# Dullest Film Ever



## Orang Utan (Oct 10, 2004)

Inspired by the thread on Charlotte Gray.

I fell asleep during Gangs Of New York, Gladiator and The English Patient.

Solaris has to be the winner though.


----------



## foo (Oct 10, 2004)

Trainspotting.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 10, 2004)

Really? 
I loved it.


Another one: The Road To Perdition


----------



## WasGeri (Oct 10, 2004)

I fall asleep during loads of films, not necessarily because they are dull.

My vote goes to Interview with the Vampire.

I tried to like it, to the extent of watching it three times, but I think I fell asleep twice and got bored the third time.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 10, 2004)

jfk and anyting with julia roberts


----------



## andy2002 (Oct 10, 2004)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Solaris has to be the winner though.



I haven't seen the original Solaris but the remake with Clooney was horribly dull. The Hours is also thoroughly tedious. Oh, and let's not forget Dune, the only film which has put me to sleep TWICE!


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 10, 2004)

Ooh that reminds me - The Doors is interminable.


----------



## Griff (Oct 10, 2004)

Donny Darko. Nearly fell asleep through that one at the flicks.


----------



## herman (Oct 10, 2004)

The Abyss- fell asleep every time I tried to watch it.

Have never seen it start to finish.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Oct 10, 2004)

All fils with Hugh Grant in are pretty dull


----------



## miniGMgoit (Oct 10, 2004)

Nope Ive got it.
Quiet days in Cliche (or somethin like that) 
Utter bilge


----------



## Kinska (Oct 10, 2004)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I fell asleep during Gangs Of New York, Gladiator and The English Patient.



I loved the Gladiator but have to admit that a few years ago I sat through the English patient constantly believing that it had to get better at some point... nothing... I thought it was the worst film that anybody could possibly ever make.

That is, until I rented the Gangs of New York.  I watched for a while, got bored and cooked dinner, ate dinner, washed up and cleaned the house.... and still it had not finished and more to the point... nothing had happened at all!

I've learnt my lesson - I need to react to the media hype i.e. 'wonderful film', 'amazing cinematography' in the same way that people who haven't seen me in a while and are now faced with my extra 2 stone in bodyweight tell me I 'look amazing... really well.'


----------



## silentNate (Oct 10, 2004)

Dog Soldiers. I dare anyone to try and sit through it


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 10, 2004)

I liked Dog Soldiers - how is it dulll? It's pretty fast paced.


----------



## Griff (Oct 10, 2004)

silentNate said:
			
		

> Dog Soldiers. I dare anyone to try and sit through it




Dog Soldiers is a great flick.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 10, 2004)

I fell asleep in Pulp Fiction...


----------



## silentNate (Oct 10, 2004)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I liked Dog Soldiers - how is it dulll? It's pretty fast paced.


 I found the plot, action sequences and dialogue dull and uninspired.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 10, 2004)

Maybe you did, but surely you can think of duller films than an action/horror film.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 10, 2004)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I liked Dog Soldiers - how is it dulll? It's pretty fast paced.



Me too.  Good action/horror film, and decent script too.


----------



## miss minnie (Oct 10, 2004)

wasn't even tired but fell asleep towards the end of 'lost in translation' so it gets my award for this year's most boring movie.  followed closely by 'northfork'.


----------



## Lysistrata (Oct 10, 2004)

Most recent most tedious film was "The Matrix".  Unfortunately it was too loud to go to sleep.  But my attention certainly wandered.

I found "Jean de Florette" pretty soporific, too.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 10, 2004)

I slept through most of matrix reloaded.  But then again if we go to the cinema, I'll usually sleep through any film that we see.  Something to do with being in a darkened room I think.      

Needless to say, its pointless for me to go to the cinema, a waste of money.


----------



## WasGeri (Oct 10, 2004)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Ooh that reminds me - The Doors is interminable.



The Doors was great! I went to see it five times at the cinema, and I didn't even like The Doors before that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 10, 2004)

Five times? I don't think I've ever seen any film five times. Why go back if you know what's going to happen unless it's something like Seven or Usual Suspects?


----------



## WasGeri (Oct 10, 2004)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Five times? I don't think I've ever seen any film five times. Why go back if you know what's going to happen unless it's something like Seven or Usual Suspects?



Because I liked it!

I suppose you only ever read books once as well?


----------



## SubZeroCat (Oct 10, 2004)

That film...wossit called, its got Spruce Willis in it. Unbreakable or summat?

Unwatchable if you ask me


----------



## maya (Oct 10, 2004)

one of the worst i can remember seeing recently, is the Russian 1930's constructivist(?) silent classic "Man With A Movie Camera"....i've actually tried to see it through twice,but my eyelids just goes heavier and heavier...god,it's so fucking boring!   
..."Plan 9 From Outer Space" is also as dull as dullards come...pure insomniac boredom!


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 10, 2004)

Geri said:
			
		

> Because I liked it!
> 
> I suppose you only ever read books once as well?



Pretty much - I get bored if I know what's coming.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 10, 2004)

maya said:
			
		

> one of the worst i can remember seeing recently, is the Russian 1930's constructivist(?) silent classic "Man With A Movie Camera"....i've actually tried to see it through twice,but my eyelids just goes heavier and heavier...god,it's so fucking boring!


The Cinematic Orchestra score for this is wicked.



			
				maya said:
			
		

> ..."Plan 9 From Outer Space" is also as dull as dullards come...pure insomniac boredom!


I enjoyed this film - well, I enjoyed how bad it was.


----------



## Loki (Oct 10, 2004)

_Love Actually_. What was I thinking when I downloaded it? Deleted it after 15 minutes of viewing.


----------



## YojimboUK (Oct 10, 2004)

Kinska said:
			
		

> I've learnt my lesson - I need to react to the media hype i.e. 'wonderful film', 'amazing cinematography' in the same way that people who haven't seen me in a while and are now faced with my extra 2 stone in bodyweight tell me I 'look amazing... really well.'



Try reading a few critics' opinions on films you've already seen, till you find one who seems to match your views, and then read what they think of a film you're about to see. Or something like that. For example, if Peter Bradshaw of the Guardian likes a film, I'll probably find it interminable, over-worthy tosh. 

Paul Ross is a bad choice: he seems to like everything.


----------



## Waterfall (Oct 10, 2004)

The Matrix sequels, Jeepers Creepers, the Star Wars prequels, and yes, definately Love Actually. All unceasing celluloid shite during which I prayed for death.


----------



## Clintons Cat (Oct 10, 2004)

xXx 

Panic In Needle Park,

Manhatten,

deer hunter


----------



## Bond (Oct 10, 2004)

Gangs of New York deserves a special mention.

Same goes for Phantom Menace and most Vin Diesel films.


----------



## poului (Oct 10, 2004)

*p;08yohu9puj*

All Christ biopics and biblical epics.


----------



## Skim (Oct 10, 2004)

I found Dogville pretty dull, and switched off after 20 minutes. In fact, I think I would have preferred Love Actually... and that's _really_ saying something.


----------



## red rose (Oct 10, 2004)

AI sucked, I sat in the cinema counting ceiling tiles cos my dad didnt want to leave


----------



## 80sHair Revival (Oct 10, 2004)

Gone with the Wind. 

I have horrific memories of being forced to watch this "epic" by mum when I were a young 'un.

Phantom Menace is deadly dull too.


----------



## Juice Terry (Oct 11, 2004)

Dancer In The Dark - utterly utterly dull, only improving at the end slightly when the icelandic elfishones neck snaps.


----------



## Pie 1 (Oct 11, 2004)

Anything with Hobbits.
Cold Mountain was particuarly tedious too.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 11, 2004)

a film called "in the bedroom" which came out a few years ago, to great reviews, had sissy spececk in it...dull dull dull.....


----------



## Clintons Cat (Oct 11, 2004)

pearl harbour

tron


----------



## marty21 (Oct 11, 2004)

Clintons Cat said:
			
		

> pearl harbour
> 
> tron



haven't seen pearl harbour, but i liked tron....


----------



## Bomber (Oct 11, 2004)

Gone with the Wind , by bloody miles !!!


----------



## tarannau (Oct 11, 2004)

The Pelican Brief

Stupyfyingly dull - sent a whole plane-full of people into deep, snoring sleep...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 11, 2004)

SubZeroCat said:
			
		

> That film...wossit called, its got Spruce Willis in it. Unbreakable or summat?
> 
> Unwatchable if you ask me



Nonsense - tis a masterpiece, that one.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 11, 2004)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> Anything with Hobbits.



Rascist


----------



## spliff (Oct 11, 2004)

Last Year In Marienbad


spliff   xxx


----------



## Steppers (Oct 11, 2004)

Another vote for Phantom Menace.

Was in New York before it came out over here, 1st day there straignt to a cinema to see it.  One and only time I've ever fallen asleep in a cinema!  Put it down to jet lag.

Tried watching it twice when it came out on DVD here and both times   zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


----------



## Atlancia (Oct 11, 2004)

Gigli - a waste of 1.5 hr of my life although it felt more like 10 years.

An excellent remedy for those who suffer from insomnia though


----------



## maya (Oct 11, 2004)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Gone with the Wind , by bloody miles !!!


 seconded. we were forced to watch it in comprehensive school- three bloody hours with wooden faced acting & absolutely NOTHING happening....ahhh..


----------



## Jorum (Oct 11, 2004)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Solaris has to be the winner though.


The girlfriend just got the 4-hour original Russian version on DVD. That's a long time for me to be reading the subtitles 
Although from what I've seen the vast majority of the film involves no speaking at all.

After that I've got "Stalker", another 2-DVD marathon. Another one of those Russian films where no one talks for 30 minutes 
Great imagery though, reminds me a bit of Prodigy's Breath video


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 11, 2004)

'Blow up'

A supposedly classic/cult film where nothing happens.  At all.  At one point you can make out a nipple, but that was it.  

Utter shite.


----------



## maya (Oct 11, 2004)

fractionMan said:
			
		

> 'Blow up'
> 
> A supposedly classic/cult film where nothing happens.  At all.  At one point you can make out a nipple, but that was it.
> 
> Utter shite.


 ..But Jane Birkin is in it..! 

 (but,yeah,the film is utter pompous misogynistic shite,& overrated too!)


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Oct 11, 2004)

Derek Jarmans Caravagio.  Fantastically photographed by boring as hell.


----------



## shoddysolutions (Oct 11, 2004)

Michael Mann's 'Heat'.

Never even got up to 'Simmer' I'm afraid. Left with 20 minutes to go to catch last orders, wish i'd left earlier.


