# Films that people rave about that are actually shit?



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 20, 2014)

It's obviously subjective but there are films that some people, including critics, rave about... but they're a bag o' shite!

Under The Skin... One of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune of sharing the same room as, yet some people think it's a masterpiece... Baggashite!

Gravity was another. At one stage it was rated higher than Blade Runner on IMDB... What's all that about!!!


----------



## Geri (Sep 20, 2014)

Dead Man.


----------



## Dandred (Sep 20, 2014)

Gravity was shit. 

Casablanca is wank.


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 20, 2014)

Bad Lieutenant


----------



## Belushi (Sep 20, 2014)

The Shawshank Redemption.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2014)

Belushi said:


> The Shawshank Redemption.


+1


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2014)

Eraserhead.


----------



## twentythreedom (Sep 20, 2014)

All Channel 4 red triangle films


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 20, 2014)

Belushi said:


> The Shawshank Redemption.


I kinda like it... but I think I'd like anything containing Morgan Freeman's voice


----------



## pogo 10 (Sep 20, 2014)

Harry potter.


----------



## blairsh (Sep 20, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Bad Lieutenant


Which one?


----------



## jakethesnake (Sep 20, 2014)

Wild At Heart
Easy Rider


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 20, 2014)

blairsh said:


> Which one?


The original. I haven't seen the remake.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 20, 2014)

Anything with Vin Diesel


----------



## Sue (Sep 20, 2014)

blairsh said:


> Which one?


Both. Though the first was worse than the second.


----------



## blairsh (Sep 20, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> The original. I haven't seen the remake.


I think i would prefer the remake even though i haven't seen it, having watched the original. Didn't think it was shit but not interested in watching it again either.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> The original. I haven't seen the remake.


Then you'e in for a treat  - great film with top notch caging.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 20, 2014)

jakethesnake said:


> Wild At Heart



That had an excellent opening sequence, and considering Nicolas Cage was in it, I don't think it was too bad.


----------



## blairsh (Sep 20, 2014)

I do like a bit of Nicholas Cage


----------



## scooter (Sep 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Gravity was another. At one stage it was rated higher than Blade Runner on IMDB... What's all that about!!!



Um, because Blade Runner is boring maybe?


----------



## jakethesnake (Sep 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> That had an excellent opening sequence, and considering Nicolas Cage was in it, I don't think it was too bad.


Yeah, but it went down hill pretty fast after that. I don't really 'get' David Lynch and I just found the film to be rather unpleasant.


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Then you'e in for a treat  - great film with top notch caging.


OK, I'll risk it then


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 20, 2014)

jakethesnake said:


> Yeah, but it went down hill pretty fast after that. I don't really 'get' David Lynch and I just found the film to be rather unpleasant.


It wasn't great... I'll give you that.

Have you seen Blue Velvet? (I rate it)


----------



## The Boy (Sep 20, 2014)

Geri said:


> Dead Man.



Oh god, yes.


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 20, 2014)

blairsh said:


> I do like a bit of Nicholas Cage


----------



## The Boy (Sep 20, 2014)

Is Leaving Las Vegas a film that *actual* people rave about, or is it just the guy who made me watch it?

edit:  cos if so, that.


----------



## jakethesnake (Sep 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> It wasn't great... I'll give you that.
> 
> Have you seen Blue Velvet? (I rate it)


Yeah, I enjoyed Blue Velvet.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 20, 2014)

scooter said:


> Um, because Blade Runner is boring maybe?


Is/Was? 
I think it's a timeless classic.


----------



## scooter (Sep 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Is/Was?
> I think it's a timeless classic.



Is - it still exists. Everyone thinks it's a classic. Doesn't do much for me but I think I'm in a minority


----------



## PursuedByBears (Sep 20, 2014)

Donnie  Darko 

Anything by David Lynch 

2001 a space odyssey


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 20, 2014)

scooter said:


> Is - it still exists. Everyone thinks it's a classic. Doesn't do much for me but I think I'm in a minority


There are very few films that stand the test of time, especially SciFi films, and especially from that era... but I think Blade Runner was one of them. Alien(s) was another.

I watched 2001, a space odyssey again recently... I don't think it has stood the test of time. Although I have to admit to watching Quatermass and the pit recently, and I did enjoy it


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 20, 2014)

scooter said:


> Doesn't do much for me but I think I'm in a minority



Mmmyeah.... but you're scooter...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 20, 2014)

The Rock. No, it's just shit.

Wait does it by any chance have Nicolas Cage in it?


----------



## hot air baboon (Sep 20, 2014)

...funny thing about Blade Runner is ( in contradistinction to the thread title ) it got stinkingly bad reviews when it came out and was commercially a bit of a flop....


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 20, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The Rock. No, it's just shit.
> 
> Wait does it by any chance have Nicolas Cage in it?


Nicolas Cage contains more shit than my septic tank. I've seen cardboard cutouts with more depth.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 20, 2014)

hot air baboon said:


> ...funny thing about Blade Runner is ( in contradistinction to the thread title ) it got stinkingly bad reviews when it came out and was commercially a bit of a flop....


As the OP suggests. it's completely subjective, and everyone is entitled to their opinion but I can't think of a better SciFi film (at the time) than Blade Runner.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 20, 2014)

Belushi said:


> The Shawshank Redemption.



yes.  i fucking hate that mawkish bollocks of a movie.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 20, 2014)

What about Shaving Ryan's Privates... any views ?


----------



## dylanredefined (Sep 20, 2014)

Don't see the fascination about the godfather films myself.


----------



## scooter (Sep 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I can't think of a better SciFi film (at the time) than Blade Runner.



Star Wars?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Nicolas Cage contains more shit than my septic tank. I've seen cardboard cutouts with more depth.


I quite liked Leaving Las Vegas, he was appropriate for that. He has a role to play in cinema. But The Rock is terrible, even as a shit action film.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 20, 2014)

*PUT THE BUNNY DOWN...*


----------



## starfish (Sep 20, 2014)

Withnail & I. I really didnt see what all the fuss was about.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 20, 2014)

scooter said:


> Star Wars?


Yeah, I'll concede to that... but there were very few of that calibre.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 20, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Don't see the fascination about the godfather films myself.




I love them....absolutely ..


----------



## rubbershoes (Sep 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Anything with Vin Diesel




I can't believe anyone raves about Vin Diesel films. 

Even his mum would accept they're just high-octane fluff.


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 20, 2014)

Everything by Tarantino is piffle with a good soundtrack. The exception to this is Jackie Brown, which is a genuinely excellent film. Inglorious Bastards was shite. 

And yes, so is Shawshank Redemption.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 20, 2014)

Plumdaff said:


> Everything by Tarantino is piffle with a good soundtrack. The exception to this is Jackie Brown, which is a genuinely excellent film. Inglorious Bastards was shite.



Django Unchained?
Reservoir Dogs?
Sin City (although not written by him)?

I'd class those as good flicks.


----------



## SovietArmy (Sep 20, 2014)

All Hollywood films are shit.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 20, 2014)

SovietArmy said:


> All Hollywood films are shit.



Most films are shit... but I think 'All Hollywood films are shit' is a bit of an exaggeration.


----------



## souljacker (Sep 20, 2014)

I haven't really got time for Blade Runner to be honest. I find it a bit pompous, especially when compared the book.

I watched American Hustle recently. No idea why that got any awards. Apart from Christian Bale, who is fucking excellent in it.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 20, 2014)

Eraserhead, Wild At Heart and every other David Lynch film deserves to be raved about, likley the best living US film maker in my book...
and Easy Rider is a great film but of its time though...
Blade Runner is pretty boring though i agree
Donnie Darko made no impression..cant even remember what it was about now though i rememebr thinking why the hype?
i remember when everyone was crying over American Beauty - seemed pretty shit to me - ive blanked it out of my mind
I'd add:
WALL-E
Amelie


Plumdaff said:


> Everything by Tarantino is piffle with a good soundtrack.


theres something a touch failed about all his films but they're definitely not shit - always interesting to watch


----------



## T & P (Sep 21, 2014)

Titanic.
Avatar.


----------



## 8115 (Sep 21, 2014)

Cider House Rules.


----------



## Dr. Furface (Sep 21, 2014)

28 Days Later. In fact anything by Danny Boyle except Trainspotting.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 21, 2014)

Gladiator.
Citizen Kane.
Jaws.
Ghostbusters.
Fight Club.
Breakfast At Tiffany's.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

T & P said:


> Titanic.


you heartless bastard


Dr. Furface said:


> 28 Days Later.


one of only two times ive walked out of a cinema


----------



## 8ball (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> one of only two times ive walked out of a cinema



What was the other one?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

8ball said:


> What was the other one?


this lenny henry movie  god it was bad


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

IIRC story goes Lenny got a 2 film hollywood deal to break him in the US - he made that one and it was so bad they scrapped the 2nd film

tbf 28 Days Later probably isnt that bad turns out im just really not interested in zombies...


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 21, 2014)

Mullholland drive - what a load of rubbish.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> I'd add:
> WALL-E
> Amelie


they need to be watched in the right context.

Wall-E was the absolutely perfect film for me to stumble across on new years day a couple of years back, having had no idea at all about it in advance.

Had I been watching it normally after seeing it being hyped up I might have had a different opinion of it. 

I reckon that applies a lot to how people experience films, so people who're watching a film that they've known to have been hyped up for years before they've seen it, eg shawshank, withnail etc will be watching it with an entirely different perspective to those who discovered them accidentally years ago and fell in love with an interesting quirky film that meant something to them at the time.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> you heartless bastard
> 
> one of only two times ive walked out of a cinema


I walked out when watching unforgiven, as me and my mate decided that we'd made a mistake and went for a pint instead.

I gave it another go after it won shedloads of oscars, and it's a decent western, but not really for a friday night out.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Eraserhead, Wild At Heart and every other David Lynch film deserves to be raved about, likley the best living US film maker in my book...
> and Easy Rider is a great film but of its time though...
> Blade Runner is pretty boring though i agree
> Donnie Darko made no impression..cant even remember what it was about now though i rememebr thinking why the hype?
> ...



I agree with most of this post but you're wrong about Amelie and Wall-E. They're both really good films.

Wall-E is one of the best "kids films" I've ever seen. The opening half hour with its non-verbal story-telling is genius, IMO.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 21, 2014)

2001

Amelie

No Country for Old Men


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I reckon that applies a lot to how people experience films, so people who're watching a film that they've known to have been hyped up for years before they've seen it, eg shawshank, withnail etc will be watching it with an entirely different perspective to those who discovered them accidentally years ago and fell in love with an interesting quirky film that meant something to them at the time.


 
thats definitely true (though i still think wall e was shit, though its not aimed at grumpy people like me) - hype is a dangerous thing
film reviews too... i made the mistake of reading a five star review of Berberian Sound Studio and forked out to see it at the cinema -  interesting for a budget film with some good bits in it, but generally overlong and staid... i spent the  second half of the film angry about the review


Cheesypoof said:


> Mullholland drive - what a load of rubbish.


I guess the thing with Lynch films is they're not traditional narrative story telling movies so you have to watch them in a completely different way to normal flicks - i love going to that headspace
likewise 2001 is a tricky watch so i can see why its coming up on here...its a masterpiece though... 



Fez909 said:


> I agree with most of this post but you're wrong








In fact all pixar films are shit
As is Shrek
And you can probably take that Lego film with you (though I havent seen it)



I should point out i havent technically seen Amelie or WALL-E, but thats because i couldn't stand more than a few minutes


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> In fact all pixar films are shit









> As is Shrek


Agreed.


> I should point out i havent technically seen Amelie or WALL-E, but thats because i couldn't stand more than a few minutes


Then you are in no place to judge. But Wall-E is fucking fantastic and I'm surprised you couldn't get through a few minutes of it.

Amelie I can see how you might not like it, but I still think it's great.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2014)

Deer Hunter


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Then you are in no place to judge. But Wall-E is fucking fantastic and I'm surprised you couldn't get through a few minutes of it.


oh but i am - i was DISGUSTED by what i saw 
yeah Dreamworks are particularly bad, but Pixar wind me up too. Up sounds unbearable


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> oh but i am - i was DISGUSTED by what i saw
> yeah Dreamworks are particularly bad, but Pixar wind me up too. Up sounds unbearable


Up was pretty good I thought. 

What is it about Pixar that you don't like? Sentimentalism?


----------



## doddles (Sep 21, 2014)

Normally films that people rave about aren't shit, but simply OK/meh, or even good and entertaining. But not great.
 Tarantino films are like that.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

doddles said:


> Normally films that people rave about aren't shit, but simply OK/meh, or even good and entertaining. But not great.
> Tarantino films are like that.


Agree with this.

Most of the films mentioned in this thread fall into the meh category rather than shit.

I'd like to nominate Inception. It's not raved about on Urban particularly but otherwise gets praised widely. It's fucking garbage and definitely fits the OP.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 21, 2014)

All those fucking westerns.


----------



## MrSki (Sep 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Deer Hunter


I think I tried to watch it about four times before I got to the end.


----------



## cypher79 (Sep 21, 2014)

Dark City. I fall asleep everytime I try to watch that.

