Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 23:43:26 GMT
I regret watching Whiplash. It's just as bad as it seems, trust me.
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Jul 10, 2017 23:44:43 GMT
no I don't think it's true at all almost everyone here has limited range. I think even Hitchcock makes alright films most of the times. As for Spielberg, most of the times I agree he's just good, but he obviously has his greats, but his greats aren't as great as the greats of other greats. But for me, I have no complaints about The Last Crusade, Duel, Saving Private Ryan, A.I., and Catch Me if You Can. Those are all some of my favorites. (maybe I wouldn't go that far with A.I.) Propaganda is mind-numbing conformity. Definitely not a good thing to me. I rarely ever succumb to propaganda. Verhoeven is God. Can't help the issue you take with the people who like him though. Anybody who made an immersive masterpiece like Showgirls. And shows his subversive talents in Starship Troopers and Black Instinct, and makes great genre films like Total Recall and Robocop (which actually is merely an 8/10 flick and degraded tremendously last time I saw it) is deserving of what his fans say about him. Video games can be consuming and sometimes you just don't feel like playing. I'm always in a mood to watch movies, but not always to play video games. But some video games reaches real heights that certain films can't compare with, and there's usually a higher success ratio with video games (more good/great ones per total releases). Oh and..... Spider Man 3 > There Will Be Blood Perhaps most feel this way, but I feel as if many here settle in their limited cinematic comfort zone. Maybe it isn't a fair assessment, but the way I see it, we all have a lot more great films from across the world to see. I guess it is an unpopular opinion. Yeah, agreed on Hitchcock and Spielberg although my selection of his best work is somewhat different from yours, albeit similar. Propaganda isn't inherently good, but what I mean is I can find it quite compelling. Propaganda films are a good look into the biased views of one side of a political agenda. I like seeing that kind of thing. Not criticizing Verhoeven at all here. Maybe I am just exposed to the wrong groups of people who love on his films, and oftentimes dismiss Showgirls, considering it as his 1 bad film. I have met numerous teens and college students who rave about Starship Troopers and RoboCop for being absolute genius solely because they have decent satire in their subtext. This same crowd comes across as smug and pompous, rationalizing their taste in fun action and dark comedy through satirical subtext; they do this with American Psycho also, which I am convinced is often liked by this crowd for shallow reasons and the subtext gives them validity to their taste and an excuse to like it, and they feel smug and smart for liking the films because they are the ones who get it. I don't know. I just find this fanbase pretty obnoxious. That isn't to say everyone in it is wrong for liking it or are obnoxious. I don't think we have any of these people I speak of here. Not necessarily disagreeing. I think that is true. Not sure if you are criticizing There Will Be Blood or praising Spider-Man 3, and I am not sure what the two have in common beyond release year.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Jul 10, 2017 23:46:52 GMT
All the Spielberg hate or indifference is causing me to be sad. It is very trying to watch so many people I respect be so very wrong.
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Jul 11, 2017 0:06:23 GMT
All the Spielberg hate or indifference is causing me to be sad. It is very trying to watch so many people I respect be so very wrong. I love Spielberg, but he'd be of my least favorites among the entry-level directors. (hitchcock, kubrick, scorsese, fincher, tarantino, nolan, lynch, pta, spielberg, coens). : "A.I. and War of the Worlds best of the decade" is always an amusing thing for me to hear. Not that I'm trying to combat them, but I just enjoy that trope a lot. no I just think some people have tremendous variety here. But if we're talking "most people," then..... hmmmm.... maybe. And I'm not sure if you're celebrating being narrow, but to me narrow-ness is where dimwitted-ness is spawned from. Not saying anyone here is guilty of that. I don't think any of those guys you're describing about Verhoeven knows anything about movies. And I'm just trolling with the Spider Man 3/There Will Be Blood thing. Not celebrating it but accepting it. I would like to explore more. Perhaps there is more variety among this community than I lead on. I meant narrow in the sense that people do not always make efforts to explore pass their safe zones. Yeah I agree, but neither do the cringy Nolan fans. Even if the Nolan fans can be pretentious, I wouldn't say it is as bad as the pompous Verhoeven fans. But yeah, I guess neither groups know much about movies. And don't get me wrong, plenty of smart people I respect like both directors. Bummer.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Jul 11, 2017 0:11:43 GMT
