Apart from realising that difference I don't mind your posts.

gee, thanks for not minding.

You also forgot to mention that "it's not a bad thing"  Grin

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Online Online

Posts: 8445

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9966 on: January 01, 2012, 01:13:41 PM »

I think dj did a nice job of explaining it in his previous post here, but I'll make one more attempt here. After this, I won't waste any more time on this. Here goes:

Whether you use the term "convincing," "believable," "realistic," "plausible," or one of a million other synonymous/related terms, there is certainly a need for a film to portray something in a believable manner. Of course, I am not referring necessarily to real-life believable, but believable in a cinematic sense, ie., though a suspension of disbelief is always required when watching movies, it only goes to a certain point, at which point we say, "this is bullshit!" Now, we ALL have some point where we say that. The precise level will depend on the person, but we all have some point where we say, "No more suspension of disbelief."

(Of course, it also depends on the movie; sci-fi, fantasy, many action movies, and to a large degree comedies as well are bullshit, and we don't expect anything real from them. My comments refer much more to the three genres of films that I generally watch: dramas, thrillers, and Westerns).

Perhaps I demand more believability from characters/plot elements than some others do, but we all have it at some level. If not, movies could get away with having Haley Joel Osment as The Godfather. That wouldn't work, would it? Why not? Cuz it is bullshit/ridiculous/nonsensical/not belivable/not plausible/not realistic/ not convincing, or whatever term you wanna put on it.

I have seen a million and one places on this thread where, in discussing movies, people have said something to the effect of a character or plot element not being believable, or some similar term. If I had a dollar for every time that was said by someone other than me, I'd be a millionaire. Of course, when one person says something is not very believable, another person(s) may disagree with him. But to pretend like it is ridiculous to expect any sort of believability from films is just being disingenuous

I've seen a million times where people stated their problems with movies  -- that sounded, in the abstract, just like problems I have had with other movies which people criticized me for having -- and I never said anything; finally, I said something today. I'm sorry I did cuz it's wasted a lot of fucking time. Sounds like when Richard--W was here. Seriously.

if you go back and read Groggy's original response, I played some shtick with the analogies and formal logic, but the truth is his argument was dead wrong any way you spin it.

Bottom line, anyone can agree or disagree with anyone else's opinion of a movie, but to make it sound like the argument in the abstract makes no sense when you make similar arguments all the time, is quite disingenuous.

Hope everyone enjoys partying and football today.

GO GIANTS!!!

« Last Edit: January 01, 2012, 01:20:27 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9967 on: January 01, 2012, 01:38:37 PM »

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - 7/10 - After Temple of Doom's mixed reception, it seems like Spielberg and Lucas decided to play it safe by returning to the original film's template. The worst that can be said is that it recycles a lot from Raiders, but the film makes up for it with some inventive action scenes (the tank scene equals the original's big chase), lots of intriguing locations (gotta love Petra) and a nice brisk pace. Sean Connery is lots of fun and Denholm Elliot and John Rhys-Davies get more to do than before. Unfortunately the villains aren't half so interesting as Raiders' dastardly trio and there are some superfluous bits (were the 1912 scenes really necessary?), but these can be overlooked.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2987



View Profile
« Reply #9968 on: January 01, 2012, 02:13:33 PM »

gee, thanks for not minding.

You also forgot to mention that "it's not a bad thing"  Grin

Didn't fit here ...

Maybe some other time

Logged

noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5114


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9969 on: January 02, 2012, 07:28:15 AM »

Page 666? Uh.

A Dangerous Method (2011) 9/10. The story of how Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) took on Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) as a patient, of how he used Freud's "talking cure" to treat her, and how their relationship led Jung to meet and become friends/colleagues/rivals with the Viennese Quack (Viggo Mortensen). It's also the story of how Jung and Speilrein became lovers and how their bizarre relationship led to the severing of the ties between Jung and Fraud. Immaculately photographed with equally impressive sound design, Cronenberg has produced the arthouse flick of the season (adapted from a play by Christopher Hampton). And without recourse to Rick Baker's SFX, he is able to reference his patented "body-horror" of past films just by getting Knightley to extend her jaw. He fails, however, to answer the one question that everyone leaving the cinema must entertain: what became of Spielrein's masochism after Jung broke with her? Was she able to move beyond it, or did her new husband administer the beatings she'd come to crave? Perhaps the historical record is unclear and Cronenberg did not wish to speculate.