Also, Terry Gilliam films. (apart from Time Bandits obvs)


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Django Unchained?
> Reservoir Dogs?
> Sin City (although not written by him)?
> 
> I'd class those as good flicks.


Reservoir Dogs is Ok. Django is like Inglorious, all sound and fury with ultimately not much going on. I fucking despise Sin City.

Eta I love Wall E. Amelie is Ok. Under the Skin is a masterpiece.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 21, 2014)

Transporter 3


----------



## JTG (Sep 21, 2014)

hot air baboon said:


> ...funny thing about Blade Runner is ( in contradistinction to the thread title ) it got stinkingly bad reviews when it came out and was commercially a bit of a flop....


 I'm not surprised, it's crap


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 21, 2014)

All of the Monty Python twattery. 

Titanic.

The Matrix films.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 21, 2014)

Citizen Kane. Anything with Awesome Wells in it must be shite.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 21, 2014)

The Third Man is one of the best films ever made.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

All Christopher Confusin' Nolan films.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2014)

I'm very sentimental so Amelie and Wall E give me the big, long boo-hoo I demand of a Thursday night in. Love them.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 21, 2014)

Amelie is a great movie...even if you don't like the playful romance of it, it is beautifully filmed and the score/soundtrack is amazing!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> oh but i am - i was DISGUSTED by what i saw
> yeah Dreamworks are particularly bad, but Pixar wind me up too. Up sounds unbearable



Up is lovely! I have a copy if you'd like to borrow it 

It's perfect for an afternoon on the sofa, let go of the inner grump and remember the spirit of adventure!


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

I like the Shawshank Redemption, I watched it last night, well much of it. It is too long.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> oh but i am - i was DISGUSTED by what i saw
> yeah Dreamworks are particularly bad, but Pixar wind me up too. Up sounds unbearable



If you don't love the opening ten minutes of Up you literally had your soul removed at birth. Cats avoid you and you cast no Shadow. 

The end credits of W-ALLE alone is fucking inspiring and cleverer then 90% of movies.

You might not like Amelie, but you can respect the skill and enthusiasm of the film makers again. It might not be your cup of tea but it's a very well made hot beverage. Similarly Shawshank.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> All of the Monty Python twattery.
> 
> Titanic.
> 
> The Matrix films.



If you pretend the sequels never happened the Matrix is excellent. And Life of Brian is exceptional.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> All Christopher Confusin' Nolan films.



Inception was excellent the Batman moves less so. Insomnia is pretty good, but Memento is a hell of calling card 1st film.


----------



## Ax^ (Sep 21, 2014)

Requim for a dream.


Although I do find the ending montage hysterical


----------



## dessiato (Sep 21, 2014)

X Men, and its follow on films, is absolutely dreadful. Matrix is not worth wasting time watching. The Godfather is boring and unwatchable.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Up was pretty good I thought.
> 
> What is it about Pixar that you don't like? Sentimentalism?


Sentimentalism up to 11
Smileyness up to 12
Sanctimonious
Doe-eyed and other overblown facial expressions





Jesus. Look at his whimpering hands. Pathetic
(often) Speedy dialogue that feels like its designed to keep the attention of a child whose just downed a bottle of coke followed by a tub of ice cream
Scripts and concept written by a committee of liberal do gooders...WALL E cant be accused of subtlety
Zero real darkness
CGI heavy
Smug sense of self-assuredness

Compared to Disney films like Fantasia, Jungle Book. James and the Giant Peach or event later animated ones like Mulan or Aladdin the best Disney Pixar films dont come close. Actually maybe not Aladdin as that seemed to usher in all this hyper fast talking crap.

other criticism ive seen leveled at Pixar include no female leads, very weak on ethnic diversity, and definitely an exhausting and relentless style of story telling



8den said:


> If you don't love the opening ten minutes of Up you literally had your soul removed at birth. Cats avoid you and you cast no Shadow.


Its just that type of You Have To Have An Emotional Response To This bullodzing that these films are loaded with that makes them so unbearable


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Inception was excellent the Batman moves less so. Insomnia is pretty good, but Memento is a hell of calling card 1st film.


Inception is a load of incoherent clever clever drivel with nice suits and wallpaper.


----------



## Ax^ (Sep 21, 2014)

Inception is just a rip off of a duck tales comic 

*shakes fist at the sky*


----------



## fucthest8 (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> CGI heavy



LOL. I genuinely can't believe that's a criticism


----------



## fucthest8 (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> It's obviously subjective



... and thread fail as a result. 80% of the films listed on here, I love. You may as well have started a thread called 
"Things you don't like that some other people do". 1/10.


----------



## Ax^ (Sep 21, 2014)

It's not the threads fault that you like shit movies


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> LOL. I genuinely can't believe that's a criticism


It is often used in lieu of imagination, at the expense of coherence, suspense and our patience


----------



## fucthest8 (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> It is often used in lieu of imagination, at the expense of coherence, suspense and our patience



Indeed, but as a criticism of an animated film it is somewhat superfluous.


----------



## fucthest8 (Sep 21, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> It's not the threads fault that you like shit movies



No, but it _is_ the OPs fault that the thread is shit.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Sentimentalism up to 11
> Smileyness up to 12
> Sanctimonious
> Doe-eyed and other overblown facial expressions
> ...



You make a nice case that will undoubtably ruin much of my future viewing.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 21, 2014)

The first half of Psycho and The Birds (and probably most of Hitchcock's films - I haven't the patience to check them out). Great ideas and beautifully shot but the bulk of the actual films are uninteresting. Watching them is like watching paint dry. Also with Psyho, the interesting character - Norman Bates - is not the focus, for purposes of suspense no doubt (Hitchcock's supposed mastery of suspense is overrated anyway), but the film has pretensions of being intellectual and being a character based drama. Ends up being neither fish nor fowl. Really poor if you compare it to either Peeping Tom or Halloween (a fish and a fowl).

I haven't the endurance for the Godfather films either. I zone out before I can tell if anything interesting is going on. I just don't care about these mafiosi and their doings.

The Exorcist left me cold. I thought it was a comedy. I've no idea why it tops horror film polls. Also another one that takes ages to get started.

I've seen Citizen Kane twice and I can appreciate it was innovative but the story itself has zero merit, especially the ending. Its a corny story about a rich kid and his dabblings and the moral is stay true to yourself and your childhood innocence. Ghastly. And it has the pretense of being profound, too.

I loved Wild Strawberries the first time I saw it, but then I was in the throws of teenage angst. Subsequent viewings have left me thinking that it's not the moody, thoughtful film that I thought it was. Self-pitying and faintly embarrassing.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> It is often used in lieu of imagination, at the expense of coherence, suspense and our patience



its a CGI film. 
do you know what CGI stands for?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 21, 2014)

Harry Brown.  Good God I hate that film.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Inception is a load of incoherent clever clever drivel with nice suits and wallpaper.



inception is beatifully crafted technically ambitious film making. Some people read too much into its symbolism. in the end its a visually interesting sci fi heist movie.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

Favelado said:


> You make a nice case that will undoubtably ruin much of my future viewing.


Thanks, I try


----------



## free spirit (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> I should point out i havent technically seen Amelie or WALL-E, but thats because i couldn't stand more than a few minutes


watch either film on a come down, then come back to this thread and recant.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> watch either film on a come down, then come back to this thread and recant.


thats exactly the level they prey on - emotional vulnerability


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 21, 2014)

Cloud Atlas was fucking dreadful too. 3 hours of confusion.  I'm sure the book is brilliant - but it was a really pretentious film.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> its a CGI film.
> do you know what CGI stands for?


Yes. And many films have rather too much of it done cheaply and it looks shit.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> inception is beatifully crafted technically ambitious film making. Some people read too much into its symbolism. in the end its a visually interesting sci fi heist movie.


But you can't tell what's going on half the time. A tedious Nolan trademark.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 21, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Cloud Atlas was fucking dreadful too. 3 hours of confusion.  I'm sure the book is brilliant - but it was a really pretentious film.



The book is very very good, I can't bring myself to watch the film.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> thats exactly the level they prey on - emotional vulnerability




they are supposed to be kids films y‘know.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> Indeed, but as a criticism of an animated film it is somewhat superfluous.


Ah I see. I'm talking about CGI in general.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 21, 2014)

dessiato said:


> X Men, and its follow on films, is absolutely dreadful. Matrix is not worth wasting time watching. The Godfather is boring and unwatchable.



I think what's happened here is that you just don't like films.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> But you can't tell what's going on half the time. A tedious Nolan trademark.



no I followed inception just fine. dream within a dream this all could in fact be playing out in Di Capros broken mid and what reality supposed to be could be his fantasy. got it.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> But you can't tell what's going on half the time. A tedious Nolan trademark.



Inception is the type of film that makes me think "I can see how this is intelligent but god I'm bored".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> But you can't tell what's going on half the time. A tedious Nolan trademark.



If you're talking about Inception, the characters spend the first half of the movie explaining everything that's going to happen in the second half. If you can't follow that maybe you'd be better off watching Duck Tales.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Ah I see. I'm talking about CGI in general.


No you criticised Wall-e as having too much CGI when every frame of WALL-E is CGI. in fact every frame of every Pixar movie is CGI. in fact Pixar was founded as a CGi animaton studio.

complaining about the amount of CGi im a Pixar movie is a bit “too many notes“


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> inception is beatifully crafted technically ambitious film making. Some people read too much into its symbolism. in the end its a visually interesting sci fi heist movie.


Technically ambitious? It was a fucking waste of an amazing concept.

Dream world where anything is possible, unlimited budget for SFX, top cast and director: check!

Result? A shit James Bond rip off after a few cool training scenes. ANYTHING is possible in the deepest level of the dream and what does it look like? A sparse CGI city.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 21, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Transporter 3



Never heard anyone rave about that tbh. Never heard anyone say anything about any of those movies. I think I just avoid hanging out with Jason Statham fans, for the same reason I avoid hanging out with plankton.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita I would love to know your opinions about "Life is Beautiful." A film basically set up just  to deliver the most emotionally manipulative ending imaginable.

e2a Also Cinema Paradiso


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> they are supposed to be kids films y‘know.


they should grow up



(i did say in my first post on this subject that they are films for kids not aimed at grumpy old men - however kids tv has changed and some of it is for the better but some for the worse)

ETA: also they are kids films but its never kids who tell me to watch them


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Ah I see. I'm talking about CGI in general.


No you criticised Wall-e as having too much CGI when every frame of WALL-E is CGI. in fact every frame of every Pixar movie is CGI. in fact Pixar was founded as a CGi animaton studio.

complaining about the amount of CGi im a Pixar movie is a bit “too many notes


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

Favelado said:


> ska invita I would love to know your opinions about "Life is Beautiful." A film basically set upjust  to deliver the most emotionally manipulative ending imaginable.


definitely... i tried it once and quit sharpishly too... id like to get into this a bit deeper but without watching the films i cant   he was great at his oscar acceptance though, i feel like that was enough of an emotional rollercoaster for me

says it all


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> No you criticised Wall-e as having too much CGI when every frame of WALL-E is CGI. in fact every frame of every Pixar movie is CGI. in fact Pixar was founded as a CGi animaton studio.
> 
> complaining about the amount of CGi im a Pixar movie is a bit “too many notes“


I wasn't criticising wall-e. I thought it was ace


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> No you criticised Wall-e as having too much CGI when every frame of WALL-E is CGI. in fact every frame of every Pixar movie is CGI. in fact Pixar was founded as a CGi animaton studio.
> 
> complaining about the amount of CGi im a Pixar movie is a bit “too many notes


Also, it's fine to criticise something for having too many notes


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> ... and thread fail as a result. 80% of the films listed on here, I love. You may as well have started a thread called
> "Things you don't like that some other people do". 1/10.





fucthest8 said:


> No, but it _is_ the OPs fault that the thread is shit.



The thread was a success. Your inability to comprehend its purpose isn't really the thread's fault


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you're talking about Inception, the characters spend the first half of the movie explaining everything that's going to happen in the second half. If you can't follow that maybe you'd be better off watching Duck Tales.


I couldn't follow the dialogue half of the time, esp Ken Watanabe's. Mumbling is another Nolan thing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Also, it's fine to criticise something for having too many notes



Joe Satriani. Nuff said.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

I don't understand all the hype around 12 Years A Slave. It ranks amongst the worst films I've seen.


----------



## albionism (Sep 21, 2014)

Thelma and Louise....Fuck Off


----------



## Knotted (Sep 21, 2014)

Just remembered Inglorious Basterds (or whatever the wacky spelling is).

I really hate that film. Following reasons:

1) It's another film where there is far too much yacking. Boring dialogue and long sequences where nothing happens. It's an action film with pretenses.
2) It lacks dramatic coherency. The plot meanders all over the place.
3) Its about revenge but lacks the balls to be dark. Tarantino wimps out completely.
4) The film is pro-terrorist, which is fine by me, but the film lacks the balls to state this openly. Tarantino, you're a wimp.
5) The Jew-hunter character with his admiration for "Jewish rats" is not nearly as interesting as you think it is, Quentin.
6) For all its apparent comic strip appeal, this film is pure Hollywood balderdash. Quick fix dramatic solution for serious and deep political and military problems. An insult to everyone who fought and died in that war.
7) The film offers the audience precisely what the audience wants (or at least that's the intention). It makes no effort to shock or to challenge. In its own way it is comparable to schmaltz like Love Actually (which in its own way thinks it is being daring). These two films represent everything that has gone wrong with modern cinema. The cinema of gratification.
8) It is an insult to Holocaust survivors. "Why didn't you fight back?" etc.