All the Spielberg hate or indifference is causing me to be sad. It is very trying to watch so many people I respect be so very wrong. I love Spielberg, but he'd be of my least favorites among the entry-level directors. (hitchcock, kubrick, scorsese, fincher, tarantino, nolan, lynch, pta, spielberg, coens). : "A.I. and War of the Worlds best of the decade" is always an amusing thing for me to hear. Not that I'm trying to combat them, but I just enjoy seeing that trope a lot. Of that list I like him more than Kubrick, Fincher, Tarantino, and Nolan. He'd be about even with PTA and the Coens. For PTA that's just on the basis of his last 3 though, pretty much everything before that is terrible. I'll go past the AI and War of the Worlds as two of the best of the decade (which they absolutely are) and say that the remarkable 5 year output of A.I., Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, War of the Worlds, and Munich, is one of the best stretches from anyone this century. It's a shame that The Terminal sucks so hard and appeared in that same span of time, especially since the first 20-30 minutes are actually surprisingly good.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jul 11, 2017 0:16:23 GMT
I don't know about the unpopularity of this, but just from what I gather in forums like this it seems like a lot of people care much more about plot than they do story (and yes, I would say there's a difference between the two) and I'm the opposite. This is part of why exposition generally doesn't bother me as much as it does others: it's a plot mechanic and I am willing to give that all kinds of leeway if I think the story is worth it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 1:53:53 GMT
Calling Lynch "entry level" is so bizarre to me. Especially having him placed next to guys like Fincher and Nolan...what the hell
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 1:59:45 GMT
Calling Lynch "entry level" is so bizarre to me. Especially having him placed next to guys like Fincher and Nolan...what the hell He's not as entry-level as those, but I'd say he's the top ten most popular directors on this board. C'mon now, dude. It's not a bad thing by any means, I prefer him to most of those other guys. I don't mean to imply that it would be a bad thing if he were. I just think films like Eraserhead, Fire Walk With Me, and especially Inland Empire don't belong in the same type of "level" (not quality wise, but what type of movie it is) as the work of most of those guys, especially Fincher and Nolan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 2:08:57 GMT
I don't mean to imply that it would be a bad thing if he were. I just think films like Eraserhead, Fire Walk With Me, and especially Inland Empire don't belong in the same type of "level" (not quality wise, but what type of movie it is) as the work of most of those guys, especially Fincher and Nolan. Of course not. But you're picking at his smaller stuff. Every film of how many directors are popular? There's only Kubrick, PTA, Tarantino, Nolan, and Fincher who fits that bill. Even if you compare Following to Mulholland Dr., MD is the more entry-level film even though MD is a league better. Who would you replace Lynch with out of my top ten most popular directors here then? You're kinda short of options. And in finality: of course he's not as popular as Fincher or Nolan. Everyone knows that. Oh no, I agree that he's one of the most popular here for sure. I just meant in terms of introducing someone brand new to movies in general. And eh, I haven't seen Following, so you could be right there. But even MD and Lost Highway I would say are significantly more experimental/artsy/whatever than whatever the "average" movie of the other directors listed are.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jul 11, 2017 2:14:15 GMT
Of course not. But you're picking at his smaller stuff. Every film of how many directors are popular? There's only Kubrick, PTA, Tarantino, Nolan, and Fincher who fits that bill. Even if you compare Following to Mulholland Dr., MD is the more entry-level film even though MD is a league better. Who would you replace Lynch with out of my top ten most popular directors here then? You're kinda short of options. And in finality: of course he's not as popular as Fincher or Nolan. Everyone knows that. Oh no, I agree that he's one of the most popular here for sure. I just meant in terms of introducing someone brand new to movies in general. And eh, I haven't seen Following, so you could be right there. But even MD and Lost Highway I would say are significantly more experimental/artsy/whatever than whatever the "average" movie of the other directors listed are. Well, I think there's entry-level artsy, which in that case is Vertigo, 2001..... and dareisay Bergman? (don't chew my head off for that) Vertigo is #2 of all time, but it has some Freudian psychological/split personality stuff that's pretty accepted artsy/experimental intellectual stuff for people turning that new switch in their brain. And 2001 is pretty direct. And Bergman... is in my personal opinion pretty accessible and sometimes he just has a mask for a pretty simple psychological drama. Something like Cries and Whispers (we talked about that earlier) is not complicated at all, apart from me and you analyzing human nature back and forth to it - I wouldn't say is hard to swallow at all. I didn't mean to upset you. Sorry. I just think he's top 10 most popular. And I think Following is Nolan's worst.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 2:20:56 GMT