----------



## R.I.C.O. (Oct 11, 2004)

*...*

Grosse Point Blank was seriously dull.


----------



## innit (Oct 11, 2004)

Eyes Wide Shut, me and my flatmate must have tried to watch it at least 3 times, never got more than 15 minutes in before we'd be chatting about something completely different.


----------



## belboid (Oct 11, 2004)

spliff said:
			
		

> Last Year In Marienbad
> 
> 
> spliff   xxx


!!!   aaahh but...but...bu......i mean....how can you......but it's......

okay its tedious pretentious drivel.

but i loves it


----------



## Flavour (Oct 11, 2004)

the road to perdition is fucking DREADFUL

so is: THE LAST SAMURAI.... urgh, that film was so unbelievably shit


----------



## silentNate (Oct 11, 2004)

Richard White said:
			
		

> Grosse Point Blank was seriously dull.


 Philistine


----------



## YojimboUK (Oct 11, 2004)

Onegin. Based on a poem by Pushkin, starring Ralph Fiennes, who my ex-wife had a thing for. Martin Donovan gets a couple of lines towards the very end, and there's a nice scene of ice-skating in St Petersburg, but making St Petersburg look pretty in a film is a bit like writing your name correctly at the top of an exam paper.

(My girlfriend, over my shoulder, is busy chiming in with Sunshine and Time Regained, both of which also star Ralph Fiennes, and both of which are also listworthy. And the English Patient, and I'm with her on that -- tis tosh. She's also just admitted to watching part of Sex Lives of the Potato Men so I think I'll end this post here.)


----------



## pilchardman (Oct 11, 2004)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Ooh that reminds me - The Doors is interminable.


Anything by Oliver Stone gets my vote as dullest film.  Today.

Oh, and Sleeping Tiger, Yawning Dragon.


----------



## SubZeroCat (Oct 11, 2004)

Flavour said:
			
		

> the road to perdition is fucking DREADFUL
> 
> so is: THE LAST SAMURAI.... urgh, that film was so unbelievably shit




Oh god I know

My mum dragged me to see that cos she likes japanese related stuff and I sat there texting people and looking in the dark. Its like 'Oh look, Tom Cruise nearly dies for the 45th time but miraculously, surrounded by 500 dead bodies, he's alive. He must be amazing(!)'   

Fuck off America with your stupid 'movies' (its films in the country thank you very much) and your rehashed romantic comedies and action hero shite


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 11, 2004)

Richard White said:
			
		

> Grosse Point Blank was seriously dull.




i can understand you not liking it*, but how the fuck can you find it boring? 




* actually, no i can't - you're clearly insane - but i was trying to be kind.


----------



## wire thing (Oct 11, 2004)

red rose said:
			
		

> AI sucked, I sat in the cinema counting ceiling tiles cos my dad didnt want to leave



Absolutely sucked ass - one of the worst films I have ever seen if not the worst.


----------



## Dirty Martini (Oct 11, 2004)

Another vote for Crunching Tigger. Also, Abel Ferrara's The Addiction.


----------



## LostNotFound (Oct 11, 2004)

shoddysolutions said:
			
		

> Michael Mann's 'Heat'.
> 
> Never even got up to 'Simmer' I'm afraid. Left with 20 minutes to go to catch last orders, wish i'd left earlier.



How can you get bored watching heat!?!

Tons of stuff like.. happens! 

I'll vote for "Escape from New York". Found it in my flatmates video collection last wednesday afternoon and tried to watch it .. zzZzZ


----------



## Ich bin ein Mod (Oct 11, 2004)

Unbreakable
Pearl Harbor
Lord of The Rings (the first one, nothing could persuade me to go and see any others after that)
Blair Witch 2
Blair Witch actually too


----------



## R.I.C.O. (Oct 12, 2004)

*...*

Whats so good about "Grosse Point Blank" then? I found it an extremely average and difficult film to watch. We hired it out expecting it to be a great film, but it was dull, soppy and extremely patronising. I found Minnie Driver's character annoying and Dan Ackroyd was hardly in it*.

*But judging by your patronising nature, you would'nt understand that, would you?


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 12, 2004)

Richard White said:
			
		

> Whats so good about "Grosse Point Blank" then? I found it an extremely average and difficult film to watch. We hired it out expecting it to be a great film, but it was dull, soppy and extremely patronising. I found Minnie Driver's character annoying and Dan Ackroyd was hardly in it*.
> 
> *But judging by your patronising nature, you would'nt understand that, would you?




fuck me, you're a humourless bastard aren't you?


it was a joke.

no wonder you didn't find GPB funny...

<unsubscribes from tedious arse />


----------



## silentNate (Oct 12, 2004)

Richard White should avoid films with great dialogue if he didn't like GPB


----------



## Sunray (Oct 12, 2004)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i can understand you not liking it*, but how the fuck can you find it boring?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i thought it was trying too hard and fell flat in too many places for it to be a classic movie.

Average entertainment, but nothing more.


----------



## Termite Man (Oct 12, 2004)

I have a habit of falling asleep in fronty of most films ( I've even fallen asleep watchhing The Cannonball Run ) so I don't think a dull film is one that sends you to sleep .

But from all the films I've ver watched the most mind numbingly boring one has to be ...





... Kill Bill volume 2

Big pile of steming shite that was


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 12, 2004)

well since i thought Vol 1 was a steaming pile of shite, i didn't even bother with 2..


----------



## Termite Man (Oct 12, 2004)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> well since i thought Vol 1 was a steaming pile of shite, i didn't even bother with 2..




They are both steaming piles of shit , the difference is volume 1 actually has stuff happening that is vaguely exciting ( blood spurting about etc. )


----------



## pilchardman (Oct 12, 2004)

And can I also mention Bladerunner?  How many times have I fallen asleep during _that_ borefest?  Why anyone thinks it's good, I have no idea.

I understand the Hovis ad guy made it.  Figures...


----------



## i_hate_beckham (Oct 12, 2004)

Titanic without a doubt.


----------



## i_hate_beckham (Oct 12, 2004)

Wait i just remembered me and some mates couldnt even get through the first 20 mins of Master and Commander.


----------



## i_hate_beckham (Oct 12, 2004)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Inspired by the thread on Charlotte Gray.
> 
> I fell asleep during Gangs Of New York, Gladiator and The English Patient.
> 
> Solaris has to be the winner though.



Not Gladiator the really good under-ground boxing film with Cuba Gooding Jr?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 12, 2004)

I agree with Gladiator - tried three times, never made it through the first fight scene. 

Tarkovsky's MASTERPIECE Solaris isnt boring....just hypnotic!
(Havn't seen the clooney one though - that would be blasphemy!)


----------



## i_hate_beckham (Oct 12, 2004)

Oh and there is the one with just filming of the world and the challenger disaster all set to music by minimalist new york composer Phillip Glass.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 12, 2004)

warhol's 'chelsea girls' was boring as fuck (6 hours split over two screens, running concurrently), but the whole experience of watching it was leavened by liberal amounts of absinth and a comfy sofa on the stage in front of one of the screens. vive le cube 

only film i've fallen asleep out of boredom at the cinema was 'independence day'. but i did get some coochie coo action and snogs as well, so swings and roundabouts.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 12, 2004)

Supposedly Warhol said (I'll paraphrase) that he thought cinemas were too quiet and people should interact more. So he made a series of the dullest "films" in the world in order to provoke people to have conversations in the cinema! Like "Sleep" - a film of someone sleeping. BW/Silent/5 Hrs 21 Mins! (cut from 8hrs)
http://www.warholstars.org/filmch/sleep.html

(pedants note: Most of the Warhol movies are actually directed by a guy called Paul Morrissey, Warhols right hand man. Morrissey's films have slightly more going on in them!)


----------



## Dandred (Oct 12, 2004)

Gangs of New York is mind numbing,


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Oct 12, 2004)

red rose said:
			
		

> AI sucked, I sat in the cinema counting ceiling tiles cos my dad didnt want to leave


  I saw it at home, and fell asleep to that film.  Ended up watching the 2nd half (which was a waste of time) the following day.  Overhyped, because of its sFX.


----------



## jayeola (Oct 12, 2004)

Enigma [WW2, spies, code breaking yawn buster]


----------



## Hollis (Oct 12, 2004)

Toss up between 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Paris,Texas'.

Atleast Paris,Texas had Nastasia Kinski in.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 12, 2004)

(silently thrusts stilleto into the kidneys of Pilchardman, Sub Zero Cat and Andy 2002)

Moulin Rouge - 2 hours that I will never be able to get back.

That Jap CGI film... good god that was dull. Gave me a headache.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 12, 2004)

i_hate_beckham said:
			
		

> Not Gladiator the really good under-ground boxing film with Cuba Gooding Jr?



No, the poo one with the world's most overrated actor, Russel Crowe


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Oct 12, 2004)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> No, the poo one with the world's most overrated actor, Russel Crowe



Russell Crowe is one very horny actor who unfortunately is a bit challenged in the acting dept.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 12, 2004)

No no no you are all wrong.

The award for the worlds most boring film goes to: <drum roll>

*Citizen Fucking Kane*

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Although Gladiator is poss a very close second


----------



## tobyjug (Oct 12, 2004)

Apart from the "Zapping Gooks" scene, and the "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" scene for me the most boring film has to be Apocolypse Now.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 12, 2004)

KeyboardJockey said:
			
		

> Russell Crowe is one very horny actor who unfortunately is a bit challenged in the acting dept.



I dunno.....he was fine before he left Australia and disappeared up his own arse


----------



## IntoStella (Oct 12, 2004)

The Unbearable Shiteness of Boring. I went to see it free to review it for the university mag and still wanted me money back. WHAT a bum freezer.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 12, 2004)

The only good thing Crowe has done is Romper Stomper.
(apart from the Neighbours episodes in which he burns down Charlene's caravan)


----------



## shoddysolutions (Oct 12, 2004)

LostNotFound said:
			
		

> How can you get bored watching heat!?!



Gimme a break. Three fucking hours of tedium,  just to watch De Niro and Pacino grimace at each other?

Yawn


----------



## shoddysolutions (Oct 12, 2004)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Apart from the "Zapping Gooks" scene, and the "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" scene for me the most boring film has to be Apocolypse Now.



That's because you don't take drugs.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 12, 2004)

Not much of a fan of Heat either - nice soundtrack, but it is interminable, especially those big bangbang gun battles.
The scene in the coffee shop with De Niro & Pacino is disappointing too - they could have done the scene in separate takes cos you never see the two of them in the same shot (IIRC) - hardly a recipe for chemistry.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 12, 2004)

I seem to be in a tiny minority with this one but I think The Usual Suspects is an utter waste of space as well.