Overall, the film is in appalling taste and doesn't even realise it.


----------



## JTG (Sep 21, 2014)

I didn't realise anybody took it so seriously tbh


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Anything with Vin Diesel



Not sure Vin Diesel fits into "widely regarded as good" territory.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> no I followed inception just fine. dream within a dream this all could in fact be playing out in Di Capros broken mid and what reality supposed to be could be his fantasy. got it.


Yeah, its not hard to get, just shit.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 21, 2014)

isvicthere? said:


> Not sure Vin Diesel fits into "widely regarded as good" territory.



Groot!


----------



## Knotted (Sep 21, 2014)

JTG said:


> I didn't realise anybody took it so seriously tbh



To be fair, I'm not sure anybody raves about it either.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

Knotted said:


> To be fair, I'm not sure anybody raves about it either.


Lots of people do. Have a look on IMDB at the scores and reviews.
It bored me to sleep on 2 occasions and I never bothered finishing it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Cloud Atlas was fucking dreadful too. 3 hours of confusion.  I'm sure the book is brilliant - but it was a really pretentious film.




you have to pay attention.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> you have to pay attention.



I did and it was still SHIT. 

I haven't read the book make it makes sense if you read it and know what's going on. Kind of defeats the purpose of a standard alone film.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> they should grow up



Look what you've done


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2014)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I did and it was still SHIT.
> 
> I haven't read the book make it makes sense if you read it and know what's going on. Kind of defeats the purpose of a standard alone film.




i have the book on my to-read pile. The film does make sense- did you see Magnolia? similar structure


----------



## Knotted (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Lots of people do. Have a look on IMDB at the scores and reviews.
> It bored me to sleep on 2 occasions and I never bothered finishing it.



Just reading through some of the reviews. It seems that people either love it or hate it. I don't anybody has over-thought it to the extent that I have, though.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

Knotted said:


> 8) It is an insult to Holocaust survivors. "Why didn't you fight back?" etc.


i dont think thats it (warsaw ghetto uprising?), its meant as a comic book cathartic revenge fantasy - a bit like raiders of the lost ark - but one more  from the exploitation cinema end of the spectrum


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Knotted said:


> Just remembered Inglorious Basterds (or whatever the wacky spelling is).
> 
> I really hate that film. Following reasons:
> 
> 1) It's another film where there is far too much yacking. Boring dialogue and long sequences where nothing happens. It's an action film with pretenses.



I dunno the opening 15 minutes is solid. It's kind of like Saving Private Ryan. It bears little resemblance to the dross that follows. 



> 8) It is an insult to Holocaust survivors. "Why didn't you fight back?" etc.



Hitler and the entire Nazi leaders are killed by a Jewish woman who's family was murdered by Nazis.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Ah I see. I'm talking about CGI in general.



No sorry that was Ska Invita. 

Ska Do you know what CGI is?


----------



## Knotted (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i dont think thats it (warsaw ghetto uprising?), its meant as a comic book cathartic revenge fantasy - a bit like raiders of the lost ark - but one more  from the exploitation cinema end of the spectrum



YES! That's exactly why I hated it. It was a cathartic revenge fantasy. Kill Bill was also a revenge fantasy, but was more troubling and thus more interesting. But what really appalls is doing cathartic (alternative) history. The film lacks courage. (It's boring as well, but that's a secondary objection).

(I know that the film wasn't intending to insult Holocaust survivors, but that doesn't mean that's what it does.)


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> No sorry that was Ska Invita.
> 
> Ska Do you know what CGI is?


too much CGI in Pixar movies was meant as a joke


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Favelado said:


> ska invita I would love to know your opinions about "Life is Beautiful." A film basically set up just  to deliver the most emotionally manipulative ending imaginable.
> 
> e2a Also Cinema Paradiso



You cannot compare the two. Life is Beautiful is a objectionable piece of sentimental  shit on so many levels.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Hitler and the entire Nazi leaders are killed by a Jewish woman who's family was murdered by Nazis.



I'm not sure you've understood the objection.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> too much CGI in Pixar movies was meant as a joke



Yeah my son isnt even two but he is obsessed with Lightening McQueen. Why do Kids love Pixar's worst film.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Knotted said:


> I'm not sure you've understood the objection.



Well please elaborate.

I'll admit I did not like IB for many many many reasons. But that opening scene with in the farm house is excellent.


----------



## dessiato (Sep 21, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think what's happened here is that you just don't like films.


I love film, I have a collection of about 500 now. I am a fan of Nouvelle Vague and European films mainly. It's just that I don't like the aforementioned films.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

Knotted said:


> YES! That's exactly why I hated it. It was a cathartic revenge fantasy. Kill Bill was also a revenge fantasy, but was more troubling and thus more interesting. But what really appalls is doing cathartic (alternative) history. The film lacks courage. (It's boring as well, but that's a secondary objection).
> 
> (I know that the film wasn't intending to insult Holocaust survivors, but that doesn't mean that's what it does.)


why does it appall you? how does it lack courage? How are you meant to spell appall?


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

> As you might recall, Tarantino's movie _Inglourious Basterds_ ends with the slightly unrealistic scene where Hitler is gunned to shit by a group of Nazi-hunting American Jews in 1944, rather than killing himself in his bunker the following year. If you ever wondered what the world would be like if World War II had really ended that way -- well, it turns out Tarantino _has been showing us that reality for the past 20 years._
> 
> You see, in _Inglourious Basterds_, Eli Roth plays a character called Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz.
> 
> ...



Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_1932...erlap-in-mind-blowing-ways.html#ixzz3DxZrFByz

Good article it also explains why the Wire and X-Files overlap.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Yeah my son isnt even two but he is obsessed with Lightening McQueen. Why do Kids love Pixar's worst film.


Pixar, crying over environmental destruction one week, promoting cars to kids the next, selling landfill merchandise every day of the week!

the view sure is nice up here from my horse....


----------



## Knotted (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Well please elaborate.
> 
> I'll admit I did not like IB for many many many reasons. But that opening scene with in the farm house is excellent.



For many years (first two decades or so after the war), Holocaust survivors and their stories were ignored. Victimhood isn't sexy and when historian Raul Hilbert decided to write about it, it was considered to be career suicide. It was not something people wanted to hear about. There was a lot of shame, people didn't like the idea that Jews (and others) could just go to the slaughter without a struggle. And that with a few exceptions is what happened. A film which allows Jews to fight back (and even win and do so with such ease, "kaboom" and its all over) is not just an alternative history, but is a form of finger wagging. That is, "why didn't you fight back?", perhaps even with a hint of "shame on you for not fighting back".


----------



## Knotted (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> why does it appall you? how does it lack courage? How are you meant to spell appall?



How does it lack courage? Well OK. What could have been examined would have been the Nazi (and for that matter non-Nazi German and perhaps French) attitudes towards this gang. It would have been a propaganda gift. Do you not think that exploring the exploitation of "terror attacks" (however you want to define that) would have been a brave move given current events? It was glaring in its omission. And that's without going the cowardliness of simply offering the audience a revenge wish fulfillment.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Knotted said:


> For many years (first two decades or so after the war), Holocaust survivors and their stories were ignored. Victimhood isn't sexy and when historian Raul Hilbert decided to write about it, it was considered to be career suicide. It was not something people wanted to hear about. There was a lot of shame, people didn't like the idea that Jews (and others) could just go to the slaughter without a struggle. And that with a few exceptions is what happened. A film which allows Jews to fight back (and even win and do so with such ease, "kaboom" and its all over) is not just an alternative history, but is a form of finger wagging. That is, "why didn't you fight back?", perhaps even with a hint of "shame on you for not fighting back".



But yeah it's 60 years since the war.  Now we know stories about Polish Jews Military Union in the Warsaw uprising. How Krav Maga was developed. The Camp uprising. The Bielski Partisans (featured in the film Defiance that was also released in 2009).


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Knotted said:


> . And that's without going the cowardliness of simply offering the audience a revenge wish fulfillment.



Yes because Revenge wish fufillment isn't a recurring theme in Tarrinitos films.


----------



## MrSki (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> But yeah it's 60 years since the war.  Now we know stories about Polish Jews Military Union in the Warsaw uprising. How Krav Maga was developed. The Camp uprising. The Bielski Partisans (featured in the film Defiance that was also released in 2009).


Is Defiance any good? It is on the iplayer at the moment & I was thinking of watching but won't bother if it is tosh.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Pixar, crying over environmental destruction one week, promoting cars to kids the next, selling landfill merchandise every day of the week!
> 
> the view sure is nice up here from my horse....



I'd get down of the high horse. Pixar Do things like this


----------



## Knotted (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> But yeah it's 60 years since the war.  Now we know stories about Polish Jews Military Union in the Warsaw uprising. How Krav Maga was developed. The Camp uprising. The Bielski Partisans (featured in the film Defiance that was also released in 2009).



Except that most did not take this route.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Is Defiance any good? It is on the iplayer at the moment & I was thinking of watching but won't bother if it is tosh.



Its not terrible. It's not great.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Knotted said:


> Except that most did not take this route.



Okay so a fantasy wish fulfillment about Jews killing all of the Nazis isn't plausible, or intelligent but it's not the reason to get pissy that IG isn't finger wagging at the jews who didn't fight back.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Yes because Revenge wish fufillment isn't a recurring theme in Tarrinitos films.



I've only seen Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill 1&2 and there is no revenge wish fulfillment in any of those. Not wish fulfillment on the part of the audience, that is.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Okay so a fantasy wish fulfillment about Jews killing all of the Nazis isn't plausible, or intelligent but it's not the reason to get pissy that IG isn't finger wagging at the jews who didn't fight back.



I disagree. I think the film was obscene. Imagine watching it with a Holocaust survivor.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Knotted said:


> I've only seen Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill 1&2  and there is no revenge wish fulfillment in any of those



Are you trolling?





> . Not wish fulfillment on the part of the audience, that is.



Wait. So your problem isn't with Tarrintos vision it's with his audiences interpretation of his film? Thats like giving Peter Jackson shit because Neo Nazis think Lord of the Rings is about White Pride.


----------



## passenger (Sep 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Deer Hunter



tried three times its not just me


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Knotted said:


> I disagree. I think the film was obscene. Imagine watching it with a Holocaust survivor.


Apparently 300 he showed it to in a special screening liked it. 



> There was a collective gasp and a few "ohs," but no one turned away. This was too good, watching Nazis get scalped, brutalized and beaten; this is what should have happened, the audience seemed to be thinking; this is what the Nazis deserved.
> 
> It wasn't hard to sense the visceral reactions that scene provoked, especially among those who had been victimized by real Nazis: relief, revenge, disgust, pleasure. And the awkward bursts of nervous laughter. "Basterds" drew out long-buried emotions that suddenly became raw and immediate.


http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world...rs-watch-jewish-renegades-kill-nazis-1.266333

I'm not getting outraged on behalf of Holocaust survivors. If they want to object to the film the have a voice. 

I disliked IB because I didnt think it was very good.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2014)

passenger said:


> tried three times its not just me




twice here, never made it past the long arsed wdding scene


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2014)

Deliverance

I'm sure onscreen bumrape and dueling banjos kid were shocking back in the day, but no, its just a relatively mundane tale.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Pixar, crying over environmental destruction one week, promoting cars to kids the next, selling landfill merchandise every day of the week!
> 
> the view sure is nice up here from my horse....


Cars wasn't about promoting driving. The message of the film was that winning a trophy isn't everything. The journey and the friendships made on the way were as important. It was a rejection of materialism in favour of experientialism.

Also, Pixar make films...it's Disney selling the merch.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Are you trolling?




Kill Bill is entirely about revenge. But it is emotionally abstract. You know that she is going to kill each and every one of them and all you can do is sit there for the ride. The nastiest character is Elle but even then I didn't feel any satisfaction when she bit the dust. The films weren't about making the audience feel self-satisfied. The ritualised combat with Lucy Liu's character at the end of the first film was respectful, the killing of the assassin who had moved on and had got a family was morally ambiguous and Bill himself was sympathetic (if a little irritating IMO).


----------



## tufty79 (Sep 21, 2014)

All the star wars films.
Haven't ever got past the first five minutes of blade runner.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> I'm not getting outraged on behalf of Holocaust survivors. If they want to object to the film the have a voice.
> 
> I disliked IB because I didnt think it was very good.



I'll admit that nobody else seems to be raising this objection. I am still certain that I am right. I think the film was in extreme poor taste.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Technically ambitious? It was a fucking waste of an amazing concept.
> 
> Dream world where anything is possible, unlimited budget for SFX, top cast and director: check!



Do you know anything about the effects work they did on the movie? How Nolan is adamant about practical effects above all else. How Hans Zimmer threw away a Oscar nomination for a injoke?



> Result? A shit James Bond rip off after a few cool training scenes. ANYTHING is possible in the deepest level of the dream and what does it look like? A sparse CGI city.