Oh no, I agree that he's one of the most popular here for sure. I just meant in terms of introducing someone brand new to movies in general. And eh, I haven't seen Following, so you could be right there. But even MD and Lost Highway I would say are significantly more experimental/artsy/whatever than whatever the "average" movie of the other directors listed are. Well, I think there's entry-level artsy, which in that case is Vertigo, 2001..... and dareisay Bergman? (don't chew my head off for that) Vertigo is #2 of all time, but it has some Freudian psychological/split personality stuff that's pretty accepted artsy/experimental intellectual stuff for people turning that new switch in their brain. And 2001 is pretty direct. And Bergman... is in my personal opinion pretty accessible and sometimes he just has a mask for a pretty simple psychological drama. Something like Cries and Whispers (we talked about that earlier) is not complicated at all, apart from me and you analyzing human nature back and forth to it - I wouldn't say is hard to swallow at all. I didn't mean to upset you. Sorry. I just think he's top 10 most popular. And I think Following is Nolan's worst. I'm not upset at all man, no worries. Don't think movie talk has ever legitimately upset me before (although one of my ex's calling No Country for Old Men the most boring thing she'd ever seen came close ). And I see your point. Well, The Seventh Seal is what got me into movies, so I could see the argument for Bergman being "entry level". But I usually don't use terms like that anyways, tbh.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Jul 11, 2017 8:37:31 GMT
I don't mean to imply that it would be a bad thing if he were. I just think films like Eraserhead, Fire Walk With Me, and especially Inland Empire don't belong in the same type of "level" (not quality wise, but what type of movie it is) as the work of most of those guys, especially Fincher and Nolan. Even if you compare Following to Mulholland Dr., MD is the more entry-level film even though MD is a league better. At least 5 leagues and a half. But Following is rather accesible. I don't know what you're getting at. Sounds like you call MD entry-level simply for being a better film because by any other metric it's less accesible as far as I can judge (maybe not in terms of drama but then again this is because the Drama in Following just is very poor - like in almost every Nolan movie, he got better over time though).
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Jul 11, 2017 9:17:15 GMT
At least 5 leagues and a half. But Following is rather accesible. I don't know what you're getting at. Sounds like you call MD entry-level simply for being a better film because by any other metric it's less accesible as far as I can judge (maybe not in terms of drama but then again this is because the Drama in Following just is very poor - like in almost every Nolan movie, he got better over time though). Well... if we compared leagues. MD - 8.5 Following - 4 So.... 4.5 leagues. Is that close enough? I'm not getting at anything. I didn't intend this to be a discussion about what's entry level. I was just talking with moonman about where I'd place Spielberg in the grand scheme of the most popular directors. And suddenly... here you come. I'm not going to get into another debate with you because you interpret things off kilter and take certain things harshly when there's nothing harsh about it. I don't know what's supposed to be so "inaccessible" about Lynch. What's inaccessible about him, really? I don't see it. Only movie I'd call inaccessible from him is Inland Empire. More inaccessible than Nolan? Ok, duh. What else you got? And what is this trope you have of Nolan's drama being poor? I don't know what you're talking about with that, or if that's just your own personal opinion. I don't think Nolan ever really cared about drama that much. If it's just your niche opinion.... expand??? Huh? I never said anything about Lynch being inacessible. I was just comparing MD and Following (talk about interpreting things off kilter). Following I think is an interesting film but also a relatively easy to get into crime story. Mulholland Drive I think most people would enjoy aswell but they'd still at least ind it weird. I don't think Nolan cares that much about drama either. Maybe that's why it's not so good? To be fair though: If you go around 2 edges it works in Inception on a conceptional level (meta-drama lol - and from that perspective it's actually very good) and in Interstellar if you ignore the corny writing, many scenes in that film are incredibly affective, like the scene on the ice-planet with Damon when the very existence of humanity is tangibly at stake, gave me goosebumbs I have to admit (again somewhat meta-drama). If I remember correctly the drama was ok in Insomnia but nothing spectacular either (more of a slow-burner suspense film). Memento on a meta-level is a very sad philosophical tale (about a man who willingly lives in his own dreamworld, calling into question the concept of reality, rendering it all mere narrative) but the actual plot drama is very meh (dead girlfriend much, the everlasting trope; myth has it when Nolan stops it, maybe people will stop claiming his drama is bad). I like his meta-approach to drama but I feel it only fully works in Inception. As I said though, he's getting better (still he better bingewatch some Sirk n' Ray).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 10:50:05 GMT
Sarcasm isn't cool as much as it is necessary within human society.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Jul 11, 2017 11:05:28 GMT