Saw it the other day. Camerawork is a bit better than what Cronenberg usually does (even if it's still a boring mix of academic shots and ultra-cheap production value) and it still conveys the famous weird Cronenberg feel. I don't have much criticism but.. what the hell what that movie about?
Characters? Come on, they're only caricatures.
Psychoanalysis (and its premises)? I don't think so, we see nothing from it except the ridiculous and repetitive "explain my dream" scenes.
Relationships? Everything is SO basic and explicit that no one on earth can be satisfied by that. Example: in the first dialog scene, you get to know EVERYTHING about Keira Knightley. And not because you UNDERSTAND everything, but because she EXPLAINS every little detail about her. I first thought "oh, that was quick" but I quickly understood that the whole movie works that way.
I cannot give it over 4/10 even though it didn't bore me at all. It's just empty as hell.

Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13704

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #9970 on: January 02, 2012, 10:14:51 AM »

Relationships? Everything is SO basic and explicit that no one on earth can be satisfied by that. Example: in the first dialog scene, you get to know EVERYTHING about Keira Knightley. And not because you UNDERSTAND everything, but because she EXPLAINS every little detail about her. I first thought "oh, that was quick" but I quickly understood that the whole movie works that way.
You make that sound like that's a BAD thing.

Seriously, Cronenberg already did the film where the subject gradually reveals himself over the course of the film. It was called Spider and it was a tremendous waste of time. Talk about an empty film.

I expected a film adaptation of a play about the early days of psychoanalysis called "The Talking Cure" to have a lot of talking in it; that's what psychoanalysis is. Obviously, the whole point of the method is that people reveal themselves through speech. What I thought was interesting (and what I thought worked really well cinematically) was that the communication was never one way--when a character revealed something about himself/herself, that revelation invariably caused the listener to reveal (though perhaps not immediately) something as well.  None of the characters were all that interesting on their own, anyway; the interplay among the three is what provided interest.

I also liked the way the historical record was respected. The only place I feel that the film put a foot wrong is at the end, the final interview between Jung and Spielrein. It was obvious that that conversation never took place; the scene screams out "Movie Ending!" But Cronenberg always has trouble with his endings.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5114


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9971 on: January 03, 2012, 02:49:03 AM »

What I thought was interesting (and what I thought worked really well cinematically) was that the communication was never one way--when a character revealed something about himself/herself, that revelation invariably caused the listener to reveal (though perhaps not immediately) something as well.  None of the characters were all that interesting on their own, anyway; the interplay among the three is what provided interest.

9/10 interest? Because there is nothing else than this concept (the things they reveal "both ways" being utterly uninteresting).

Quote
He fails, however, to answer the one question that everyone leaving the cinema must entertain: what became of Spielrein's masochism after Jung broke with her? Was she able to move beyond it, or did her new husband administer the beatings she'd come to crave?

To me, the movie suggests she moved beyond it, since when she talks about her husband she says "he's nice".
Which leaves us with the real question: is the whole thing logical, realistic or believable?

« Last Edit: January 03, 2012, 02:51:25 AM by noodles_leone » Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
moviesceleton
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3928


The glance that makes holes in the silver screen


View Profile
« Reply #9972 on: January 03, 2012, 03:00:19 AM »

I expected a film adaptation of a play about the early days of psychoanalysis called "The Talking Cure" to have a lot of talking in it; that's what psychoanalysis is. Obviously, the whole point of the method is that people reveal themselves through speech. What I thought was interesting (and what I thought worked really well cinematically) was that the communication was never one way--when a character revealed something about himself/herself, that revelation invariably caused the listener to reveal (though perhaps not immediately) something as well.  None of the characters were all that interesting on their own, anyway; the interplay among the three is what provided interest.
So it's an hour and a half long In Treatment episode with a Cronenbergian twist to it?

Logged

"Once Upon a Time in America gets ten-minute ovation at Cannes"
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Online Online

Posts: 8445

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9973 on: January 03, 2012, 04:06:41 AM »

since I see y'all have been discussing Se7en, just wanted to let you know that it'll be shown on AMC from 2-5 PM EST today (Tuesday January 3)  Smiley

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13704

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #9974 on: January 03, 2012, 05:23:17 AM »

9/10 interest? Because there is nothing else than this concept (the things they reveal "both ways" being utterly uninteresting).
It's interesting because of who the characters are historically. Granted, this film relies partly on the audience's knowledge/interest in the subject independent of the film. It wouldn't have worked (for me, at least) if it were about Tom, Dick, and Sally.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
Pages: 1 ... 663 664 [665] 666 667 ... 1169 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.095 seconds with 20 queries.