Yes James Bond fights in dreams all the time.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Do you know anything about the effects work they did on the movie? How Nolan is adamant about practical effects above all else. How Hans Zimmer threw away a Oscar nomination for a injoke?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes James Bond fights in dreams all the time.


I saw a making-of thing with the floating/low-gravity fight scene. i don't know what that injoke reference is.

The reason I mentioned James Bond was that the dream sequences were pedestrian action sequences, like the ski level. Looked like something out of Bond. Dreams are never that straight forward - why wasn't there more weirdness? Men on skis with machine guns / men in hotels with machine guns / men chasing cars around a city. Boring as fuck.

Then the chance to go really wild in the super deep level and he makes a crumbling city. *yawn*


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Knotted said:


> I'll admit that nobody else seems to be raising this objection. I am still certain that I am right. I think the film was in extreme poor taste.



I dunno I think the opening scene is actually the best thing he's ever done. 

Although it has the weirdest bit of stunt casting. Michael Fassbender was 10 minutes into the tavern scene and all I could think was "Why was Micahel Myers playing a British Officer?"


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I saw a making-of thing with the floating/low-gravity fight scene.



That is helliously complicated. 



> i don't know what that injoke reference is.



http://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/jul/29/inception-soundtrack-edith-piaf

The BRRRAAHHHMMMM noise now so overused on soundtracks? Thats Edif Piaf slowed down. Which makes sense as you drop each level time goes slower, so what they are hearing is  Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien, slowed down massively. 



> The reason I mentioned James Bond was that the dream sequences were pedestrian action sequences, like the ski level. Looked like something out of Bond. Dreams are never that straight forward - why wasn't there more weirdness? Men on skis with machine guns / men in hotels with machine guns / men chasing cars around a city. Boring as fuck.



For starts they weren't normal dreams they were designed controlled dreams. The weirder they'd be, the less control they'd have. And you've never had a dream where you're doing a heist or whatever?



> Then the chance to go really wild in the super deep level and he makes a crumbling city. *yawn*



Symbolising that they're beyond their control and what we're watching is a failed dream, a dream that fell apart. 

What you want a David Lynch action movie. None of my dreams look like what David Lynch thinks dreams look like.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> That is helliously complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your explanations are valid and the film holds up to that logic, but it didn't have to be that way. They could have made a much better film with the same concept but different plot or rules. Why not make dreams more unpredictable? It would have been much more entertaining.

A Lynch version in the same universe, though?


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Your explanations are valid and the film holds up to that logic, but it didn't have to be that way. They could have made a much better film with the same concept but different plot or rules. Why not make dreams more unpredictable? It would have been much more entertaining.
> 
> A Lynch version in the same universe, though?


It's a heist movie set in a dream, it's a hojillion times better than the oceans eleven movies and one of the most innovative blocbusters to have come out in the last decade. 

I'm sorry it's not as good as some people want it to be, but it's by no means a bad movie.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2014)

Dallas did the dream thing ages ago.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Dallas did the dream thing ages ago.



Are you looking to get slapped?


----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Are you looking to get slapped?



I will kill you.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Cars wasn't about promoting driving. The message of the film was that winning a trophy isn't everything. The journey and the friendships made on the way were as important. It was a rejection of materialism in favour of experientialism.
> 
> Also, Pixar make films...it's Disney selling the merch.


you're spoiling my righteous indignation


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> It's a heist movie set in a dream, it's a hojillion times better than the oceans eleven movies and one of the most innovative blocbusters to have come out in the last decade.
> 
> I'm sorry it's not as good as some people want it to be, but it's by no means a bad movie.


oceans movies are good fun tbf, especially Don Cheadle


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

okay, why couldnt Cars be called Bikes? why does a story about experientialism have to involve the experience of driving a car? of being a car in fact. of cars having personalities. how much more do they want impressionable children to identify with cars? make your answer a good one.

as to pixar innocently making the film and disney selling the merch next you'll be telling me police corruption is just a few rotten apples - take of the blinkers fez, pixar is disney


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> okay, why couldnt Cars be called Bikes? why does a story about experientialism have to involve the experience of driving a car? of being a car in fact. of cars having personalities. how much more do they want impressionable children to identify with cars? make your answer a good one.
> 
> as to pixar innocently making the film and disney selling the merch next you'll be telling me police corruption is just a few rotten apples - take of the blinkers fez, pixar is disney



Cars and planes for that matter lend their looks to having human faces, in fact it's a long established trope look at Thomas the tank engine etc


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> oceans movies are good fun tbf, especially Don Cheadle



No for starts everyone is phoning it in up to and including David Holmes who nicks music from his own films for the score. Its a squandering of talent as the plots are dull and hackened (much like the original were Sinatra et all would put in a good 3 hours of work a day, by all accounts)


----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2014)

Do Pixar do Happy Meal tie-ins with McDonalds?


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> okay, why couldnt Cars be called Bikes? why does a story about experientialism have to involve the experience of driving a car? of being a car in fact. of cars having personalities. how much more do they want impressionable children to identify with cars? make your answer a good one.


Because bikes already embody the idea of the journey and experience being as important as the destination. Cars are a step removed from that. You're shielded from the outside world, the weather, other people travelling in the same direction.

On bikes you can chat to cyclists next to you, take detours and go off road, and you feel every bump in the road, every bit of wind, the temperature of the air. There's already an intimate connection with your environment. So if they'd used bikes then the contrast between the initial values and the insights gained over the film would not be as large and would maybe be too subtle for a kids film.

Racing cars is also a much more common experience than racing bikes, especially in America, which is overwhelmingly the largest market for Pixar.

And finally, Cars takes place without any humans present. This is easy to imagine because we know that cars are machines that can drive themselves (and now do). However bikes _need_ human involvement.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2014)

Ah, perfect for kids.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Because bikes already embody the idea of the journey and experience being as important as the destination. Cars are a step removed from that. You're shielded from the outside world, the weather, other people travelling in the same direction.
> 
> On bikes you can chat to cyclists next to you, take detours and go off road, and you feel every bump in the road, every bit of wind, the temperature of the air. There's already an intimate connection with your environment. So if they'd used bikes then the contrast between the initial values and the insights gained over the film would not be as large and would maybe be too subtle for a kids film.
> 
> ...


nice try


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> nice try


I thought I did good


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

ska invita said:


> nice try



Also self driving bikes is a ridiculous concept.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Also self driving bikes is a ridiculous concept.



Not really. Would be great for getting around the city.


----------



## oryx (Sep 21, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> All the star wars films.



I saw Return of the Jedi and it made me not only want to not see another Star Wars film, it made me want to actively avoid them.

Blue Velvet was violent, pretentious shite. I remember leaving the cinema and my boyfriend at the time saying 'Well, that was a load of old bollocks, wasn't it?' and me entirely agreeing!

Saw Casablanca once Christmas and while not thinking it shit at all, IMHO it was meh.


----------



## fucthest8 (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> The thread was a success. Your inability to comprehend its purpose isn't really the thread's fault



David Blaine's stunts had _purpose_. Doesn't mean they were any good.

David Icke has _purpose_. Doesn't mean he isn't mentally I'll.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

oryx said:


> I saw Return of the Jedi and it made me not only want to not see another Star Wars film, it made me want to actively avoid them.



You saw it in the wrong order. 



> Blue Velvet was violent, pretentious shite. I remember leaving the cinema and my boyfriend at the time saying 'Well, that was a load of old bollocks, wasn't it?' and me entirely agreeing!



Agreed. 



> Saw Casablanca once Christmas and while not thinking it shit at all, IMHO it was meh.



I think the mythos about Casablanca hurts it so badly. I think it's great. But to hear people talk about it and then watch it they assume they're about to watch a filmic orgasm. It can't live up to the hype. When doing a pub quiz my favourite hard question is "Who directed Casablanca"? It kills people. It was Michael Curtis and the the film was a hack rush job.


----------



## oryx (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> You saw it in the wrong order.



 I know, I only went to see it cos I was bored and at a loose end after finishing my degree & some friends asked me to go and see it with them!


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

oryx said:


> I know, I only went to see it cos I was bored and at a loose end after finishing my degree & some friends asked me to go and see it with them!



And you saw the special edition didn't you


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

This film is pretentious = I don't understand this film


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> David Blaine's stunts had _purpose_. Doesn't mean they were any good.
> 
> David Icke has _purpose_. Doesn't mean he isn't *mentally I'll.*





Proof of the thread....


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> This film is pretentious = I don't understand this film



No. You watch a pretentious film and think "this is pretentious because of X" 

Having worked on alot of arthouse/student/low budget films I know pretentious when I see it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> It was Michael Curtis .


curtiz. i've been in pub quizzes where that sort of spelling would see you marked wrong.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> No for starts everyone is phoning it in up to and including David Holmes who nicks music from his own films for the score. Its a squandering of talent as the plots are dull and hackened (much like the original were Sinatra et all would put in a good 3 hours of work a day, by all accounts)


but thats fine, im phoning it in watching it too - i think we're all on the same page...its a mellow experience as a result


8den said:


> Also self driving bikes is a ridiculous concept.


youve been brainwashed! its exactly the same as self driving cars, no less ridiculous. though i guess it is a bit harder to give bikes mouths, but not impossible if you try hard enough!


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Yeah but my pencil doesn't autocorrect.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

fucthest8 said:


> David Blaine's stunts had _purpose_. Doesn't mean they were any good.
> 
> David Icke has _purpose_. Doesn't mean he isn't mentally I'll.


Errrrr, OK.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

Blue Velvet "pretentious shite", Inception "most innovative film of the last 10 years"

Ridiculous


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

David Lynch has never been pretentious. He knows exactly what he is doing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> David Lynch has never been pretentious. He knows exactly what he is doing.


pretentious people so often do


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Blue Velvet "pretentious shite", Inception "most innovative film of the last 10 years"
> 
> Ridiculous



Never said it was the most innovative film of the last ten years. I said it was the most innovative blockbuster. There is a difference.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> pretentious people so often do


No they don't.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> David Lynch has never been pretentious. He knows exactly what he is doing.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lynch_Foundation

Hmmmm.....


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

I liked Inception... and Blue Velvet


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lynch_Foundation
> 
> Hmmmm.....


Looks like a load of shite but I'm sure he is perfectly sincere


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> No they don't.


pretentious people are attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

of course they fucking know what they are doing.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

Pretentious people are deluded that their work is more important that it is. They haven't a clue what they are doing


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Looks like a load of shite but I'm sure he is perfectly sincere



I don't doubt he isn't sincere about his films it does not mean they're not pretentious.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I liked Inception... and Blue Velvet



Well you can just go to hell.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Pretentious people are deluded that their work is more important that it is. They haven't a clue what they are doing


no, that's deluded people. tell you what, you work in a library. look round 423, pluck out a dictionary and find out what the words you're using actually mean.


----------



## maya (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> I think the mythos about Casablanca hurts it so badly. I think it's great. But to hear people talk about it and then watch it they assume they're about to watch a filmic orgasm. It can't live up to the hype. When doing a pub quiz my favourite hard question is "Who directed Casablanca"? It kills people. It was Michael Curtis and the the film was a hack rush job.


Bogart carries the film, IMO. Ingrid Bergman wasn't a very good actress. My gran saw her on stage once, and she was awful. (That said, she's surprisingly decent in "Spellbound" though, one of my favourite Hitchcock films.)

It's funny how widespread the myth is about Bogart's character saying 'Play it again, Sam' in the film, although he says no such thing. (Another pub quiz/trick question) I always used to believe he said it, and so many people still do, although it's been debunked again and again... very strange.

I don't remember who mentioned Tarantino, but I think he makes more sense as a director if we remember that he's a fanboy who ended up directing films... He's a huge film fan and used to work at a video store. I agree with a lot of the criticism, but think it's to his credit that he doesn't exactly try to hide his influences/where his inspiration comes from...

"Kill Bill" relies heavily on its influences, the classic japanese samurai rape revenge flick "Lady Snowblood" and the swedish exploitation thriller with a similar theme "Thriller- En grym film [aka They Called Her One-Eye]". Tarantino has publically ackowledged his admiration for Thriller and the lead actress of the film many times. Also for Pam Grier ('the first female action hero'), who he got to work with in "Jackie Brown"... Someone said to compare her role in "Caged Heat" with "Orange Is the New Black" to see how twee OITNB really is- she was really badass 

Also... Although "Pulp Ficion" is kind of meh, it's got a decent soundtrack- I always thought Tarantino selected the songs himself, but read somewhere that he got someone else to do it for him, does anyone know? Also remember a film critic once saying something along the lines of "Pulp Fiction was the start of the era of people using pop songs as the soundtrack instead of relying on composers", I don't remember his argument but had a feeling he regretted it somehow (I don't know- IMO both methods have their weaknesses and strengths...)


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> I don't doubt he isn't sincere about his films it does not mean they're not pretentious.


Yeah it does.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

maya said:


> Also... Although "Pulp Ficion" is kind of meh, it's got a decent soundtrack- I always thought Tarantino selected the songs himself, but read somewhere that he got someone else to do it for him, does anyone know? Also remember a film critic once saying something along the lines of "Pulp Fiction was the start of the era of people using pop songs as the soundtrack instead of relying on composers", I don't remember his argument but had a feeling he regretted it somehow (I don't know- IMO both methods have their weaknesses and strengths...)