Huh? I never said anything about Lynch being inacessible. I was just comparing MD and Following (talk about interpreting things off kilter). Following I think is an interesting film but also a relatively easy to get into crime story. Mulholland Drive I think most people would enjoy aswell but they'd still at least ind it weird. I don't think Nolan cares that much about drama either. Maybe that's why it's not so good? To be fair though: If you go around 2 edges it works in Inception on a conceptional level (meta-drama lol - and from that perspective it's actually very good) and in Interstellar if you ignore the corny writing, many scenes in that film are incredibly affective, like the scene on the ice-planet with Damon when the very existence of humanity is tangibly at stake, gave me goosebumbs I have to admit (again somewhat meta-drama). If I remember correctly the drama was ok in Insomnia but nothing spectacular either (more of a slow-burner suspense film). Memento on a meta-level is a very sad philosophical tale (about a man who willingly lives in his own dreamworld, calling into question the concept of reality, rendering it all mere narrative) but the actual plot drama is very meh (dead girlfriend much, the everlasting trope; myth has it when Nolan stops it, maybe people will stop claiming his drama is bad). I like his meta-approach to drama but I feel it only fully works in Inception. As I said though, he's getting better (still he better bingewatch some Sirk n' Ray). Well good. Before we get into what's inaccessible or not, I think Lynch is still for the most part.... pretty fun, if you get past that initial weirdness. And with the various array of scumbag characters he has, sometimes a really crazy and threatening thing happens to his characters, and at the bare core, most of his movies have that element. When you can feel the "threat" about to happen to all of his characters, that appeals to people's sense of grimness and exorbitance. To me that definitely is accessible. To make it simple, Lynch is kind of appealing in the gory type of way. I'm not saying he's a shallow director, I'm just saying there's definitely an element of violent bloody horror in his movies. To me, you don't need to be a "higher level" film buff to enjoy him. I don't think it's his weirdness that makes him accessible, or that that's what plebs take from him at the shallow level. I don't want excite redhawk or you any further, but any time people prop their favorite directors for being "inaccessible," and to imply that that's a good thing, I simply need to see it. And for what it's worth, I think doing that makes you a bit pretentious. (not saying you or anyone does that) I never ever say any of my favorite directors are inaccessible and that being that is a good thing. That's all I'm trying to say. Maybe it's off tangent, but I'm just speaking my piece. I was just trying to combat your thinking that I'm trying to say that something better is automatically more entry-level. No. No. No. NO. NO. NO. That's not the way I feel at all. So.... yeah. I don't understand why you're so interested in talking Nolan here though. I wasn't comparing MD with Following as adamantly as you're trying to convince me of the fact that Mulholland Dr. is indeed 1) better 2) less accessible and 3) the idea that just because something is less seen or under-the-radar or less rated makes it less entry-level and therefore that's a good thing or something. I want you to drop that assumption about me. Well... I don't care about his drama being poor. It doesn't affect my enjoyment of his films. Sirk.... well... to each his own, but....I don't buy Sirk's "drama" at all. But our definitions of drama are probably vastly different. I don't really get you. I don't care wheter Lynch is inacessible or acessible and there are dozens of directors I like better, I merely stated my opinion regarding the 2 films in question. Isn't Mulholland Drive more widely seen than Following? I'm really at a loss where you're taking this. You're implying a lot of things I never said. I think that Mulholland Drive is better and less accesible, yes and I don't get what's less accesible about Following other than that it's a worse film. I wasn't intenting to make this a general rule or anything. Sirk's drama is supposed to be fake, that's sort of the point.
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Jul 11, 2017 21:49:55 GMT
American Beauty is straight-up garbage. 2001 is one of Kubrick's weakest. Tarantino is trash.
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Jul 11, 2017 23:59:01 GMT
TIL Spectre>Skyfall, and by a significant margin. Pulpy ridiculous fun beats technically polished, glossy, self serious bore any day of the week. Isn't Spectre the self-serious bore, though?
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Jul 12, 2017 0:16:27 GMT
American Beauty is straight-up garbage.2001 is one of Kubrick's weakest. Tarantino is trash. I could not agree more, I'm so happy someone else has said it round here. I haven't really got a proper list of my least favourite movies because I prefer to focus on my favourites, but I honestly think it might rank in the bottom 20 or so.
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Jul 12, 2017 6:37:07 GMT
TIL Spectre>Skyfall, and by a significant margin. Pulpy ridiculous fun beats technically polished, glossy, self serious bore any day of the week. Isn't Spectre the self-serious bore, though? Ehh not really. Or at least not as much as Skyfall. Kinda surprising to see they're both directed by the same guy while being so different in tone and visual style.