----------



## Sunray (Oct 12, 2004)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> I seem to be in a tiny minority with this one but I think The Usual Suspects is an utter waste of space as well.



Your slightly bonkers. 

That is simply one of the best films of modern times for all sorts of reasons.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 12, 2004)

No it's not it's boring predictable shite  

(IMVHO, of course!)


----------



## andy2002 (Oct 12, 2004)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> I seem to be in a tiny minority with this one but I think The Usual Suspects is an utter waste of space as well.



While we're dissing so-called classics, can I just say that Star Wars and Donnie Darko are a great big fat pile of bollocks as well? In fact, anyone who is over ten years old and thinks Star Wars is one of the best films ever made should be made to go and live up George Lucas' bottom for six months.


----------



## Spandex (Oct 12, 2004)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Paris,Texas



That's the one. Jeeesus. I know its suposed to be an indie classic but by the time it ended I was laying on the floor throwing pencils at people.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 12, 2004)

Errr.....sorry but I rather love Paris Texas.
Spose it's all subjective innit


----------



## i_hate_beckham (Oct 12, 2004)

jayeola said:
			
		

> Enigma [WW2, spies, code breaking yawn buster]



Oi, thats a fucking excellent film!


----------



## PacificOcean (Oct 12, 2004)

Casablanca...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Double Indemity...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Pearl Harbor...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Any film during the day on Sky Movies..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Spandex (Oct 12, 2004)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> Errr.....sorry but I rather love Paris Texas.
> Spose it's all subjective innit



No need to apologise. I think I was in the mood for something a bit more uptempo when i watched it. It's got the slowest car chase ever comitted to film.




			
				PacificOcean said:
			
		

> Double Indemity...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz



How can you say that???? Double Indemnity is one of the best films ever. Its got Edward G Robinson in it and he's a god


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 12, 2004)

andy2002 said:
			
		

> anyone who is over ten years old and thinks Star Wars is one of the best films ever made should be made to go and live up George Lucas' bottom for six months.


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## PacificOcean (Oct 12, 2004)

Spandex said:
			
		

> How can you say that???? Double Indemnity is one of the best films ever. Its got Edward G Robinson in it and he's a god




Forced to watch it at school.  Therefore bad memories.


----------



## Clintons Cat (Oct 12, 2004)

Any given Sunday

Field Of Dreams

Cleopatra

Once Upon a Time In America

dark blue

angelas ashes


----------



## silentNate (Oct 12, 2004)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> Errr.....sorry but I rather love Paris Texas.
> Spose it's all subjective innit


 Ditto- Paris Texas is a film to sit back and enjoy the music too


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 12, 2004)

Harry Dean Stanton is just too cool!

I love the bit where he meets his son from school and walks on the opposite side of the road in his suit and hat


----------



## pilchardman (Oct 12, 2004)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> No no no you are all wrong.
> 
> The award for the worlds most boring film goes to: <drum roll>
> 
> ...


I'd forgotten about that one.  I sat all the way through that shite to find out...it was a sledge what dunnit.  FFS.


----------



## jayeola (Oct 12, 2004)

Yeah, that whole rosebud thing..
-enigma
-star wars looking bad was -shit-. very poor acting
-independance day (shit, shyte, shittest)
- ace ventura (when he went to "africa") and spat on the faces of the tribes ppl. that was supposed to funny?
-haven't seen the titanic but i'll put that on too
-has britney spears ever appeared in a film? (i'm not calling her an actor)


----------



## fuBganger (Oct 12, 2004)

My dullest film ever is XXX. I never thought car chases and the like could be boring but after an hour and a half of 'what extreme sport can I use to solve this problem' combined with Vin Diesel's appalling acting and the pathetic plot I was pretty much bored to tears.

the most recent star trek one was appalling too. and this is coming from a trekkie.


----------



## nick1181 (Oct 12, 2004)

It's funny isn't it. There are a load of people who's 
a) best top ten are the other lot's worst top ten 
and another lot's who's
b) worst top ten are the other lot's best top ten 

The thing is, lot b) are a bunch of fucking idiots with tonsils for taste-buds...










and so are lot a)


So there you go.


----------



## YojimboUK (Oct 13, 2004)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> I seem to be in a tiny minority with this one but I think The Usual Suspects is an utter waste of space as well.



Agreed. Anyone who doesn't realise who Keyser Soze is within ten minutes of the film starting is officially pathetic. 

I don't know how you can be so right on that, Mrs Miggins, and yet so wrong on Citizen Kane.


----------



## i_hate_beckham (Oct 13, 2004)

YojimboUK said:
			
		

> Agreed. Anyone who doesn't realise who Keyser Soze is within ten minutes of the film starting is officially pathetic.



Doesnt he post here?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 13, 2004)

YojimboUK said:
			
		

> Anyone who doesn't realise who Keyser Soze is within ten minutes of the film starting is officially pathetic.



or:

"anyone who doesn't understand the true meaning of the word 'pathetic' is officially stupid."

pointless generalisations, eh!


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2004)

Hollis said:
			
		

> 'Paris,Texas'.


god, could anyone be so wrong!

that opening scene, harry walking through the desert, the valleys so perfectly replicated in the lins onhis face...all but perfect.  the genius with which it contrasted all the means to communicate with the fact that no one could....

however,



			
				spandex said:
			
		

> It's got the slowest car chase ever comitted to film.


is a very top comment


----------



## YojimboUK (Oct 13, 2004)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> or:
> 
> "anyone who doesn't understand the true meaning of the word 'pathetic' is officially stupid."



From the Greek, innit?


----------



## Major Tom (Oct 13, 2004)

Most dull films I've had to sit through have been while travelling:
Star Trek 5 --- on a plane & thankfully fell asleep
Meet Joe Black 
Titanic 
Pearl Harbour
Scarface

But I rented Howard the Duck - the production obviously ran out of money after making the duck costume which is why the whole film seems to consist of endless chase scenes across car parks and through wharehouses.

Independence Day - I resisted seeing this for years but recently saw it on tv. Biggest load of tedious shite I've seen in my life.

Godfather 3 - in the cinema, stayed hoping it would get better, but it got worse


----------



## oryx (Oct 13, 2004)

Idaho said:
			
		

> Moulin Rouge - 2 hours that I will never be able to get back.



Oooh yes - couldn't agree more. Can't think of a film I've seen in the last 5 or so years that has been more overrated. What I could've done with those 2 hours - even cleaning the bog would have been more useful.....& probably more exciting. 

(
okay, we went to see this 'cos Antelope fancies Nicole Kidman.....it was rough justice for me dragging him to "Bridget Jones' Diary" 'cos of Colin Firth...)


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 13, 2004)

Moulin Rouge is ace - what are you talking about it?
Admittedly on paper, it sounds dreadful. 
When my flatmate got it out of the shop, my heart sank, but it turned out to be loads of fun and a spectacle to watch.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 13, 2004)

The only good bit in Moulin Rouge is Jim Broadbent singing "Like a Virgin"

The rest is a steaming pile of horse manure


----------



## T & P (Oct 13, 2004)

The English Patient must surely be a contester.


----------



## big_c (Oct 13, 2004)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> No no no you are all wrong.
> 
> The award for the worlds most boring film goes to: <drum roll>
> 
> ...



I only managed the first 10 minutes and it nearly killed me, did it get any better?


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Oct 13, 2004)

No


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 13, 2004)

Citizen Kane is a masterpiece. 
Barbarians the lot of you.


----------



## Major Tom (Oct 13, 2004)

T & P said:
			
		

> The English Patient must surely be a contester.



I never made it to the end.

And to that can I add The Piano?


----------



## Choc (Oct 13, 2004)

shaun of the dead 

citizen kane (i also didn't finish it)

the calender girls


----------



## Major Tom (Oct 13, 2004)

Choc said:
			
		

> shaun of the dead



No way - I watched it last week - twice - and would be willing to watch it again right now.

Great film


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 13, 2004)

major tom said:
			
		

> Scarface









Say hello to my leetle fren'!!!

This is surely the most dull film in the English Language:


----------



## Apocalypse21 (Oct 13, 2004)

"The Village", which was the last film I saw at the pictures, was one of the most poorly scripted and drabbest films I have ever had the displeasure to sit through. The majority of it's 1 hr 30/2 hrs sees the characters in the same location talking endlessly about nothing. Without doubt the biggest Hollywood flop of 2004!


----------



## pilchardman (Oct 13, 2004)

Oh, and Apocalypse Now.  What a tedious drag that was.


----------



## Choc (Oct 14, 2004)

captain corellis mandoline

seconded: moulin rouge -yaaawnnn!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 14, 2004)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> And can I also mention Bladerunner?  How many times have I fallen asleep during _that_ borefest?  Why anyone thinks it's good, I have no idea.
> 
> I understand the Hovis ad guy made it.  Figures...



Yeah, I think Bladerunner is one of the most overrated films ever.  Not actually bad, but definitely boring with no real story and basically quite pointless.

BUT a beautiful soundtrack though! (I've got hte CD somewhere)


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 14, 2004)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> well since i thought Vol 1 was a steaming pile of shite, i didn't even bother with 2..



Indeed.  KB 1 was toss.

Personally I think all Tarantino's directed films are shit.  Reservoir Dogs is annoying, dull 'trying to be shocking' crap, Pulp Fiction is pretentious wank, Jackie Brown is just boring.

On the other hand other things that he has been associated with but not entirely directed have been much better, like From Dusk Til Dawn (which I believe he part-directed) or True Romance (which he wrote)


----------



## Random One (Oct 15, 2004)

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Daredevil, pile of shite both of them.


----------



## girasol (Oct 15, 2004)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Solaris has to be the winner though.



I so, so wanted to watch Solaris (the original), and like it, but everytime time I've fallen asleep... I tried watching it twice...  I never fell asleep when I read the book though.

(I didn't fall asleep on the remake, however, but I can't remember much of it...)


----------



## jæd (Oct 15, 2004)

Lost In Translation. Two boring people being boring. Fuck knows what the critics watched but it wasn't this film...


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 15, 2004)

Random One said:
			
		

> League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Daredevil, pile of shite both of them.



Come on hun, you were setting yerself up for a fall here by going to see them in the first place.

I mean Ben 'Dullest man alive' Affleck as a blind superhero...

The only thing that saved that film was Jennifer Garner...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 16, 2004)

I'll probably be burned as a heretic for suggesting this, but I've never even got close to being able to watch the whole of 2001 A Space Odyssey. I just find it completely numbing.

And I'd second (or third, or whatever) Moulin Rouge as well.