Mary Ramos has been the music supervisor on every Tarantino movie since Pulp Fiction (and the thomas the tank engine movie, and josey and the pussycats) A Music supervisor works with a music editor to find music that fits with the style and genre the director wants. A perfect example would be if the editor and director are using a track that they can't afford or get release a music editor/supervisor will find an alternative, and the supervisor will negotiate terms and release. 

Tarantino also worked with the incredible editor Sally Menke, who died after completely Inglorious. They had a very tight relationship. He made all his actors say "hi sally" every day on every set. 

 As someone who works in post this is heart breakingly sweet.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Yeah it does.









Sorry but thats not what pretentious means.


----------



## maya (Sep 21, 2014)

I still don't understand how Kyle MacLachlan could be so great in Twin Peaks, Blue Velvet and many other films, yet so incredibly awful in Showgirls...? Perhaps he's just better at playing likeable characters than villains. Or perhaps he had a bad day or something. I'm confused... Still got the Agent Cooper pics in my kitchen though. (Sigh...)


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

maya said:


> I still don't understand how Kyle MacLachlan could be so great in Twin Peaks, Blue Velvet and many other films, yet so incredibly awful in Showgirls...? Perhaps he's just better at playing likeable characters than villains. Or perhaps he had a bad day or something. I'm confused... Still got the Agent Cooper pics in my kitchen though. (Sigh...)



Actors. I know a reasonably famous 1st AD who announces cast are wrapped  for the day by broadcasting "Lets put the puppets back in their boxes!"


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Yeah it does.


----------



## dessiato (Sep 21, 2014)

Lord of the Rings, much too long and boring.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2014)

dessiato said:


> Lord of the Rings, much too long and boring.



Some great walking in that film.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Sorry but thats not what pretentious means.


*1:*  characterized by pretension: as *a:*  making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing) <the_pretentious_ fraud who assumes a love of culture that is alien to him — Richard Watts>*b:*  expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature<_pretentious_ language><_pretentious_ houses>*2:*  making demands on one's skill, ability, or means *:*ambitious<the _pretentious_ daring of the Green Mountain Boys in crossing the lake — _American Guide Series: Vermont_>


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

Christopher Nolan is far more pretentious than David Lynch.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Christopher Nolan is far more pretentious than David Lynch.



No. No he's not. There's simply too much compromising of your "artist vision" that comes with making a 100,000,000 dollar film, that you don't understanding film a medium. Plus Mullholland drive. Ooooooh lets completely change the actor playing the main character for no bloody reason and make it about a film being made about a previous scene, and cast a visibly ill Richard Pyror and throw in some gratuitious lesbianism. 

If you're going to argue that Lynch isn't pretentious look at his two major studio films. Dune is just awful plodding and dull, and the Elephant Man cold have been directed by anyone it bares no personal touch to the story either thematically or visually.


----------



## tufty79 (Sep 21, 2014)

dessiato said:


> Lord of the Rings, much too long and boring.


Yup!


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> *1:*  characterized by pretension: as *a:*  making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing) <the_pretentious_ fraud who assumes a love of culture that is alien to him — Richard Watts>*b:*  expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature<_pretentious_ language><_pretentious_ houses>*2:*  making demands on one's skill, ability, or means *:*ambitious<the _pretentious_ daring of the Green Mountain Boys in crossing the lake — _American Guide Series: Vermont_>



Thats a ridiculous definition of pretentious (I noticed you skipped a couple links when you googled the word and tried to find a definition that suited your goal. 

My definition of pretentious is someone or something, trying to imbue their work, their actions, or their art with greater meaning and substance that it actually has.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> No. No he's not. There's simply too much compromising of your "artist vision" that comes with making a 100,000,000 dollar film, that you don't understanding film a medium. Plus Mullholland drive. Ooooooh lets completely change the actor playing the main character for no bloody reason and make it about a film being made about a previous scene, and cast a visibly ill Richard Pyror and throw in some gratuitious lesbianism.
> 
> If you're going to argue that Lynch isn't pretentious look at his two major studio films. Dune is just awful plodding and dull, and the Elephant Man cold have been directed by anyone it bares no personal touch to the story either thematically or visually.


What rot


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Thats a ridiculous definition of pretentious (I noticed you skipped a couple links when you googled the word and tried to find a definition that suited your goal.
> 
> My definition of pretentious is someone or something, trying to imbue their work, their actions, or their art with greater meaning and substance that it actually has.


I picked the first link actually.
I would agree with your definition too though.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> Yup!



You're kidding it's the finest 12 hour timotae commercial ever!


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> What rot



Which parts that Lynch is a bit shit, and that the Elephant Man and Dune are crap? Or something else?

Oh and for shits and giggles I've wrote a 2,000 word essay on David Lynch and Auteur theory about 15 years ago.

The conclusion was Auteur theory is rubbish, and David Lynch ain't all that.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> I don't doubt he isn't sincere about his films it does not mean they're not pretentious.



Despite the double negatives that makes no sense at all.......


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Which parts that Lynch is a bit shit, and that the Elephant Man and Dune are crap? Or something else?
> 
> Oh and for shits and giggles I've wrote a 2,000 word essay on David Lynch and Auteur theory about 15 years ago.
> 
> The conclusion was Auteur theory is rubbish, and David Lynch ain't all that.


The last bit about The Elephant Man showing no personal touch of the director.

You keep pulling rank rather pompously. It doesn't make anything you say any more credible.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

dessiato said:


> Lord of the Rings, much too long and boring.



Nooooooooooooooooo 

I love those films...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Which parts that Lynch is a bit shit, and that the Elephant Man and Dune are crap? Or something else?
> 
> Oh and for shits and giggles I've wrote a 2,000 word essay on David Lynch and Auteur theory about 15 years ago.
> 
> The conclusion was Auteur theory is rubbish, and David Lynch ain't all that.


2,000 words suggests undergraduate. i wouldn't bother referring to essays i wrote 15 (or even 20) years ago as a reflection of what anyone except me thought.


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> The last bit about The Elephant Man showing no personal touch of the director.
> 
> You keep pulling rank rather pompously. It doesn't make anything you say any more credible.



but it doesn't. Watch the Elephant Man it bares no resemblance to anything Lynch has done before or since.

 And I'm not pulling rank. It's not like I'm a MD saying "I'm a doctor" I sat in a room and watched a bunch of David Lynch movies on VHS while writing a essay on auteur theory. Film students only get to pull rank on "communications students" they're the worst.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> but it doesn't. Watch the Elephant Man it bares no resemblance to anything Lynch has done before or since.
> 
> And I'm not pulling rank. It's not like I'm a MD saying "I'm a doctor" I sat in a room and watched a bunch of David Lynch movies on VHS while writing a essay on auteur theory. Film students only get to pull rank on "communications students" they're the worst.


so media studies students rank above film students.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> but it doesn't. Watch the Elephant Man it bares no resemblance to anything Lynch has done before or since.
> 
> And I'm not pulling rank. It's not like I'm a MD saying "I'm a doctor" I sat in a room and watched a bunch of David Lynch movies on VHS while writing a essay on auteur theory. Film students only get to pull rank on "communications students" they're the worst.


You clearly missed out a great deal. The Elephant Man has Lynch's hands and mind all over it.


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> You clearly missed out a great deal. The Elephant Man has Lynch's hands and mind all over it.


Yeah, it's heavily influenced by Eraserhead, and The Grandmother.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

From the horse's mouth:



			
				DL said:
			
		

> Well, The Elephant Man was a pretty successful picture. But it was, you know, based on a true story. It was further away from what you say, a personal film, although I felt very personal about it and I got into that world, and I feel I didn't compromise.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Yeah, it's heavily influenced by Eraserhead, and The Grandmother.


Also:



			
				DL said:
			
		

> Well, I'm flipped out over industry and factories - sounds as well as images ... The Elephant Man takes place when industrialization was still starting. It was the beginning of Eraserheads times. I was hoping that the Victorians would have had more machinery around. There wasn't a lot, but what they did have made a lot noise and a lot of smoke.


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 21, 2014)

I've written an essay before.

Just thought I'd mention it.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Which parts that Lynch is a bit shit, and that the Elephant Man and Dune are crap? Or something else?
> 
> Oh and for shits and giggles I've wrote a 2,000 word essay on David Lynch and Auteur theory about 15 years ago.
> 
> The conclusion was Auteur theory is rubbish, and David Lynch ain't all that.



I wrote an essay that proves you wrong...


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> The last bit about The Elephant Man showing no personal touch of the director.
> 
> You keep pulling rank rather pompously. It doesn't make anything you say any more credible.


From the man trying to redefine pretentious.

Lynchs direction of EM is just dull it gives nothing new and furthermore it looks like a Lynch movie. nor does his dirction on dune which feels just overwhelmed by the scale story and budget. Nolam handles all 3 and gives a great film


----------



## doddles (Sep 21, 2014)

Forrest Fucking Gump.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> From the man trying to redefine pretentious.
> 
> Lynchs direction of EM is just dull it gives nothing new and furthermore it looks like a Lynch movie. nor does his dirction on dune which feels just overwhelmed by the scale story and budget. Nolam handles all 3 and gives a great film



jodorowsky gives a good anecdote of him seeing Dune- he'd given it a miss but was at a loose end with some people so had a watch and came out saying 'This is brilliant! It's terrible, absolutely terrible'


----------



## 8den (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I wrote an essay that proves you wrong...



I never said i was more right than anyone just that i may hae looked into this more than you. i can talk about how Lynch feels that EM and Dune are his least fav films and how he feels studio control took his visin away from tthem.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 21, 2014)

The avengers


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> I never said i was more right than anyone just that i may hae looked into this more than you. i can talk about how Lynch feels that EM and Dune are his least fav films and how he feels studio control took his visin away from tthem.


Even though there's a quote from him on this very page saying he didn't compromise (on EM)?


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

David Lynch said:
			
		

> This apple-cheeked Eagle Scout had a hard time proving himself to a seasoned British crew. ‘You know they say forest fires are around 2,000F? This was a baptism by fire far hotter than that. I thought I would be fired off the film. But I had total support from Mel, and it all came right in the end. Mel gave me so much freedom and support.’



He's talking about Mel Brooks, the producer on the Elephant Man.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

My kid raves about most (or raved about most) films which included transformers. I hated them all with a passion, all action all cgi zero story or plot!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2014)

8den said:


> Lynchs direction of EM is just dull it gives nothing new and furthermore it looks like a Lynch movie.


It's an outstanding film, visually and sonically distinct.
I thought you said it didn't look like a Lynch movie. Make your mind up.


----------



## oryx (Sep 21, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> It's an outstanding film, visually and sonically distinct.
> I thought you said it didn't look like a Lynch movie. Make your mind up.



I have always thought Lynch's films have two distinct genres - the strange, disturbing black and white ones (Eraserhead, Elephant Man) and the small town America equally strange and disturbing ones (Blue Velvet & Twin Peaks) which have a different atmosphere.

I think I've only seen those four. I loved the first two and hated the second two.


----------



## albionism (Sep 22, 2014)

Any of the "Bourne" films.   Arse piss.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Sep 22, 2014)

Lots of people like David Lynch, I just can't see it


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 22, 2014)

albionism said:


> Any of the "Bourne" films.   Arse piss.




they lost a ton of depth in translation from the Ludlum books. In the books Bourne was forged in the fires of indo-china during the birth of the vietnam war, hunting a thinly disguised version of Carlos the Jackal, half his brain gone through a bullet etc.

Solid action thriller books. Avoid the one done by eric van lustbader after ludlum died, that one is crap.


----------



## 8den (Sep 22, 2014)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> The avengers



On a limb you're talking about the Avengers Assembly film by Josh Weedon and not the Late 90s remake of the Avengers with Fiennes and Thurman.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2014)

8den said:


> Josh Weedon


you don't like josh whedon, do you.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 22, 2014)

8den said:


> On a limb you're talking about the Avengers Assembly film by Josh Weedon and not the Late 90s remake of the Avengers with Fiennes and Thurman.


Yes the 90s Avengers is well known to be shit.

Everyone EVERYONE had been telling me that the Avengers (assemble) was fantastic. . . . but it wasn't. It was shit.
People are saying similar things about the guardians of the galaxy, so I am guessing that is shit as well.

I actually like a lot of Joss W stuff, and I thought Super and Sliver (by the GOTG bloke) are great films. Plus Red Letter Media said both were great (and they are usually spot on). 

Mind you, that's no way to judge if a film is good. If everyone tells me its good then it's probably shit? HELP.


----------



## Chz (Sep 22, 2014)

isvicthere? said:


> Not sure Vin Diesel fits into "widely regarded as good" territory.


The Iron Giant.


----------



## 8den (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> It's an outstanding film, visually and sonically distinct.
> I thought you said it didn't look like a Lynch movie. Make your mind up.



I meant it doesn't look like a Lynch movie. Also the essay comment was a dickish statement by me, and I apologise to all.

Dune is by no means an outstanding film. It's incoherent, poorly serves the book skipping over details and plot points that make the novel what it is. It's a terrible adaption that is not faithful to the source.


----------



## 8den (Sep 22, 2014)

Chz said:


> The Iron Giant.