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Jul 12, 2017 13:34:39 GMT
American Beauty is straight-up garbage.2001 is one of Kubrick's weakest. Tarantino is trash. I could not agree more, I'm so happy someone else has said it round here. I haven't really got a proper list of my least favourite movies because I prefer to focus on my favourites, but I honestly think it might rank in the bottom 20 or so. Same. Legitimately one of the only few films I have a deeply seething and personal disdain for. Most films are just bad, but none are as inexplicably offensive on the level American Beauty is. I could pretty much go on endlessly on how artificial, hallow, forced and laughable the message is portrayed, along with its woefully unsubtle and trite symbolism; but even then, there's still a hundred other things wrong with the film. From the insanely ridiculous Colonel subplot (rather heavy-handed, to say the least, and the scene with him and Lester is just so insultingly stupid and contrived), to every single awful scene with Ricky (he's a creep, stalks people, plans to kill Lester, but in the end we're meant to sympathise and relate with this character? - yeah, fuck off), to the hilariously retarded bag scene (I get the scene, but c'mon, it's a fucking bag and he's not even elaborating on the depth of his footage, he's only rambling on about "there's so much beauty in the world"), to the end-of-the-day morality lesson Lester gives played alongside some film-student style montage of the "good times". I know the Academy have next to no credibility and have made many a terrible decision before......but this is a Best Picture winner? Really? That's just baffling to me, honestly.
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Jul 12, 2017 14:07:04 GMT
I could not agree more, I'm so happy someone else has said it round here. I haven't really got a proper list of my least favourite movies because I prefer to focus on my favourites, but I honestly think it might rank in the bottom 20 or so. Same. Legitimately one of the only few films I have a deeply seething and personal disdain for. Most films are just bad, but none are as inexplicably offensive on the level American Beauty is. I could pretty much go on endlessly on how artificial, hallow, forced and laughable the message is portrayed, along with its woefully unsubtle and trite symbolism; but even then, there's still a hundred other things wrong with the film. From the insanely ridiculous Colonel subplot (rather heavy-handed, to say the least, and the scene with him and Lester is just so insultingly stupid and contrived), to every single awful scene with Ricky (he's a creep, stalks people, plans to kill Lester, but in the end we're meant to sympathise and relate with this character? - yeah, fuck off), to the hilariously retarded bag scene (I get the scene, but c'mon, it's a fucking bag and he's not even elaborating on the depth of his footage, he's only rambling on about "there's so much beauty in the world"), to the end-of-the-day morality lesson Lester gives played alongside some film-student style montage of the "good times". I know the Academy have next to no credibility and have made many a terrible decision before......but this is a Best Picture winner? Really? That's just baffling to me, honestly. I'd also say one of its worst offences is managing to make Annette Bening, one of the best actresses working today, come across as insufferably shrill and over-the-top.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 5:46:46 GMT
Pulp Fiction has no rewatchability factor, and other than a few monologues, the movie itself is shit too.
2008 is the second best BP lineup of the decade.....after 2003. And 2007 lineup is overrated to the skies.
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Jul 15, 2017 6:23:09 GMT
Pulp Fiction is a Christian film, and a classic example of a great film that the majority of its fans (mostly teens and young adults) don't seem to understand and like it for more shallow reasons. Same goes for Fight Club.
An opinion on Gaspar NoƩ by someone who hasn't seen I Stand Alone and Carne is not really valid.
Life is Beautiful, while conceptually problematic, is a fairly good movie (this seems to be an unpopular opinion among this crowd at least).
Leonardo DiCaprio has pulled off a few good roles, but What's Eating Gilbert Grape, The Aviator, and Blood Diamond are not among them, and are actually kind of bad.
Some Like it Hot isn't that great.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Jul 15, 2017 12:40:57 GMT
Life is Beautiful, while conceptually problematic, is a fairly good movie (this seems to be an unpopular opinion among this crowd at least). I actually think the concept is great but the excecution is problematic. It's too silly and melodramatic. It's not really a bad film still, just not remotely great either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 21:43:04 GMT
I really despised The Maltese Falcon, but admittedly a re-watch is needed.
I truly can't grasp the praise Wonder Woman is getting in general and on this board. It was so clearly bad IMO.
The Room is a great movie. It's one of the best comedies of the century. I don't care if that wasn't the intention.
While I initially adored Synecdoche, New York, I kinda forgot about it after a while. It didn't have staying power for me. I still think it's good, but not deserving of all the praise it gets.
True Grit is the Coens' worst, and Miller's Crossing is mediocre.
The Kid is far better than both City Lights and Modern Times.
Rob Zombie's Halloween is an example of a very good remake. It's fresh, engaging, and has its own unique style while also staying faithful to the source material. Good stuff. The sequel is one of the worst movies ever made tho.
In the Heat of the Night is incredibly forgettable and bland.
Invictus is also incredibly forgettable and bland.
None of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies are good, but I should re-watch the first two.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland isn't bad at all, and the original is easily my all-time favorite Disney film.
|
|