----------



## swelegant (Oct 18, 2004)

Russian Ark. I tried so hard to like this film, but I came away only liking the idea of it, the photography and costumes. Some scenes just went on for too long, and learning about Russian history should have been a pre-requisite before seeing it. 

I don't understand why there is so much fuss about Kill Bill. It's just a revenge movie that pays homage to anything that Tarantino has ever liked. Big deal

Apocalypse now. I'm an enormous fan of Heart of Darkness, and to see the book being completely mutilated was just too much  

The BBC's version of Mansfield Park is pretty shit. The sound quality is really bad. You have to turn up the tv to maximum volume to be able to hear what they're saying. Considering that the BBC is normally excellent with these types of movies, it's really disappointing.


----------



## Loki (Oct 18, 2004)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Citizen Kane is a masterpiece.
> Barbarians the lot of you.


^ Agree! Many rate it as the best film ever made. I certainly enjoyed it.


----------



## Juice Terry (Oct 18, 2004)

Tried to watch Spirit of the Beehive at the weekend but fell asleep after half an hour, its a bit hazy but I'm pretty sure absolutely fuck all happened. 

Anybody know if its worth me giving it another try?


----------



## YojimboUK (Oct 18, 2004)

Juice Terry said:
			
		

> Tried to watch Spirit of the Beehive at the weekend but fell asleep after half an hour, its a bit hazy but I'm pretty sure absolutely fuck all happened.
> 
> Anybody know if its worth me giving it another try?



Definitely worth another try, if you're in the mood for something slow and contemplative that doesn't answer all the questions it asks. One of my favourite films, hopeless arty twaddle-lover that I am.


----------



## Juice Terry (Oct 19, 2004)

YojimboUK said:
			
		

> Definitely worth another try, if you're in the mood for something slow and contemplative that doesn't answer all the questions it asks. One of my favourite films, hopeless arty twaddle-lover that I am.



ok might do that when I'm more receptive, it was late, I was drunk, American Pie 47 would probably have been more appropriate for my mood


----------



## nks487 (Oct 20, 2004)

*Stalker is the dullest film IMAO*




			
				Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Inspired by the thread on Charlotte Gray.
> I fell asleep during Gangs Of New York, Gladiator and The English Patient.
> Solaris has to be the winner though.



Try this one "Stalker" by Andrei Tarkovsky.. 163 mins long rated about 7.6 on
IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/

I like independent cinema - own 1000s of DVDS of indies. Only ever turned
off a movie before the end in the case of Matrix 2, even that was a majority
decision!

20 min shot of guys crawling along over rocks was too much - I gave up and
turned Stalker off! 

Yep.. he did do the screenplay for Solyaris (1972) the inspiration for Solaris (remake!). 

P.S. I liked both Solyaris and Solaris!


----------



## vogonity (Oct 20, 2004)

Kill Bill vol. 1 - utterly dull, tedious shite which was as enjoyable as toothache. A friend told me vol. 2 "makes it all worth it." Whatever.

Moulin Rouge - Ewan charisma bypass McGregor in 2 hours of vile, overdressed nonsense trying desperately to make up for its lack of substance with ever more frenetic cutting.

Valuable time, forever lost...


----------



## maya (Oct 20, 2004)

vogonity said:
			
		

> Kill Bill vol. 1 - utterly dull, tedious shite which was as enjoyable as toothache. A friend told me vol. 2 "makes it all worth it." Whatever.
> 
> Moulin Rouge - Ewan charisma bypass McGregor in 2 hours of vile, overdressed nonsense trying desperately to make up for its lack of substance with ever more frenetic cutting.
> 
> Valuable time, forever lost...


 
 the swedish 1970s exploiation/cult-thriller/B-movie tarantino so shamelessly ripped off the story & characters* from,though,is a well worth it-view...i dare you to seek it out!..it is the REAL shit.  
(while tarantino shits his teenageboy pants in front of his playstation 2 and a pile of vcr's with obscure films he's "borrowed" more than a wee bit from..  )


 * i.e.,the character of "the bride",plus the whole sodding revenge plot...! ..has no shame has he,mr.quentin...!  grrrr.


----------



## vogonity (Oct 20, 2004)

I'll endeavour to check it out...


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 9, 2005)

i did a search for 'northfork' having watched it last night and this thread came up - i'm just putting it in here again so if anyone is considering watching it then they will see this thread and perhaps leave it well alone.

that said i did actually start drifiting in and out of sleep a the end which i guess worked well with the dream like sequences... but no, on the whole this was seriously dull


----------



## jodal (Aug 9, 2005)

Clintons Cat said:
			
		

> Field Of Dreams
> 
> Once Upon a Time In America



You must be joking!


----------



## boohoo (Aug 9, 2005)

8 Miles -  a predictable plot and loads of things that don't tied together or are just totally irrelavent to the story.

Boring.

Plus Brittany Murphy having a hair style set with glue.


----------



## laptop (Aug 9, 2005)

I, like, so can't believe that no-one's mentioned Empire.

* Rents _Drowning by Numbers_ *


----------



## Random One (Aug 9, 2005)

league of extraordinary gentleman and Daredevil-complete waste of time the both of them


----------



## alef (Aug 9, 2005)

All sorts of excellent films have been mentioned in this thread, a clear reminder of "different strokes for different folks"...

The slowest film I've ever seen is Bela Tarr's Sátántangó which, including the two intervals, lasted a whopping 9 hours. I saw it at the NFT a few years back with some hardcore cineaste friends. Went in at 1pm and left the cinema at 10pm!

The film became about time itself, it was just so damn slow it was unreal. I found myself getting used to the pace after the first hour or so, which included a 20 min b+w sunrise over a muddy field in real time. But I do remember getting very irritated late in the film when the characters simply stopped speaking and ate a meal in silence for 15 mins or so!


----------



## Random One (Aug 9, 2005)

A 9 HOUR FILM????!!!


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2005)

Before Sunrise.

Who, what, why? Oh, why oh why?


----------



## alef (Aug 9, 2005)

Random One said:
			
		

> A 9 HOUR FILM????!!!



Well, I shouldn't exaggerate, it was only seven and a half hours. The rest of the time was spent in intervals drinking coffee and eating dinner!


----------



## R.I.C.O. (Aug 9, 2005)

My Girl 2. THE most dullest film ever.

I also thought that Grosse Point Blank and Lost Highway were pretty dull. Hey, maybe I was'nt in the mood....


----------



## chriswill (Aug 9, 2005)

City of god bored the shit out of me.

Although when I mentioned it at work I as nearly lynched.


----------



## deja_vu (Aug 9, 2005)

*Pearl Harbor* - _Honestly, the only thing good about this film was the theme tune.. I've had a more entertaining time watching paint dry._ 

*National Treasure * - _I got this out on pay per view, sat in front on the tv the entire way through and yet I only vaguely know something about them trying to steal the Declaration of Independence and have no idea how it ended. Engaging stuff!_ 

*The Last Samurai * - _Put it this way, I sat through the first 10 minutes, I then remember wandering off to do something and not coming back. _


----------



## cyberfairy (Aug 9, 2005)

every lord of the rings movie....oh look, another battle!


----------



## Random One (Aug 9, 2005)

oh yeah Pearl Harbor and Last Samurai should deifnitely be on the list too!


----------



## rennie (Aug 9, 2005)

belboid said:
			
		

> Before Sunrise.
> 
> Who, what, why? Oh, why oh why?




I love that film!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 9, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> All sorts of excellent films have been mentioned in this thread, a clear reminder of "different strokes for different folks"...
> 
> The slowest film I've ever seen is Bela Tarr's Sátántangó which, including the two intervals, lasted a whopping 9 hours. I saw it at the NFT a few years back with some hardcore cineaste friends. Went in at 1pm and left the cinema at 10pm!
> 
> The film became about time itself, it was just so damn slow it was unreal. I found myself getting used to the pace after the first hour or so, which included a 20 min b+w sunrise over a muddy field in real time. But I do remember getting very irritated late in the film when the characters simply stopped speaking and ate a meal in silence for 15 mins or so!



Quite frankly, things like that would make me very, very grateful for the existence of, say "Con Air"


----------



## isvicthere? (Aug 10, 2005)

Sammy and Rosie get laid


----------



## belboid (Aug 10, 2005)

reNnIe said:
			
		

> I love that film!


we got the next one too (from one of those dvd postal rental things, we didnt think to cancel what was obviously going to be Before Sunset when returning t'other, even tho we know Sunset is meant to be even worse!).

To avoid us having to watch it - did either of them turn up six months on then? I guessed at just him doing so.


----------



## Bunniverse (Aug 10, 2005)

Clockwork Orange for me!


----------



## HarrisonSlade (Aug 10, 2005)

Godfather.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 10, 2005)

Shallow fecking Grave...  shallow feckin shite more like. Absolute trash and not in a good way....


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 10, 2005)

A film about Proust I saw which I *think* was called 'Time Regained'. It was three hours long and despite the s&m scenes it has to be the dullest thing ever committed to celluloid.


----------



## on_the_fly (Aug 10, 2005)

How to make an american quilt -


----------



## andy2002 (Aug 10, 2005)

Dune – the only film ever to put me to sleep twice.


----------



## Emac53 (Aug 10, 2005)

The Cut
Scarface
The Madness of King George
Lost in Translation 

To name only three, I could go on.

I really liked Gladiator though and Gangs of New York.  

I shall await the barrage of abuse!!


----------



## belboid (Aug 10, 2005)

Emac53 said:
			
		

> The Cut
> Scarface
> The Madness of King George
> Lost in Translation
> ...


methinks the abuse will be for your inability to count rather than your critical faculties!


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 10, 2005)

Emac53 said:
			
		

> The Cut
> Scarface
> The Madness of King George
> Lost in Translation
> ...



*counts on fingers*
*frowns*
*counts again*
*laughs out loud*


----------



## shoddysolutions (Aug 10, 2005)

on_the_fly said:
			
		

> How to make an american quilt -



Serves you right - who the fuck would want to see a film with a title like that?


----------



## BadlyDrawnGirl (Aug 10, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I fell asleep during...Gladiator...


So did I. Overrated, humourless drivel.   

Ditto the 'Highlander' series.


----------



## on_the_fly (Aug 10, 2005)

shoddysolutions said:
			
		

> Serves you right - who the fuck would want to see a film with a title like that?




ANSWER :- MY EX YES EX WIFE


----------



## montevideo (Aug 10, 2005)

okay not going to go through eight pages but has anyone mentioned warhol's 'sleep' & 'kitchen'?

Plus in terms of visual stimulus then surely derek jarman's 'blue' takes the biscuit?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 10, 2005)

acid priest said:
			
		

> So did I. Overrated, humourless drivel.
> 
> Ditto the 'Highlander' series.