Pitch Black is a perfect sci fi B movie. I'd put it up there with The Thing. 

And the dude is a serious AD&D player. Can't take that away from him.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

8den said:


> I meant it doesn't look like a Lynch movie. Also the essay comment was a dickish statement by me, and I apologise to all.



Well it does look and sound totally like a Lynch movie


----------



## 8den (Sep 22, 2014)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Yes the 90s Avengers is well known to be shit.



We used to offer a "bring it back within the hour and pick a new movie absolutely free" policy on the Avengers in the video shop I worked in 98




> Everyone EVERYONE had been telling me that the Avengers (assemble) was fantastic. . . . but it wasn't. It was shit.
> People are saying similar things about the guardians of the galaxy, so I am guessing that is shit as well.
> 
> I actually like a lot of Joss W stuff, and I thought Super and Sliver (by the GOTG bloke) are great films. Plus Red Letter Media said both were great (and they are usually spot on).
> ...



Its a don't believe the hype thing. Look my wife is such a enormous marvel nerd that she objected to X-men2 (widely regarded as the best X-men movie). I really like Avengers Assemble. It did exactly what it said on the tin. You got exactly what was promised. 

I've followed James Gunn's career since he was making Troma movies I think Sliver is very fun (Nathan Fillion for the win) but just went OTT, I've not seen Super or GOTG (my cinema time is way down since I had a kid)


----------



## 8den (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Well it does look and sound totally like a Lynch movie



Personally I think thematically and visually it didnt. And it wasn't fair to the book. The  Sardaukar look like radioactive trash collectors, the weird cat thing, the heart plugs, voiceover inner monologues (generally a bad sign in sci fi) and letting Paul become a Sci Fi jesus for Dune at the end. And he left out huge chunks of the book.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Sep 22, 2014)

8den said:


> Personally I think thematically and visually it didnt. And it wasn't fair to the book. The  Sardaukar look like radioactive trash collectors, the weird cat thing, the heart plugs, voiceover inner monologues (generally a bad sign in sci fi) and letting Paul become a Sci Fi jesus for Dune at the end. And he left out huge chunks of the book.


Yes, he totally ruined Dune.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 22, 2014)

8den said:


> Personally I think thematically and visually it didnt. And it wasn't fair to the book. The  Sardaukar look like radioactive trash collectors, the weird cat thing, the heart plugs, voiceover inner monologues (generally a bad sign in sci fi) and letting Paul become a Sci Fi jesus for Dune at the end. And he left out huge chunks of the book.


You're talking about Dune when OU and the previous pages' discussion was all about EM.

I don't think anyone is defending Dune and Lynch himself has disowned it as a piece of work.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

8den said:


> Personally I think thematically and visually it didnt. And it wasn't fair to the book. The  Sardaukar look like radioactive trash collectors, the weird cat thing, the heart plugs, voiceover inner monologues (generally a bad sign in sci fi) and letting Paul become a Sci Fi jesus for Dune at the end. And he left out huge chunks of the book.


THE ELEPHANT MAN.
I have not been talking about Dune.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> THE ELEPHANT MAN.
> I have not been talking about Dune.


have you looked up pretentious yet?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> have you looked up pretentious yet?


I have. See earlier posts.


----------



## isvicthere? (Sep 22, 2014)

Not quite on topic, but there's a lot of "comparison with the book" on this thread.

Does it slightly irk anyone else that the scene which gives "Trainspotting" its title is not in the film?


----------



## Chz (Sep 22, 2014)

8den said:


> Pitch Black is a perfect sci fi B movie. I'd put it up there with The Thing.
> 
> And the dude is a serious AD&D player. Can't take that away from him.


I would've mentioned that if The Iron Giant wasn't so darned good. Pitch Black was good fun.


----------



## dlx1 (Sep 22, 2014)

Matrix
Fast and furious
Harry Potter -  maybe as I'm not a child
Lord of the rings
Wicker Man
Any football hooligan film apart from ID but is very dated now
The Beach 
Transformers
Oceans eleven so on
Mission impossible

Anything with Jadon Staton.


----------



## imposs1904 (Sep 23, 2014)

The Ian Dury biopic was a bit shit . . . unfortunately.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 23, 2014)

dlx1 said:


> Matrix
> Fast and furious
> Harry Potter -  maybe as I'm not a child
> Lord of the rings
> ...


do people rave about any of those films?


----------



## Sue (Sep 23, 2014)

Fear and loathing in Las Vegas.
My own private Idaho.
Beasts of the Southern Wild.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

titanic


----------



## mwgdrwg (Sep 23, 2014)

David Lynch is a genius you fucking morons!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 23, 2014)

out of all the davids who make films I prefer Cronenburg


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 23, 2014)

Lean is hard to beat!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> The Third Man is one of the best films ever made.



On today on Film4 at 4.50


----------



## Utopia (Dec 9, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> Requim for a dream.
> 
> 
> Although I do find the ending montage hysterical


 .......you my friend, have a dark sense of humour! That film traumatised me for days!


----------



## stereoisomer (Dec 9, 2014)

This thread demonstrates that whenever anyone likes anything, there will be someone on Urban who thinks that thing is shit.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2014)

That's not peculiar to Urban though.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 12, 2018)

doddles said:


> Forrest Fucking Gump.



I've never seen this film until.....right now. It's on telly and I'm two-thirds of the way through. It's fucking* shit*. Hanks is terrible, the script is terrible, and it just grates. I'm not comfortable with its depictions of black people, nor its depiction of someone with learning difficulties. The scene where Hanks has been videoshopped into the moment where black students cross the threshold of Alabama University - a key moment in civil rights history - so that he can pick someone's notebook and hand it to them - is fucking crass.

So disappointed.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 12, 2018)

PursuedByBears said:


> Anything by David Lynch



Even The Elephant Man?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 13, 2018)

The Shape of Water - not shit, but definitely "meh".


----------



## Reno (Oct 13, 2018)

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is a film which was an Oscar winner and which a lot of people I know seem to love, but there is nothing about it that feels authentic. With In Bruges Martin McDonagh made one of my favourite comedies of the last couple of decades but he understands fuck all about the American Midwest. Nothing rings true about that film, be that it’s racially diverse small town, the middle aged hicks married to young women who look like supermodels or Frances McDormands speech about Catholic priests.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 13, 2018)

Nightmare before Christmas
All those lord of the rings shite
I would say harry potter, but I am assuming kids love it because it puts visuals the the books they adore. Still shit, but now that I see it through my daughters eyes it's something different. 

Oh and those big avengers movies. Ultron and that other one where they all team up. 
Actually they are basically all shit apart from  Guardians and Ragnarök. 

Off topic but. . . I quite liked Valerian, and everybody hated that.


----------



## Reno (Oct 13, 2018)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> All those lord of the rings shite
> I would say harry potter, but I am assuming kids love it because it puts visuals the the books they adore. Still shit, but now that I see it through my daughters eyes it's something different.
> 
> Oh and those big avengers movies. Ultron and that other one where they all team up.
> ...


I think of these particular mainstream blockbusters are ok for what they. Generally they get picked apart and complained about more than they get raved about, even if the the world and its dog goes to see them.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 13, 2018)

Reno said:


> I think of these particular mainstream blockbusters are ok for what they. Generally they get picked apart and complained about more than they get raved about, even if the the world and its dog goes to see them.



Thats why I mentioned them, I don't think they are ok for what they are. I assumed for instance that the lord of the rings would be at least passable if so many people were going nuts about it. . . But it's utter utter shite. 
The marvel things should be a decent blockbuster and a fun ride. Most are I suppose ok, but the age of Ultron and that other team up avengers one are absolutely terrible. Not ok for what they are.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Oct 13, 2018)

The best thing about North by Northwest is the clothes.


----------



## Reno (Oct 13, 2018)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Thats why I mentioned them, I don't think they are ok for what they are. I assumed for instance that the lord of the rings would be at least passable if so many people were going nuts about it. . . But it's utter utter shite.
> The marvel things should be a decent blockbuster and a fun ride. Most are I suppose ok, but the age of Ultron and that other team up avengers one are absolutely terrible. Not ok for what they are.


But you hate almost anything anyway. 

I don’t dislike them but I wouldn’t rave about any of them either and I don’t think I’ve personally have heard anybody rave about them. It’s hardly an original sentiment to knock the most mainstream of blockbusters, of course you can find lots of faults in films aimed at the widest possibility audience. However I hear a lot of people rave about the mock-edgy Three Billboards.


----------



## Jay Park (Oct 13, 2018)

I hate Scarface and can remember a time a decade or so ago when every bachelor I knew had a pic of scene from that movie in their flat


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Oct 14, 2018)

Trainspotting.


----------



## Mumbles274 (Oct 14, 2018)

Has anyone said 2001 yet?

Fuck me that is tedious shit to watch. Tried again last night. Don't think I've ever got the end


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Oct 14, 2018)

Mumbles274 said:


> Has anyone said 2001 yet?
> 
> Fuck me that is tedious shit to watch. Tried again last night. Don't think I've ever got the end



Maniacs or A Space Odyssey?

If it's Odyssey..then it's been mentioned a lot.
It's a long, drawn out, constipated, boring, yawn.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 14, 2018)

Jay Park said:


> I hate Scarface and can remember a time a decade or so ago when every bachelor I knew had a pic of scene from that movie in their flat



It is shit I agree. One of those ‘classics’ I convinced myself I need to watch before I die. 

Load of bollocks.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Oct 14, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> It is shit I agree. One of those ‘classics’ I convinced myself I need to watch before I die.
> 
> Load of bollocks.




Don't...you'll die happier for it.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Oct 14, 2018)

PippinTook said:


> It's a long, drawn out, constipated, boring, yawn



'Barry Lyndon' is another Kubrick film that some people may call 'lyrical and paced' but the likes of me call 'wanky and boring'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2018)

JuanTwoThree said:


> 'Barry Lyndon' is another Kubrick film that some people may call 'lyrical and paced' but the likes of me call 'wanky and boring'.


The likes of you being people with a truncated attention span I suspect


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Oct 14, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> The likes of you being people with a truncated attention span I suspect



It's 3 hours and 23 minutes long!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2018)

JuanTwoThree said:


> It's 3 hours and 23 minutes long!


so?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 14, 2018)

Fuck that.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Oct 14, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> so?



TBF according to some sources it was a mere 3 hours.

I'll happily watch a 3 hour film. But not this one.  Kubrick decided to film some scenes using only candlelight: the film is soporific.

Have you seen it?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 14, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> It is shit I agree. One of those ‘classics’ I convinced myself I need to watch before I die.
> 
> Load of bollocks.



Pacino's accent alone ffs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2018)

JuanTwoThree said:


> TBF according to some sources it was a mere 3 hours.
> 
> I'll happily watch a 3 hour film. But not this one.  Kubrick decided to film some scenes using only candlelight: the film is soporific.
> 
> Have you seen it?


Yes, I saw it at the bfi and very much enjoyed it, so much so that I sought out the book by thackeray


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Oct 14, 2018)

I saw it because I like(d) Thackeray. But not the film. Each to their own.


----------



## Reno (Oct 14, 2018)

JuanTwoThree said:


> TBF according to some sources it was a mere 3 hours.
> 
> I'll happily watch a 3 hour film. But not this one.  Kubrick decided to film some scenes using only candlelight: the film is soporific.
> 
> Have you seen it?


This may come as a surprise but there is no objective measure or duration or lighting method, at which point a film becomes soporific or boring. You either are able to engage with a film or you do not. I’ve watched Barry Lyndon half a dozen times since it’s come out. When I first saw it, it was on the telly when I was too young and I didn’t quite get it. The next time I caught it at the cinema in my twenties and it blew me away. Every second of it is earned, what surprised me the most was how cuttingly funny the film is.

The same thing happened with 2001 btw. It took a couple of viewings, the second one when I wasn’t a child anymore, to really appreciate the film.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Oct 14, 2018)

Reno said:


> This may come as a surprise but there is no objective measure or duration or lighting method, at which point a film becomes soporific or boring. You either are able to engage with a film or you do not. I’ve watched Barry Lyndon half a dozen times since it’s come out. When I first saw it, it was on the telly when I was too young and I didn’t quite get it. The next time I caught it at the cinema in my twenties and it blew me away. Every second of it is earned, what surprised me the most was how cuttingly funny the film is.
> 
> The same thing happened with 2001 btw. It took a couple of viewings, the second one when I wasn’t a child anymore, to really appreciate the film.



So we have some kind of match  with the thread-title. Though I wouldn't call the film 'actually shit'. It's not.

There's no need to be sarky with the 'It may come as a surprise' and I'm not suggesting that the length per se or the lighting as such made the film objectively boring. I'm saying that, as you more generously put it, you can either engage with a film or you can't. I was in my twenties when I saw it for the first time at a time when I was going to see other longer and no less challenging films, and I've caught it on TV a few times since then. There's no denying the craft, the acting, the filming (though I personally don't like the set-pieces  that are supposed to look like oil-paintings).