Highlander humourless?


----------



## billgates (Aug 10, 2005)

*tom the wank hanks*

any film with tom hanks,castaway was shite,forest gump was pish,etc.


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 10, 2005)

Mar's Attacks. Fell asleep in the cinema


----------



## BadlyDrawnGirl (Aug 10, 2005)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> Highlander humourless?


Well I wasn't laughing...  

And hey, if I was, it was only to avoid crying...


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 10, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Mar's Attacks. Fell asleep in the cinema



ERRANT APOSTROPHE!


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 10, 2005)

It's the end of the day. These apostrophes always get a bit unruly at this time.


----------



## dareelphil (Aug 10, 2005)

Lord of the Rings (the first one) or Charlie and the chocolate factory or Looney Toons Back in Action!

<Waits for opposition!>

Phil


----------



## BadlyDrawnGirl (Aug 10, 2005)

dareelphil said:
			
		

> Lord of the Rings (the first one) or Charlie and the chocolate factory or Looney Toons Back in Action!
> 
> <Waits for opposition!>
> 
> Phil


    

Looks like a candidate for the shortest-lived Urban poster ever...


----------



## crossfire (Aug 10, 2005)

Stalker and definetely Charlie and the chocolate factory - agreed.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 10, 2005)

dareelphil said:
			
		

> Lord of the Rings (the first one) or Charlie and the chocolate factory or Looney Toons Back in Action!
> 
> <Waits for opposition!>
> 
> Phil



I'm sure yours are better


----------



## past caring (Aug 10, 2005)

What was that one came out a couple of years back Beau Travail, I think it was called. Some kind of modern day "take" on Beau Geste (obviously). French art-house stuff, fucking rave reviews in Time Out and the broadsheets - harped on about the "homoerotic" cinematography at some length. To the extent that, when me and the missus went to see it at the Rio, the _demographics_ of the audience were quite considerably affected.

Twenty minutes in, me and missus were pissing ourselves at the pretence - and the fact that every one else could sit there straight faced. Never seen so much denim in a fluster in one place.


----------



## bristol_citizen (Aug 10, 2005)

Angel Heart - I've tried to watch it at least four times and fallen asleep every single time. Gave up trying in about 1990 mind.


----------



## nick1181 (Aug 11, 2005)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> Angel Heart - I've tried to watch it at least four times and fallen asleep every single time. Gave up trying in about 1990 mind.



What are you on about? Angel Heart's one of the greatest films about the devil ever.


----------



## fubert (Aug 11, 2005)

lord of the rings..

first was dull, second i nearly walked out of, the third i didn't bother with...


----------



## rubbershoes (Aug 12, 2005)

Has anyone mentioned that Bunuel  film about Simon Stylites 

not much happens when you spend your life on a pillar


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 12, 2005)

rubbershoes said:
			
		

> not much happens when you spend your life on a pilar


----------



## LJo (Aug 12, 2005)

I think I would have found 2001 A Space Odyssey incredibly boring too, if I hadn't just done an enormous bottle beforehand and been off my head.

I stopped watching Nine Songs about a quarter of the way through and read my book instead. Boring sex, boring characters, boring music. What a waste of time and energy for all concerned.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 12, 2005)

3 nominations for Lord of the Rings.  Phillistines!


----------



## muser (Aug 12, 2005)

*Worst films*

Come on people, why hasn't tommy, the he man films, flash gordon, vin diesel (in anything), day after tomorrow, some of roger moore's bond films etc made it into this list.
The only way you can say you don't like a film is if you avoid it like the plague. The phantom menace will grow on naysayers as will the matrix sequels, which are more in keeping with great endings but not what was expected.


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 12, 2005)

> I stopped watching Nine Songs about a quarter of the way through and read my book instead. Boring sex, boring characters, boring music. What a waste of time and energy for all concerned.



Innit? If you want to see people fucking and want to listen to music, put some proper porn on mute and listen to the stereo...


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 12, 2005)

muser said:
			
		

> Come on people, why hasn't tommy, the he man films, flash gordon, vin diesel (in anything), day after tomorrow, some of roger moore's bond films etc made it into this list.



We're talking about the most boring films not the worst. Roger Moore's Bond films may be, in your opinion, cack, but they're certainly not boring.
And Flash Gordon is ace (and never boring)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 12, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> And Flash Gordon is ace (and never boring)



fo' sho' 

nothing with *that* dum-dum-dum-dum-dum theme music could *ever* be boring!


----------



## Masseuse (Aug 12, 2005)

Pret a Porter.


----------



## stroober (Aug 12, 2005)

I saw a film called Shadrack once it was pish

slow and slow and crap


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 12, 2005)

Masseuse said:
			
		

> Pret a Porter.



rubbish sandwiches too


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 12, 2005)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> fo' sho'
> 
> nothing with *that* dum-dum-dum-dum-dum theme music could *ever* be boring!



'Flash! I love you, but we have only 14 hours to save the earth!'
'Gordon's alive!'
'Oh well, do want to live forever? Hawkmen! Dive!'


----------



## muser (Aug 12, 2005)

*worst films*

I had to respond twice on this thread, I agree with Orang utan, some of you are barbarians, and to put it mildly c*ntish. Tarantino is a superb director, hardly puts a foot wrong. Some people on here are naming good films just to bring attention on themselves. If we all went to the cinema and had to watch these films that everyone is calling rubbish, and then I put on "what dreams may come" with Robin Williams. Then we had to stay and watch all these films again we would all have commited suicide by opening credits of this one.
Apart from "Prozac nation", this is the only other film I have stopped half way through and I have sat through Chronicles of Riddicks, I mentioned that just so you know what I'm prepared to go through.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 12, 2005)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> fo' sho'
> 
> nothing with *that* dum-dum-dum-dum-dum theme music could *ever* be boring!



I actually thought "For Your Eyes Only" was a bit boring, but yeah the other two crap Moore Bond films, Octopussy and View To  a Kill, are far from boring.  They're entertaining.  Just a bit crap.


----------



## nightqueen (Aug 12, 2005)

Pearl Harbour. I tried i really did.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 12, 2005)

muser said:
			
		

> I had to respond twice on this thread, I agree with Orang utan, some of you are barbarians, and to put it mildly c*ntish. Tarantino is a superb director, hardly puts a foot wrong. Some people on here are naming good films just to bring attention on themselves. If we all went to the cinema and had to watch these films that everyone is calling rubbish, and then I put on "what dreams may come" with Robin Williams. Then we had to stay and watch all these films again we would all have commited suicide by opening credits of this one.
> Apart from "Prozac nation", this is the only other film I have stopped half way through and I have sat through Chronicles of Riddicks, I mentioned that just so you know what I'm prepared to go through.



I have an American friend who thinks What Dreams May come is a masterpiece.

I told him how badly received it was in the UK and he muttered something like "Brits are fucked up"...


----------



## LJo (Aug 12, 2005)

muser said:
			
		

> The phantom menace will grow on naysayers as will the matrix sequels, which are more in keeping with great endings but not what was expected.



NOT TRUE NOT TRUE NOT TRUE.

And in my entire life only two films out of the many thousands I have seen, sworn never to see again, and been forced to sit through a second time because 'they'll grow on you' ever actually did. And neither of them were the Phantom Menace and the frickin' Matrix wankfest sequels.

And when I say 'thousands', I'm not exaggerating.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 12, 2005)

LJo said:
			
		

> And in my entire life only two films out of the many thousands I have seen, sworn never to see again, and been forced to sit through a second time because 'they'll grow on you' ever actually did.



What were they?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 12, 2005)

Meet Joe Black - Jesus that is dull, long and shite.


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 12, 2005)

Muser...sometimes I suspect there is a little bit of contrariness for the sake of looking cool when it comes to music, TV and film criticism on here, (and I agree with the barbarian comment re: Tarantino too) but you're kinda digging a hole when you have a go at Flash Gordon and 'anything with Vin Diesel' - Pitch Black is a more than watchable movie, as is The Fast and The Furious a more than adequate popcorn switch-brain-off-for 90-minutes - your dislikes in movies are no less subjective than anyone elses.


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 12, 2005)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> I have an American friend who thinks What Dreams May come is a masterpiece.
> 
> I told him how badly received it was in the UK and he muttered something like "Brits are fucked up"...



Is that the Robin Williams coma/death thing with all the really amazing CGI landscapes and stuff?

That was AWFUL.


----------



## dormouse (Aug 12, 2005)

Mishima.  I didn't want to see it but the boyfriend was dead keen.  He fell asleep after ten minutes.  I had to sit through all of it.  Also The Piano.  There's a reason that's the last film I ever saw.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 12, 2005)

dormouse said:
			
		

> Mishima.  I didn't want to see it but the boyfriend was dead keen.  He fell asleep after ten minutes.  I had to sit through all of it.


Surely you could have switched it off after he fell asleep.




			
				dormouse said:
			
		

> Also The Piano.  There's a reason that's the last film I ever saw.



You mean you haven't seen a film since?


----------



## dormouse (Aug 12, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Surely you could have switched it off after he fell asleep.


I think the others in the cinema might have objected!  Some of _them_ were awake...



			
				Orang Utan said:
			
		

> You mean you haven't seen a film since?


Don't think so.  I'm not very good at sitting watching things (except for the world going by, through a train window).
Ooops yes I have - Crouching Tiger leaping thingy - that was ok.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 12, 2005)

dormouse said:
			
		

> Mishima.  I didn't want to see it but the boyfriend was dead keen.  He fell asleep after ten minutes.  I had to sit through all of it.  Also The Piano.  There's a reason that's the last film I ever saw.


 would you read a boring book and decide never to read again? or hear a dull piece of music and decide never to listen to music again?


----------



## dormouse (Aug 12, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> would you read a boring book and decide never to read again? or hear a dull piece of music and decide never to listen to music again?


No, I've just lost faith in my ability to identify a watchable film!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 12, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Is that the Robin Williams coma/death thing with all the really amazing CGI landscapes and stuff?
> 
> That was AWFUL.



Yep.  Appalling.


----------



## mysterybadger (Aug 12, 2005)

andy2002 said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the original Solaris but the remake with Clooney was horribly dull. The Hours is also thoroughly tedious. Oh, and let's not forget Dune, the only film which has put me to sleep TWICE!


The original Solaris is not so much dull as slow-moving, or at least dull in a way that only a work of genius can get away with. It's like Henry Kissinger said "when I bore people at a party, they think it's their fault".

The Solaris remake is just plain dull.  Lost in Translation is even duller but probably misses the prize be being very irritating as well.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 12, 2005)

dormouse said:
			
		

> No, I've just lost faith in my ability to identify a watchable film!



I actually pity you a bit... I find watching films one of life's  pleasures.  Even crap ones, sometimes...


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 12, 2005)

Horses for courses really tho. I've actually met someone who *doesn't like music* - and at the time I met them they were 22 years old!!! And they still avoid it. All forms.

It actually took me about 3 months of knowing them before I really believed them as well...


----------



## trashpony (Aug 12, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Horses for courses really tho. I've actually met someone who *doesn't like music* - and at the time I met them they were 22 years old!!! And they still avoid it. All forms.
> 
> It actually took me about 3 months of knowing them before I really believed them as well...



I used to go out with a bloke who had never connected his stereo up as 'I'm not that interested in music'. That was pretty much the end of that relationship


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 12, 2005)

I once worked with a lass who didn't like music.
We worked at Virgin Megastore.


----------



## Truly Topcat (Aug 12, 2005)

Titanic.

Makes me yawn just typing the name out. Most inane pile of bolocks I have ever witnessed.

Gangs of New York pushed it close though. Don't know about you but I am noticing a theme here...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 12, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Horses for courses really tho. I've actually met someone who *doesn't like music* - and at the time I met them they were 22 years old!!! And they still avoid it. All forms.
> 
> It actually took me about 3 months of knowing them before I really believed them as well...



True.  Not liking music is even wierder.  I only got into films in a big way in the past few years, whereas I've always been a music lover.

A friend had a roommate (as in literal sharing a room, as opposed to the american meaning of 'somone you share a house with) at Uni (in Halls) who didn't like any music other than guns n roses - and he only had ONE tape - that was his music collection...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 12, 2005)

I saw an Andy Warhol film in the 70s that was like watching paint dry. Can't remember what it was called though, and anyway I fell asleep.


----------



## Truly Topcat (Aug 12, 2005)

2001 A Space odysey  - What on earth was that all about?


----------



## Jayshat (Aug 12, 2005)

Gruesome twosome: Young Adam & Hollywood Homicide...

I blame Blockbusters and their enticing 3 for £3 offer. Damn them!


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 12, 2005)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> True.  Not liking music is even wierder.  I only got into films in a big way in the past few years, whereas I've always been a music lover.
> 
> A friend had a roommate (as in literal sharing a room, as opposed to the american meaning of 'somone you share a house with) at Uni (in Halls) who didn't like any music other than guns n roses - and he only had ONE tape - that was his music collection...



I reckon that if yr mate had killed him with that tape by oh, I don't know, shoving it so far down his throat his hand was covered in shit when he pulled it out, any judge would have agreed that there was provocation.

I mean I like G'n'R - Appetite is one of my fave albums - but playing it over and over and over...in the US e'd have been violating the cruel and unusual punishment clause in the consitution...


----------



## Truly Topcat (Aug 12, 2005)

Although it wasn't exactly dull, the ending of Bladerunner also somewhat bemused me and thus detracted from the rest of the film.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 12, 2005)

Which ending?


----------



## muser (Aug 12, 2005)

*worst film ever*

Kyser, you agreed with what dreams may come, I haven't seen the fast and the furious, and pitch black was fine. I admit I was being a bit too general with Vin Diesel, but he is a truly awful actor, even in pitch black you had to overlook some of his acting and concentrate on the film itself. So in that respect he is awful in anything he has been in.
Another film is Valentines day, but it falls into that category of so bad its funny. It has randy quaid in it. Watch it with puff, and make sure its your dealer's best sativa.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 13, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I reckon that if yr mate had killed him with that tape by oh, I don't know, shoving it so far down his throat his hand was covered in shit when he pulled it out, any judge would have agreed that there was provocation.
> 
> I mean I like G'n'R - Appetite is one of my fave albums - but playing it over and over and over...in the US e'd have been violating the cruel and unusual punishment clause in the consitution...



He didn't even have Appetite.  Just the weaker of the two "Illusion" albums (One)...

Luckily he didn't play it that often (because my mate was always blaring out music)....


----------



## haggy (Aug 13, 2005)

what was that revered french film about the foreign legion a few years back with the odd-looking guy from the stella artois ad?

fucking tedious


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 13, 2005)

Inn of The Sixth Happiness


----------



## mk12 (Aug 13, 2005)

Blair Witch Project


----------



## Pecola (Aug 13, 2005)

I was totally underwhelmed by Closer....smug self-obsessed one dimensional stereotypes arguing!! yawn................


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 14, 2005)

The Unbearable Shiteness of Boring.


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 14, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I saw an Andy Warhol film in the 70s that was like watching paint dry. Can't remember what it was called though, and anyway I fell asleep.


Oh yes, his 1967 12-hour  masterpiece,  _Paint Drying. _


----------



## cyberfairy (Aug 14, 2005)

the passion of the christ...jesus fucking christ! just hours and hours of him wandering around looking sad and being whipped..although to be fair, i shouldn't have been expecting car chases...


----------



## The Lone Runner (Aug 14, 2005)

Several years ago at Christmas every member of my family present, from youngest kid up to eldest Grandparent fell asleep in front of When Harry met Sally   

I fell asleep at the cinema when I went to see hte 2nd LOTR film....dull dull dull


----------



## dlx1 (Aug 14, 2005)

Matrix  never see all, both time fell asleep. 

_load the jump program_  wank


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 14, 2005)

The last samurai  swords ,ninjas ,huge battles  and i still fell asleep .
           The matrix reloaded  fell sleep both times i watched that does it make sense if you stay awake through it  ? .
           AI gave up on that one 
           Underworld      vampires werewolves guns  tight leather cat suits and 
                                still  dull that takes real effort .



        I liked grosse pointe blanc  ,heat, dog soldiers ,And independence day   .


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 14, 2005)

_Heat_. Lots of people love it, I found it dull. I fell asleep through it. Or maybe that had something to do with Streatham Cannon (as was).


----------



## muser (Aug 14, 2005)

*Poor man*




			
				Apocalypse21 said:
			
		

> "The Village", which was the last film I saw at the pictures, was one of the most poorly scripted and drabbest films I have ever had the displeasure to sit through. The majority of it's 1 hr 30/2 hrs sees the characters in the same location talking endlessly about nothing. Without doubt the biggest Hollywood flop of 2004!



Take that comment and shove it up your arse.
One of the best films of the last decade


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 14, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Really?
> I loved it.
> 
> 
> Another one: The Road To Perdition



I didn't mind it, although I watched it on a plane, and there wasn't much else to do.


----------



## winterinmoscow (Aug 14, 2005)

I have The English Patient somewhere near the top of my list of dullest films. Couldn't work out what was going on for ages and then when I did, it all seemed a bit late to rewind it all and rewatch it.

One of those films I just didn't get!


----------



## muser (Aug 14, 2005)

*Jaed*




			
				jæd said:
			
		

> Lost In Translation. Two boring people being boring. Fuck knows what the critics watched but it wasn't this film...



The point to this film flew over your head, stick to XXX and other vin (can't act, won't act) diesel classics


----------



## Rocket Romano (Aug 14, 2005)

muser said:
			
		

> Take that comment and shove it up your arse.
> One of the best films of the last decade



   

Was it fuck. Easily the most hammed up film of the decade. 

Put it up alongside Battlefield Earth!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 14, 2005)

cyberfairy said:
			
		

> the passion of the christ...jesus fucking christ! just hours and hours of him wandering around looking sad and being whipped..although to be fair, i shouldn't have been expecting car chases...



Plus, you know the ending before your butt even sinks into the theatre seat.


----------



## muser (Aug 14, 2005)

chriswill said:
			
		

> City of god bored the shit out of me.
> 
> Although when I mentioned it at work I as nearly lynched.



They should have finished you off. Are you looking for attention chris, why mention a classic in this thread.
You've got the wrong thread mate, see best films ever.


----------



## Rocket Romano (Aug 14, 2005)

muser said:
			
		

> They should have finished you off. Are you looking for attention chris, why mention a classic in this thread.
> You've got the wrong thread mate, see best films ever.



Your clearly the one seeking for attention. 

City of God is an ok film, it could be more but we'll make do.


----------



## muser (Aug 14, 2005)

Rocket Romano said:
			
		

> Your clearly the one seeking for attention.
> 
> City of God is an ok film, it could be more but we'll make do.



seeking for attention?
Hmmmmm I would get back to your homework if I was you.
Stop commenting on matters you know nothing about!


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 14, 2005)

City of God has some good touches, like the narrative, and the camera work is excellent, but it is not some amazing classic that people bang on about.  I think alot of people, if they admit it, rather want to see the action, rather than seriuosly thinking about the social issues explored in the film about the Brazilian slums.


----------



## muser (Aug 14, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> City of God has some good touches, like the narrative, and the camera work is excellent, but it is not some amazing classic that people bang on about.  I think alot of people, if they admit it, rather want to see the action, rather than seriuosly thinking about the social issues explored in the film about the Brazilian slums.



Ryazan, you could be right, but in watching the film you are left with the impression that proverty isn't as sad as we in the west make it out to be. And before you say it, I know that there is abject proverty in the west too. Though it seems so much worse there.
What is an amazing classic that is worth banging on about Ryazan?


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 14, 2005)

I am not talking about you personally.  But I just don't think it is that brilliant.  It is a matter of opinion.  Incidently I don't thnik it shiould be put up as one of the dullest films either, as I don't think it deserves it.

As for poverty and/or societal alientation and it's malcontents I think there are several,  A Short Film About Killing, part of the Dekalog series, is one film that springs to mind.  Taxi Driver is up there too.


----------



## muser (Aug 14, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> I am not talking about you personally.  But I just don't think it is that brilliant.  It is a matter of opinion.  Incidently I don't thnik it shiould be put up as one of the dullest films either, as I don't think it deserves it.
> 
> As for poverty and/or societal alientation and it's malcontents I think there are several,  A Short Film About Killing, part of the Dekalog series, is one film that springs to mind.  Taxi Driver is up there too.



I'd be interested in the dekalog series, which are the others. I own taxi driver, though I feel I'm a generation removed in appreciating this film fully. If I had lived in the time of the winter of discontent I may have felt differently.


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 14, 2005)

Funny.

City of God could be seen a gung ho action packed bullet fest for teenage Strokes fans.  or not.  It is up to any man (or woman) to decide.

I haven't seen all the Dekalog films, but the one where the Jewish war survivor travels back to Poland from the US to contact the person who refused her a hiding place from the occupation is particularly good.  The Eighth  Commandment?  I don't know which.  I didn't pay much attention at Sunday mass in my younger youth.