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 14, 2018)

Reno said:


> But you hate almost anything anyway.
> 
> I don’t dislike them but I wouldn’t rave about any of them either and I don’t think I’ve personally have heard anybody rave about them. It’s hardly an original sentiment to knock the most mainstream of blockbusters, of course you can find lots of faults in films aimed at the widest possibility audience. However I hear a lot of people rave about the mock-edgy Three Billboards.



Yeah, fair enough and I agree with three billboards. I'm stupidly always drawn to the blockbusters even though they are never really my thing.


----------



## Reno (Oct 15, 2018)

_A Single Man_ was the directing debut by fashion designer Tom Ford and when it got rave reviews I though the film world had lost its mind. The 1964 novel by Christopher Isherwood, about a middle aged gay academic losing his partner of many years, was both ground- and heartbreaking. Steamrolling over any semblance of plausibility, Tom Ford turns it exactly into the type of film you'd expect a fashion designer would make. So now the main character, a man of modest means, lives in a mid-century luxury pad, the gay men he's surrounded by are played by fashion models and Julianne Moore as his gal-pal, swishes around in haute couture. What was a wrenching story of bereavement becomes  a Tom Ford lifestyle commercial about his design preoccupations.


----------



## Reno (Oct 15, 2018)

Dr_Herbz said:


> It's obviously subjective but there are films that some people, including critics, rave about... but they're a bag o' shite!
> 
> Under The Skin... One of the worst films I've ever had the misfortune of sharing the same room as, yet some people think it's a masterpiece... Baggashite!



That however is one of my top three movies of the last decade by the best British film director currently working.


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Oct 15, 2018)

Trainspotting.


----------



## Reno (Oct 15, 2018)

Rosemary Jest said:


> Trainspotting.


Are you going to post that every day ?


----------



## Idaho (Oct 15, 2018)

All action films now that I am over 40. Don't care, can't be bothered. Oh..a car chase.. and a fight.. And now they are dangling from a helicopter... Yawn


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Oct 16, 2018)

Reno said:


> Are you going to post that every day ?



Yes.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 16, 2018)

Idaho said:


> All action films now that I am over 40. Don't care, can't be bothered. Oh..a car chase.. and a fight.. And now they are dangling from a helicopter... Yawn


I had the misfortune of being taken to the cinema to see a Vin Diesel film a couple of years ago. It was worse than I could possibly have imagined.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 16, 2018)

Mumbles274 said:


> Has anyone said 2001 yet?
> 
> Fuck me that is tedious shit to watch. Tried again last night. Don't think I've ever got the end



First saw it circa 1980 when RTE showed it. Blew me away, even though I didn't understand it. Have probably watched it 5 or 6 times since, most recently when it got a re-release in London some years ago. I don't pretend to understand it that much more but I still love it.


----------



## Mumbles274 (Oct 16, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> First saw it circa 1980 when RTE showed it. Blew me away, even though I didn't understand it. Have probably watched it 5 or 6 times since, most recently when it got a re-release in London some years ago. I don't pretend to understand it that much more but I still love it.


I think that's the thing for me, amazing cinematography but it's still just pictures on a screen with a meaning that just doesn't offer itself up freely enough


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 16, 2018)

Mumbles274 said:


> I think that's the thing for me, amazing cinematography but it's still just pictures on a screen with a meaning that just doesn't offer itself up freely enough



Yeah, one of those films that you can chose to read meaning into or just sit back and absorb it. Some film heads reckon that Tarkovsky's _Solaris_ is the better, if you want big, puzzling sci-fi - and while I liked it, I prefer Soderbergh's version.

Not sure I've seen a Kubrick film that I didn't admire in some way but sure, _2001_ is still causing debate 50 years on, which is healthy


----------



## Reno (Oct 16, 2018)

I never thought the meaning of 2001 is that hard to decipher but it’s also a film which at least once should be seen on a big screen to be understood. The film is pure cinema, designed as an audio/visual experience rather than an illustrated story with a straightforward plot. Watching it on a telly, the film looses much of that. Much of its meaning is conveyed in its audio and visuals rather than in expositionary dialogue.

2001 isn’t wilfully obtuse, the reason why it’s enigmatic is because its subject matter is the mystery of an alien intelligence which can’t be grasped by human understanding. It’s about an alien lifeform which has influenced evolution on earth for millennia, from a first contact with the apes at the start, to a point when humanity has evolved where it can meet its makers. 2001 is the rare science fiction film where the aliens are genuinely alien. The end is ambiguous because the alien, its way of communication and its motives are mysterious. Contact appears to effect a change in time and space and as implied, finally another step in human evolution. Isn’t that enough ? The recent Arrival makes an aspect which 2001 dealt with more explicit. Communication itself changes the way Bowman experiences time, it’s not linear anymore and space too may fold in on itself.

One thing which probably throws a lot of people is that Kubrick never shows the aliens. He worked on designs for them, but they always ended up looking like monsters or something an audience can relate to on some level. He decided to only show the results of their way of communicating to keep them genuinely alien. The monolith, an alien device which appears throughout, is the only material proof of them. They aren’t the bumpy headed aliens who said something like “Take me to your leader” which we got till then. Kubrick and Clarke really thought about what an encounter with a lifeform outside of human understanding would be like.

2001 also takes on themes about the dehumanisation of man via an increasing relieance on technology and the point where an A.I. becomes more human than man. HAL emerges as the most emotional and relatable character in the film.

Despite its age 2001 is still probably the most scientifically accurate about space travel, due to the tremendous amount of research that went into it. It conveyed both the awe of space travel but also the tremendous loneliness of being out there. And if seen on a big screen, it’s overwhelmingly gorgeous. I also don’t agree with the film being boring. The midsection where the astronauts have to outwit HAL to stay alive, is incredibly tense.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Oct 16, 2018)

I once had an ex show me the league of extraordinary gentlemen- I think, it had Sean Connery in.
She thought it was a  brilliant amazing film. 
 In all hindsight we weren't matched on many levels. I would like to think I wasn't shallow enough to just be interested in her for looks. But I recall another date with the same girl to watch Willy Wonka with Johnny Depp.
I probably put it down to quirkiness at the time.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 16, 2018)

Reno said:


> I never thought the meaning of 2001 is that hard to decipher but it’s also a film which at least once should be seen on a big screen to be understood. The film is pure cinema, designed as an audio/visual experience rather than an illustrated story with a straightforward plot. Watching it on a telly, the film looses much of that. Much of its meaning is conveyed in its audio and visuals rather than in expositionary dialogue.
> 
> 2001 isn’t wilfully obtuse, the reason why it’s egnicmatic is because its subject matter is the mystery of an alien intelligence which can’t quite be grasped by human understanding. It’s about an alien lifeform which has influenced evolution on earth for millennia, from a first contact with the apes at the start, to a point when humanity has evolved where it can meet its makers. 2001 is the rare science fiction film where the aliens are genuinely alien. The end is ambiguous because the alien, its way of communication and its motives are mysterious. Contact appears to effect a change in time and space and as implied, finally another step in human evolution. Isn’t that enough ? The recent Arrival makes an aspect which 2001 dealt with more explicit. Communication itself changes the way Bowman experiences time, it’s not linear anymore and space too may fold in on itself.
> 
> ...



Agree with this but I was relatively young on my first viewing, so that's why each subsequent viewing was like completing a puzzle for me. I can't say I completely understand everything about it but that's what I like about it. The sense of mystery and awe.


----------



## Reno (Oct 16, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> Agree with this but I was relatively young on my first viewing, so that's why each subsequent viewing was like completing a puzzle for me. I can't say I completely understand everything about it but that's what I like about it. The sense of mystery and awe.


The first time I saw the film I was too young as well. I think many of the greatest films take a few viewings for them to truly land. 

2001 is isn’t meant to be completely understood because its subject matter is a lifeform which is outside of human comprehension. That doesn’t mean it’s wilfully obscure as many people here accuse it of being. Everything about it makes sense.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 16, 2018)

Reno said:


> The first time I saw the film I was too young as well. I think many of the greatest films take a few viewings for them to truly land.
> 
> 2001 is isn’t meant to be completely understood because its subject matter is a lifeform which is outside of human comprehension. That doesn’t mean it’s wilfully obscure as many people here accuse it of being. Everything about it makes sense.



I guess it's down to personal intepretation. Ever see the sequel?


----------



## Reno (Oct 16, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> I guess it's down to personal intepretation. Ever see the sequel?


Yup, it’s shit. Not sure anybody raves about it though.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 16, 2018)

Reno said:


> Yup, it’s shit. Not sure anybody raves about it though.



Not that I'm aware of. I didn't hate it but it just was average and in trying to unravel the mystery of the Kubrick film, it detracted from it.

Am not against sequels, in general, but this one really wasn't needed.


----------



## Virtual Blue (Oct 16, 2018)

Solaris remake. Absolute wank.


----------



## Chz (Oct 16, 2018)

Reno said:


> That however is one of my top three movies of the last decade by the best British film director currently working.


Add me to the "_Under The Skin_ was awful" crowd. It certainly divides opinion, so there must be something to it. I get it, I just think it's wanky as all fuck.


----------



## Dr. Furface (Oct 16, 2018)

Babydriver. The opening heist and car chase are great, but its direction is downhill all the way after that.


----------



## ginger_syn (Oct 16, 2018)

Reno said:


> I never thought the meaning of 2001 is that hard to decipher but it’s also a film which at least once should be seen on a big screen to be understood. The film is pure cinema, designed as an audio/visual experience rather than an illustrated story with a straightforward plot. Watching it on a telly, the film looses much of that. Much of its meaning is conveyed in its audio and visuals rather than in expositionary dialogue.
> 
> 2001 isn’t wilfully obtuse, the reason why it’s enigmatic is because its subject matter is the mystery of an alien intelligence which can’t be grasped by human understanding. It’s about an alien lifeform which has influenced evolution on earth for millennia, from a first contact with the apes at the start, to a point when humanity has evolved where it can meet its makers. 2001 is the rare science fiction film where the aliens are genuinely alien. The end is ambiguous because the alien, its way of communication and its motives are mysterious. Contact appears to effect a change in time and space and as implied, finally another step in human evolution. Isn’t that enough ? The recent Arrival makes an aspect which 2001 dealt with more explicit. Communication itself changes the way Bowman experiences time, it’s not linear anymore and space too may fold in on itself.
> 
> ...


Trouble is for me is I've never been able to watch it without falling asleep and I've tried many times, the book is good though.


----------



## Virtual Blue (Oct 16, 2018)

Dr. Furface said:


> Babydriver. The opening heist and car chase are great, but its direction is downhill all the way after that.



I couldn't get past the opening scenes to appreciate what a shit film it truly was.
Annoyed the fuck out of me.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 16, 2018)

Dr. Furface said:


> Babydriver. The opening heist and car chase are great, but its direction is downhill all the way after that.



Thirded. A truly terrible film. Not even the 'awesome soundtrack' did anything to save it. Fuck all the trendy film critics (Kermode etc) who raved about this film and made me go and see it. I am never trusting you again.


----------



## Chz (Oct 16, 2018)

I'll bet you didn't like Mad Max, either.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 16, 2018)

Nobody mentioned Dunkirk yet?

What an overhyped yawn fest that was. _Oh but you must see it on the big screen_. Really? It was bad enough on my big telly.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 16, 2018)

Virtual Blue said:


> Solaris remake. Absolute wank.



Disagree. Very moving, claustophobic and mesmerising soundtrack.


----------



## T & P (Oct 16, 2018)

The second half of Apocalypse Now is fucking insufferable IMO. While I wouldn't necessarily describe the film as shit, I cannot consider it any better than 'mediocre with a couple of great scenes and one memorable quote'. It's not a film I would leave on if they're showing it unless I happened across it during the helicopter attack money shot scene.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 16, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> Nobody mentioned Dunkirk yet?
> 
> What an overhyped yawn fest that was. _Oh but you must see it on the big screen_. Really? It was bad enough on my big telly.



It was a tense movie to watch in the cinema but the final scenes sold it out by breaking with the formula of the rest of the movie. Also there were a couple of plot holes/contrivances that were bad enough to effectively break the fourth wall.

The score, touted as something utterly magnificent, didn't stand out at all for me, but then I'm not a fan of Hans Zimmer generally. The best bits of music in a Zimmer score, the horn blasts in Inception, aren't even his work they're just the intro to that Edith Piaf song slowed down.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 16, 2018)

That reminds me, Darkest Hour was utter pigshit. It's a clever director that can spot the word 'dark' in a title and reflect that by shooting everything in perpetual gloom. It wasn't literally dark in 1940 ffs 

If course maybe he was just trying to make Oldman's ludicrous make up look more passable. If so, it didn't work.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 16, 2018)

Thinking about it, most movies that win best movie Oscars are mediocre to good at best. Argo won it a few years ago ffs.


----------



## T & P (Oct 16, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> That reminds me, Darkest Hour was utter pigshit. It's a clever director that can spot the word 'dark' in a title and reflect that by shooting everything in perpetual gloom. It wasn't literally dark in 1940 ffs
> 
> If course maybe he was just trying to make Oldman's ludicrous make up look more passable. If so, it didn't work.


I’d put Darkest Hour in the same category as Three Billboards or No Country for Old Men: some great individual performances to be had, but the films themselves were nowhere near as good as the critics credited them as. Taxi Driver too while we’re at it.