----------



## muser (Aug 15, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Funny.
> 
> City of God could be seen a gung ho action packed bullet fest for teenage Strokes fans.  or not.  It is up to any man (or woman) to decide.
> 
> I haven't seen all the Dekalog films, but the one where the Jewish war survivor travels back to Poland from the US to contact the person who refused her a hiding place from the occupation is particularly good.  The Eighth  Commandment?  I don't know which.  I didn't pay much attention at Sunday mass in my younger youth.



They are one to watch, the film with meryl streep about a  jew polish woman in occupied poland who has to make the decision about which of her children must live. I can't remember the title, but saw a little of it at work (while in my break) and thought it was brilliant.
Captain correlli mandolin is a superb book, saw a little of the film, once again during my lunch break and thought that too might be good.
Ryazan, City of god, from which ever persective you want to view it is a brilliant film. If you trivialise it and call it a teenage film flick, that seems to say more about you than the film.
Some of the films that have appeared on this thread, I'm curious to see now, as I know their authors have criticized hall of fame films and know that if they have mentioned a film I haven't seen then it probably is good.
This thread could easily have been called "irrelevant members of society - your dullest films please"


----------



## Jibby! (Aug 15, 2005)

Angel (Neil Jordan/Steven Rea)

Absolutely tedious.


----------



## chriswill (Aug 15, 2005)

muser said:
			
		

> They should have finished you off. Are you looking for attention chris, why mention a classic in this thread.
> You've got the wrong thread mate, see best films ever.




Opinion is subjective shocker.


    

It just bored the shit out of me, average in all but cinematography.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 15, 2005)

Dont know if its been mentioned but 'City of Angels' with Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan (I think) was crap. In fact the only redeeming feature (as if you couldn't see it coming off a mile away!) was when Cage decided to lose his wings and become human so he could marry our Meg only for her to be ran over by a truck! Made me chuckle anyway!


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 15, 2005)

Muser...

You're a bit oup yourself aren't you? This is a thread where people offer their opinions on what they consider to be boring movies and films. Just because you think a film/movie is great doesn't mean it is. Personally I thought 'The Village' was a pile of shite too - but than AFAIC Shaylaman has gone steadily downhill since Sisxth Sense and is as massively overrated screenwriter and whoever let him stand behind a camera should be shot.

But that's MY opinion.


----------



## shoddysolutions (Aug 15, 2005)

Mine too - thinks he's Hitchcock but he's actually just a cock.


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 15, 2005)

muser said:
			
		

> They are one to watch, the film with meryl streep about a  jew polish woman in occupied poland who has to make the decision about which of her children must live. I can't remember the title, but saw a little of it at work (while in my break) and thought it was brilliant.
> Captain correlli mandolin is a superb book, saw a little of the film, once again during my lunch break and thought that too might be good.
> Ryazan, City of god, from which ever persective you want to view it is a brilliant film. If you trivialise it and call it a teenage film flick, that seems to say more about you than the film.
> Some of the films that have appeared on this thread, I'm curious to see now, as I know their authors have criticized hall of fame films and know that if they have mentioned a film I haven't seen then it probably is good.
> This thread could easily have been called "irrelevant members of society - your dullest films please"



You come across as a teenager, who because they think soemthnig is great, like totally, then others must be irrlelevant, and it is Ok to insult them.  I don't like City of God.  get over it.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 15, 2005)

The Grudge 
Gladiator
Gangs of New York
Gone with the Wind

Films beginning with 'G', it seems.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 15, 2005)

I haven't bothered to watch The Village, because Shamlyamanwotsit has painted himself into a rather tight corner - I read a review of it and, knowing that there would be some kind of twist, guessed the correct ending without having seen a second of it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> AFAIC Shaylaman has gone steadily downhill since Sisxth Sense and is as massively overrated screenwriter and whoever let him stand behind a camera should be shot.


i've only seen the sixth sense, and that was fucking dull. but to be fair, the same people who thought it was a classic seemed to love the matrix too. which was also shit. i never listen to their opinions any more...


----------



## Dead Cat Bounce (Aug 15, 2005)

In A Mood For Love.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118694/

I can't put my finger on why I didn't like it , I've seen it three times now but still it I just can't watch it without doing something else or falling asleep.

Maybe it's the repetitive sound track with that violin that plays every ten minutes


----------



## muser (Aug 17, 2005)

*Teenagers and silly comments*




			
				Ryazan said:
			
		

> You come across as a teenager, who because they think soemthnig is great, like totally, then others must be irrlelevant, and it is Ok to insult them.  I don't like City of God.  get over it.



Opinion is subjective, and maybe it is because i'm a new poster on this site that I find the comments being made about films that are otherwise generally revered, a tad annoying and subsequentally rise to the proverbial bait.
I'm willing to admit that you don't like City of God, but i do recall asking you what is one of your best movies and you made no response.
Can I ask the question of all those posters, who thought I was a little rash in earlier posts.


----------



## chriswill (Aug 17, 2005)

Me, I liked armageddon.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 17, 2005)

Unbreakable is one of the greatest films ever made, so ya boo sucks to you all.

Having said that, I thought Sixth Sense was average and The Village was OK.

But Unbreakable is up there with stuff like 2001 a Space Odyssey, to my mind


----------



## belboid (Aug 17, 2005)

muser said:
			
		

> They are one to watch, the film with meryl streep about a  jew polish woman in occupied poland who has to make the decision about which of her children must live. I can't remember the title, but saw a little of it at work (while in my break) and thought it was brilliant.


Sophies Choice.

ott mawkish pish imo, but what the hey.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 17, 2005)

I chose not to watch it.


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 17, 2005)

muser said:
			
		

> The point to this film flew over your head, stick to XXX and other vin (can't act, won't act) diesel classics


 Then perhaps you would care to _explain _ to those of us lacking your _towering _ intellect what the point of the film is.


----------



## Dubversion (Aug 17, 2005)

muser said:
			
		

> Opinion is subjective, and maybe it is because i'm a new poster on this site that I find the comments being made about films that are otherwise generally revered, a tad annoying and subsequentally rise to the proverbial bait.
> I'm willing to admit that you don't like City of God, but i do recall asking you what is one of your best movies and you made no response.
> Can I ask the question of all those posters, who thought I was a little rash in earlier posts.



as it stands, i agree with a lot of your opinions, but do you really think that the fact that films are generally revered should have the SLIGHTEST bearing on this thread?

you need to calm down a bit


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 17, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I chose not to watch it.



'Donna's Choice'


Muser...the whole notion of getting upset about 'revered' films (and I'd like to find the critic circle who 'revere' The Village) is pointless - I adore some truly awful movies for bizarre reasons from specific camerawork/direction to cute leading ladies/men.

For example, I LOVE Legends of the Fall and stuff like Merchant Ivory movies. I also quite enjoy the guilty pleasures of DdeP's Bonfire of the Vanities.

But to say that any film is above criticism is silly - all movies have their flaws.


----------



## nick1181 (Aug 17, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I also quite enjoy the guilty pleasures of DdeP's Bonfire of the Vanities.




Really? Christ.

For some reason I've seen Empire Records about 8 times. Bloody Awful - and fairly irritating to boot. Quite nice chicks though. Probably.


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 17, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I adore some truly awful movies for bizarre reasons


Speaking of Brian de Palma, I adore 
*koff* Phantom of the Paradise *koff*

Also Argento's
*koff* Suspiria *koff*


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 17, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Speaking of Brian de Palma, I adore
> *koff* Phantom of the Paradise *koff*



well, it does have the finest soundtrack this side of 'bugsy malone'


----------



## Dubversion (Aug 17, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I also quite enjoy the guilty pleasures of DdeP's Bonfire of the Vanities.



i didn't think it was as black as it was painted either


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 17, 2005)

nick1181 said:
			
		

> For some reason I've seen Empire Records about 8 times. Bloody Awful - and fairly irritating to boot. Quite nice chicks though. Probably.



it's a well-executed movie - no great masterpiece, but enjoyable fluff. rory cochrane is a nob though. and it's maxwell caulfield's best performance since 'grease 2'


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 17, 2005)

muser said:
			
		

> Opinion is subjective, and maybe it is because i'm a new poster on this site that I find the comments being made about films that are otherwise generally revered, a tad annoying and subsequentally rise to the proverbial bait.
> I'm willing to admit that you don't like City of God, but i do recall asking you what is one of your best movies and you made no response.
> Can I ask the question of all those posters, who thought I was a little rash in earlier posts.



 

*marks down as fifth form rebel*


----------



## Dubversion (Aug 17, 2005)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> *marks down as fifth form rebel*



as old as that?

i thought fairly well-read 3rd former


----------



## Clintons Cat (Aug 17, 2005)

Angela's Ashes
True Confessions 
Wonderland.
Matrix 2 (revalations?resolotions?rennovations i forget already)
Panic In Needle park
I Robot 
the day after tommorow
the hulk


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 17, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> as old as that?
> 
> i thought fairly well-read 3rd former



i _rilly, rilly hope_ they're not a third year, because with a stinky thumb-up-arse attitude like that they're not going to make friends or influence people...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 17, 2005)

Clintons Cat said:
			
		

> I Robot



have you heard?

they're making a sequel.

it's called 'ii robot'...


----------



## maya (Aug 17, 2005)

that Ed Wood film about aliens, using porcelain saucers hanging from bits of string to impersonate UFO's- for 4 hours and 45 minutes....


----------



## Clintons Cat (Aug 17, 2005)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> have you heard?
> 
> they're making a sequel.
> 
> it's called 'ii robot'...



Groan...


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 18, 2005)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> well, it does have the finest soundtrack this side of 'bugsy malone'


I know all the words.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 18, 2005)

_I Robot_ isn't the _dullest_ film I've ever paid to see, but it is very probably the _worst_.


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 18, 2005)

maya said:
			
		

> that Ed Wood film about aliens, using porcelain saucers hanging from bits of string to impersonate UFO's- for 4 hours and 45 minutes....


You mean the Tim Burton film Ed Wood (surely not!) or Plan Nine From Outer Space?

Surely the latter? The former features one of Bill Murray's finest performances (and that's saying something) as Bunny Breckinridge, not to mention Martin Landau's (richly deserved) Oscar winning Bela Lugosi.


----------



## nick1181 (Aug 18, 2005)

Actually speaking of Bill Murray, I found that Lost in Translation to be fairly diabolical. It's a chick/bloke thing I think. Girls all seem to like it.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 18, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> _I Robot_ isn't the _dullest_ film I've ever paid to see, but it is very probably the _worst_.



It's no way worse than Spawn.