----------



## yield (Oct 16, 2018)

Zero Dark Thirty & American Beauty.


----------



## Reno (Oct 16, 2018)

T & P said:


> I’d put Darkest Hour in the same category as Three Billboards or No Country for Old Men: some great individual performances to be had, but the films themselves were nowhere near as good as the critics credited them as. Taxi Driver too while we’re at it.


How are they in a category. That’s four films which couldn’t be more different from each other.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 16, 2018)

Probably been said already but anything by Quentin Tarantino.


----------



## T & P (Oct 16, 2018)

Reno said:


> How are they in a category. That’s four films which couldn’t be more different from each other.


 I mean a category in my mind, and not related to their  genre but to the subject of this thread, i.e how good or otherwise is a given film.

So in this case the category would be ‘films that are not terrible but are vastly overrated overall and would be instantly forgettable if they had not featured a critically acclaimed individual performance.’


----------



## Reno (Oct 16, 2018)

T & P said:


> I mean a category in my mind, and not related to their  genre but to the subject of this thread, i.e how good or otherwise is a given film.
> 
> So in this case the category would be ‘films that are not terrible but are vastly overrated overall and would be instantly forgettable if they had not featured a critically acclaimed individual performance.’


Two of these are rubbish, two are great.


----------



## T & P (Oct 16, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Probably been said already but anything by Quentin Tarantino.


While I can understand not everyone might agree with the nearly universal worshipping of Pulp Fiction, including its regular featuring in top-10--best-of-all-time lists, I really struggle to understand how anyone could think it is actually shit.

Fair enough if one doesn’t like it, or fi they find the subject matter objectionable or uninteresting, but it was still one of the most original, fresh, well written movies of the last thirty years, and supported by memorable and at the very least very good performances.

The opposite of shit imo. I don’t claim to be right of course- this  is at the end of the day a matter of opinion. But thinking of it as shit seems to fly in the face the accepted parameters used to judge the quality of films.

Reservoir dogs is also superb AFAIAC.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 16, 2018)

Mumbles274 said:


> Has anyone said 2001 yet?
> 
> Fuck me that is tedious shit to watch. Tried again last night. Don't think I've ever got the end



2001: A Space Odyssey makes a lot more sense if you read the book as well, Kubrick worked on the book with Clarke as he made the film, and I'm pretty sure Clarke had some input on the film too, especially on the model design and those sequences, and as science adviser.

My mum said she went to the cinema with my dad when they were a-courting, to see it. But she didn't want him to see her in her glasses so she didn't wear them - and then it was just a blur, with music and hardly any talking. She hated it.


----------



## stdP (Oct 18, 2018)

The Clooney Solaris remake - very much a remake of the Tsarkovsky Solaris IMHO rather than an adaptation of the book - I absolutely loved. Script, direction and acting were good but the production design and soundtrack elevated it to above the sum of its parts I thought. Again, it took many cues from 2001, another film wot I love (and don't think the least overrated), but maybe that's because I read the book first. I find both of them to be beautifully melancholic slices of tiny humanity cast into the unfathomable void.

Coming back to the thread topic from an argument I've just been having for the fiftieth time in the pub: I fucking despise The Grand Budapest Hotel. It's by far the shittiest of Anderson's smorgasbord of shittiest films and yet somehow by far the most regarded. Despite the presence of the fantastic Ralph Fiennes and a whole bunch of great character actors, the knowingly self-consciously archly whimsical cockdrudgery of this just makes my fucking teeth hurt. Characters I couldn't bring myself to wipe my arse with enacting a plot that even catatonic Jude Law couldn't bring himself to be prepared to pretend to care about, and yet somehow the fact that everything's purple and/or orange is not meant to make you not want to throw yourself off a fucking cliff, but is apparently a mark of sheer genius...? I'd rather gargle the Dulux so I could at least have the satisfaction of regurgitating it on to the celluloid and thus ruining it. Perhaps someone here can explain what it is about this film that makes it more watchable than Nigel Farage tattooing a bulldog onto his own scrotum but at the moment I feel like I'm the only person on the planet that doesn't consider this film to be a towering pillar of prodigal punditry. At least I had fun laughing at The Room... there was nothing about Budapest Hotel I enjoyed apart from the onset of the credits.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 18, 2018)

stdP said:


> The Clooney Solaris remake - very much a remake of the Tsarkovsky Solaris IMHO rather than an adaptation of the book - I absolutely loved. Script, direction and acting were good but the production design and soundtrack elevated it to above the sum of its parts I thought. Again, it took many cues from 2001, another film wot I love (and don't think the least overrated), but maybe that's because I read the book first. I find both of them to be beautifully melancholic slices of tiny humanity cast into the unfathomable void.
> 
> Coming back to the thread topic from an argument I've just been having for the fiftieth time in the pub: I fucking despise The Grand Budapest Hotel. It's by far the shittiest of Anderson's smorgasbord of shittiest films and yet somehow by far the most regarded. Despite the presence of the fantastic Ralph Fiennes and a whole bunch of great character actors, the knowingly self-consciously archly whimsical cockdrudgery of this just makes my fucking teeth hurt. Characters I couldn't bring myself to wipe my arse with enacting a plot that even catatonic Jude Law couldn't bring himself to be prepared to pretend to care about, and yet somehow the fact that everything's purple and/or orange is not meant to make you not want to throw yourself off a fucking cliff, but is apparently a mark of sheer genius...? I'd rather gargle the Dulux so I could at least have the satisfaction of regurgitating it on to the celluloid and thus ruining it. Perhaps someone here can explain what it is about this film that makes it more watchable than Nigel Farage tattooing a bulldog onto his own scrotum but at the moment I feel like I'm the only person on the planet that doesn't consider this film to be a towering pillar of prodigal punditry. At least I had fun laughing at The Room... there was nothing about Budapest Hotel I enjoyed apart from the onset of the credits.



It makes me laugh. A lot.


----------



## Reno (Oct 18, 2018)

I’m not much of a fan of most Wes Anderson films, but The Grand Budapest Hotel is among the three or four of his films which I like. It’s one of his few films where I cared about the characters and where I thought there was something at stake.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 19, 2018)

Reno said:


> Yup, it’s shit. Not sure anybody raves about it though.



its watchable, with an engaging plot. far more enjoyable then kubricks dreary dirge.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 21, 2018)

Reno said:


> I’m not much of a fan of most Wes Anderson films, but The Grand Budapest Hotel is among the three or four of his films which I like. It’s one of his few films where I cared about the characters and where I thought there was something at stake.



Hated that film. I'm not into any of that kind of surrealist style stuff like that. Same applies to all the Baz Luhrman films I've ever seen, Particularly Romeo & Juliette and Moulin Rouge which were really tedious, and couldn't even get to the end of the Great Gatsby.

I'd rather watch the washing machine go round than watch one of those movies again.


----------



## Reno (Oct 22, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> Hated that film. I'm not into any of that kind of surrealist style stuff like that. Same applies to all the Baz Luhrman films I've ever seen, Particularly Romeo & Juliette and Moulin Rouge which were really tedious, and couldn't even get to the end of the Great Gatsby.
> 
> I'd rather watch the washing machine go round than watch one of those movies again.


Neither Wes Anderson nor Baz Luhrmam do surrealist stuff. I think you mean stylised stuff.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 22, 2018)

Reno said:


> Neither Wes Anderson nor Baz Luhrmam do surrealist stuff. I think you mean stylised stuff.



Yeah alright, that style. Can’t be arsed with it.


----------



## Reno (Oct 22, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> Yeah alright, that style. Can’t be arsed with it.


Whatevs...


----------



## porp (Oct 25, 2018)

Having liked _Fargo _a lot, I remember absolutely hating _The Big Lebowski_. Walked out of the cinema because I was bored, and could never understand the love for it. Suspect it is more fun to watch, and easier to feel affinity for, if you are a stoner.


----------



## rubbershoes (Oct 25, 2018)

porp said:


> Suspect it is more fun to watch, and easier to feel affinity for, if you are a stoner.



Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion, man


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 25, 2018)

skyscraper101 said:


> Moulin Rouge


I found that literally unwatchable. It was just a garbled succession of images. I guess it was supposed to represent the experience of being on absinthe or laudanum or something. That being the case it’s not something I’d want to experience.

I made it 15 minutes in and gave up.


----------



## Reno (Oct 26, 2018)

porp said:


> Having liked _Fargo _a lot, I remember absolutely hating _The Big Lebowski_. Walked out of the cinema because I was bored, and could never understand the love for it. Suspect it is more fun to watch, and easier to feel affinity for, if you are a stoner.


I'm mixed on the Coens, some of their films I love, some do nothing for me. 

My favorite film of theirs is one of their least well received, _The Hudsucker Proxy_. I believe its gathered a cult following since its original release. It's full of great lines. "Not a brain in his head" and "You know, for kids !" have become catch phrases of mine. 

One of their best loved films _Raising Arizona_, leaves me cold. I just don't find it funny.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 26, 2018)

Reno said:


> I'm mixed on the Coens, some of their films I love, some do nothing for me.
> 
> My favorite film of theirs is one of their least well received, _The Hudsucker Proxy_. I believe its gathered a cult following since its original release. It's full of great lines. "Not a brain in his head" and "You know, for kids !" have become catch phrases of mine.
> 
> One of their best loved films _Raising Arizona_, leaves me cold. I just don't find it funny.



Love both of them. _Hudsucker Proxy_ just cracks me up everytime, and I love the soundtrack. _Raising Arizona_ I've watched to death, so need a few more years to see that again.


----------



## ginger_syn (Oct 27, 2018)

The  english patient,
I was told it was an amazing film, it really really isn't, I will never get that time back an abysmally tedious snore fest. I actually dont have enough word to describe how awful it is.


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Oct 27, 2018)

Reno said:


> I'm mixed on the Coens, some of their films I love, some do nothing for me.
> 
> My favorite film of theirs is one of their least well received, _The Hudsucker Proxy_. I believe its gathered a cult following since its original release. It's full of great lines. "Not a brain in his head" and "You know, for kids !" have become catch phrases of mine.
> 
> One of their best loved films _Raising Arizona_, leaves me cold. I just don't find it funny.



I love the Hudsucker Proxy, it is one of my favourite films. Fargo is one of the least 'Coen Brothers like' films they have done, it's more conventional than most of their output, which probably explains it's popularity. I mean, it's better than 99% of films ever made but is still the Coen bros film I watch the least. Same with No Country for Old Men. It's wonderful cinema, just one of my least favourites of theirs. 

I also think Intolerable Cruelty is great, it seems to have got a fairly bad rap at the time if I recall?

Lebowski is fucking great though, and I ain't no stoner.


----------



## Reno (Oct 27, 2018)

I would disagree that Fargo isn’t quintessential Coens. It’s not dissimilar to their first movie Blood Simple (one of my faves) where a criminal plan goes wrong with unplanned consequences and gruesome murder ensues. It’s a theme which runs though many of their films. I also love No Country for Old Men, which is in a similar vein.


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Oct 27, 2018)

Reno said:


> I would disagree that Fargo isn’t quintessential Coens. It’s not dissimilar to their first movie Blood Simple (one of my faves) where a criminal plan goes wrong with unplanned consequences and gruesome murder ensues. It’s a theme which runs though many of their films. I also love No Country for Old Men, which is in a similar vein.



I know what you mean about the themes being similar. I think I like the Coen's most for the dialogue, it's very distinctive and funny, which I think Fargo and NCFOM are lacking compared to some of the others. I think maybe the lighter hearted films are more suited to the humour, which I prefer.

I don't know if that makes sense? Still great films though. Know what you mean about Raising Arizona too. Although it's still better than most films.

This has inspired me to dust off some DVD's for a Coen marathon.


----------



## Reno (Oct 27, 2018)

Fargo has great dialogue and it introduced the rest of the world to “Minnesota nice” and the local dialect, which is inherently funny if you aren’t used to it. The scene of Gunderson meeting up with a former boyfriend is brilliant in its awkwardness.


----------



## keybored (Oct 28, 2018)

Reno said:


> I would disagree that Fargo isn’t quintessential Coens. It’s not dissimilar to their first movie *Blood Simple* (one of my faves) where a criminal plan goes wrong with unplanned consequences and gruesome murder ensues. It’s a theme which runs though many of their films. I also love No Country for Old Men, which is in a similar vein.



I'd never seen this before, watched it tonight after your recommendation. I loved it, thank you much Reno


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Oct 29, 2018)

T & P said:


> The second half of Apocalypse Now is fucking insufferable IMO. While I wouldn't necessarily describe the film as shit, I cannot consider it any better than 'mediocre with a couple of great scenes and one memorable quote'. It's not a film I would leave on if they're showing it unless I happened across it during the helicopter attack money shot scene.




I love this film. I found it boring and long-winded the first time I saw it but it’s now one of my favourites. I have an emotional hangover the next day every time I see it.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 29, 2018)

Is it the Riasing Arizona that has this exchange?

"Do these balloons blow up into funny shapes?"

"Not unless round is funny"


----------



## keybored (Oct 29, 2018)

Mrs Miggins said:


> Is it the Riasing Arizona that has this exchange?
> 
> "Do these balloons blow up into funny shapes?"
> 
> "Not unless round is funny"


Yes.


----------