----------



## Dubversion (Aug 18, 2005)

nick1181 said:
			
		

> Actually speaking of Bill Murray, I found that Lost in Translation to be fairly diabolical. It's a chick/bloke thing I think. Girls all seem to like it.




erm.. most of the main champions on these boards for Lost In Translation have been blokes, IIRC.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> erm.. most of the main champions on these boards for Lost In Translation have been blokes, IIRC.



and _i wonder why that is_...


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 18, 2005)

*Patriarchy, I shit it.*




			
				nick1181 said:
			
		

> Actually speaking of Bill Murray, I found that Lost in Translation to be fairly diabolical. It's a chick/bloke thing I think. Girls all seem to like it.


 I didn't. And  I'm still waiting for mardy or whatever he's called to explain to me why this makes me really stupid. 

I'm simply not interested in middle aged men going through a mid-life crisis and feeling sorry for themselves.  

Men have a far better time of it than women in the same age-group, for whom the idea of getting hold of a hot young bit of male stuff isn't, in 99.9 per cent of cases, even REMOTELY a possibility. And Scarlet Johannson comes across as a spoiled little drip.

Do I sound bitter?


----------



## jayeola (Aug 18, 2005)

"the last woman on earth" please don't watch on your own and or if you are sober.


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 18, 2005)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> and _i wonder why that is_...


 Oh come on, they are all far too intelligent and sensitive to be playing pocket billiards over Scarlet.  

I can't really imagine why 'chicks' would like it, female director or not. It's a film for middle aged men.


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 18, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> _I Robot_ isn't the _dullest_ film I've ever paid to see, but it is very probably the _worst_.


You _paid_  to see I Robot?    

I got it out on DVD and even then I felt a bit cheated.


----------



## ginger_syn (Aug 18, 2005)

AI
Blade,put me to sleep 4 times.
2001,I'v given up trying to watch that.
the matrix sequels.
What dreams may come. was truly awful,I felt conned and had to sit with my ex sobbing all the way through.it almost sucked my will to live away completly
the village,but Unbreakable is great. 
The English Patient, what was the point.
luckily I've never seen Titanic,its not been easy but fingers crossed I never will


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 18, 2005)

> The English Patient, what was the point.



I had to sit through this in the cinema and my gf kept prodding me in the ribs every time there was a really lovely landscape shot. I avoided the 'drama' by falling asleep/prodding my gfs ribs during the 'action'

Beautiful movie but OH. MY. GOD. how dull?


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 18, 2005)

ginger_syn said:
			
		

> AI
> Blade,put me to sleep 4 times.


I fell asleep during Blade on the telly the other day. Mind you, it was after the pub.

As for AI, not only dull but in all regards completely appalling.


----------



## maya (Aug 19, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You mean the Tim Burton film Ed Wood (surely not!) or Plan Nine From Outer Space?
> 
> Surely the latter? The former features one of Bill Murray's finest performances (and that's saying something) as Bunny Breckinridge, not to mention Martin Landau's (richly deserved) Oscar winning Bela Lugosi.


yeah, i meant Plan 9...we all know johnny depp is _divine!_  
(although his acting skills might not compare to his high-quality looks, alas!)  
_< dribble, drool >_ 
_< wipes off stains from floor >_


----------



## kittyP (Aug 19, 2005)

Waterworld was the only film I ever fell asleep in the cinema whilst watching.


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 19, 2005)

kittyP said:
			
		

> Waterworld was the only film I ever fell asleep in the cinema whilst watching.


I fell asleep in the cinema during the Batman one with Val Kilmer.


----------



## belboid (Aug 19, 2005)

I fell asleep during Crouching Tiger, doubt I missed much really.


----------



## changingman (Aug 19, 2005)

belboid said:
			
		

> I fell asleep during Crouching Tiger.


so did i. 

but for me "My Dinner with André" takes the biscuit.


----------



## fear-n-loathing (Aug 19, 2005)

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 was completely lame as was the remake of the orginal. Titanic must be challenging thank christ i've never seen the english patient and the same goes for anything like Jayne Eyre but they must pretty close


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 14, 2016)

The other day got talking to someone at work about Hannah Murray, who used to be in Skins. On googling I discovered she had been in _*The Numbers Station*_, "a 2013 British-American-Belgian action thriller film" from what future historians of the silver screen will no doubt call John Cusack's 'alimony and didn't-give-a-fuck' period.

I watched this film. I remember choosing it on Netflix, and starting it. I then remember absolutely nothing until the final credits appeared. I may have fallen asleep, been abducted by extra-terrestrial creatures from a far-off world, or had my memory wiped remotely via some kind of magnetic shockwave.

Or it might just have been a terrible movie, and my subconscious mind simply wanted to protect my conscious being from the inevitable emotional and psychic trauma that watching it would entail.


----------



## laptop (Mar 14, 2016)

Hmmm... Dull films of the past decade update...

/Paddington/ - had sometimes-sharp people raving about it, was smug Guardianista toss at best.


----------



## Dieselpunk2000 (Mar 15, 2016)

Noah- we walked out of the cinema halfway through.
THX 1138. I actually fell asleep watching it.
Quantum of Solace. I can't even remember what happened in it. Absolute toss. 
Chariots of Fire. I got dragged to see it in 2012 when it was being shown at the Leicester Square Empire. I fell asleep right there in the cinema. 
Spectre. I thought it was just an over-long advert for cars  that only oligarchs could afford.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 16, 2016)

kittyP said:


> Waterworld was the only film I ever fell asleep in the cinema whilst watching.


Since sprogging, I have nodded off to many £1 Kids' Klub ones on a Sunday morning (_Free Bird_, _Despicable Me 2_, that rubbish CGI animated fairy one, etc). I once passed out (dribbling, snoring) whilst sat in the front row of a packed-out theatre on a date during _Independence Day_.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 16, 2016)

I can't remember actually falling asleep in the cinema. My Dad did, when he took us to see Popeye... I don't think he was an Altman fan. Or a Robin Williams fan...

I do, often, fall asleep during a film that I would watch at my own leisure. But usually that's just me being tired, as compared to film quality or pace.


----------



## Reno (Mar 16, 2016)

Godard's Goodbye to Language, which a couple of years ago made a lot of critic's lists, bored me to tears and I decided to skip the last half hour and go to the pub instead.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 16, 2016)

Reno said:


> Godard's Goodbye to Language, which a couple of years ago made a lot of critic's lists, bored me to tears and I decided to skip the last half hour and go to the pub instead.



I haven't heard of this one but even if I was squirming in my seat I couldn't up and leave. It would be against my nature to.


----------



## gosub (Mar 16, 2016)

PAINT DRYING | British Board of Film Classification


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 16, 2016)

gosub said:


> PAINT DRYING | British Board of Film Classification


You're talking to one of the producers, dammit


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 16, 2016)

gosub said:


> PAINT DRYING | British Board of Film Classification





> Note: The following text may contain spoilers


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 16, 2016)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> It's no way worse than Spawn.


hello mate, miss you fella


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 16, 2016)

Has anyone ever endured all 87 hours of The Cure For Insomnia?
The Cure for Insomnia (1987) - IMDb
(though it can't be that boring if the dull bits are spliced with rock music vids and x-rated film footage


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 16, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> hello mate, miss you fella


I like that he's on so many threads that one likes, IYSWIM. Omnipresence, even though his opinions are sometimes terrible


----------



## Reno (Mar 16, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I haven't heard of this one but even if I was squirming in my seat I couldn't up and leave. It would be against my nature to.


I used to be like that, but the older I get the more I like to make the most of the time I've got left on this planet and a really boring, wanky film is not time well spent.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 16, 2016)

Reno said:


> I used to be like that, but the older I get the more I like to make the most of the time I've got left on this planet and a really boring, wanky film is not time well spent.


_BloodRayne_ was my tipping point. Up till then, no matter how painful to watch, even if I had to watch it in chunks, I finished everything I started. Turns out that Uwe Boll + Michael Madsen in a wig was a step too far


----------



## D'wards (Mar 16, 2016)

Lincoln. Awful.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 16, 2016)

Once. 
2001 - and ive tried a few times.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 16, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Lincoln. Awful.


And yet a mid-table biscuit


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 17, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> _BloodRayne_ was my tipping point. Up till then, no matter how painful to watch, even if I had to watch it in chunks, I finished everything I started. Turns out that Uwe Boll + Michael Madsen in a wig was a step too far



*John Carpenter's Vampires* was the breaking point for me *shudders at the memory*


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 17, 2016)

Reno said:


> I used to be like that, but the older I get the more I like to make the most of the time I've got left on this planet and a really boring, wanky film is not time well spent.



I get you but I'd feel ... cheated ... if I didn't sit it out until the bitter end.


----------



## Reno (Mar 17, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I get you but I'd feel ... cheated ... if I didn't sit it out until the bitter end.


I feel cheated out of the extra time I spend on something I've decided is crap. At the cinema it's more rare that I walk out of films, often one has to silently negotiate with the person one went with. I've had a few occasions though were we both loathed the film and were like "if only you'd said something, I would have left too". At home I skip lots of films I can't get into.

There was one film I gave up on after twenty minutes and then returned to after I saw the film-makers following film, which I liked. The film was the "mumble core" psycho thriller A Horrible Way to Die and the follow up was the satirical home invasion film You're Next. When I stuck it out to the end the second time I really liked A Horrible Way to Die, even if initially the way it's made struck me as confusing and off-putting. So occasionally I get it wrong, but I think it's rare and not worth wasting time on all the films where I don't enjoy myself.


----------



## moonsi til (Mar 18, 2016)

It's gotta be 'What Are you doing Hal'..(2001 A Space Odessey)..went to flicks to see it about 4 years back for first time & the film broke down & I thought it was part of the film! So so happy when discovered that it wasn't & we could leave. My partner was really enjoying it.


----------



## Reno (Mar 18, 2016)

I never understood the 2001 = dull complaint. I find the entire mid-section which is HAL vs the astronauts, among the most tense sequences in cinema and that's the main bulk of the film. I also think it's still the most beautiful looking science fiction film  ever made and if you bother to engage with it, there are genuinely great ideas in it.

It took a couple viewings for the film to really click with me, but since then I revisit it at least every couple of years.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 18, 2016)

Reno said:


> I feel cheated out of the extra time I spend on something I've decided is crap. At the cinema it's more rare that I walk out of films, often one has to silently negotiate with the person one went with. I've had a few occasions though were we both loathed the film and were like "if only you'd said something, I would have left too". At home I skip lots of films I can't get into.
> 
> There was one film I gave up on after twenty minutes and then returned to after I saw the film-makers following film, which I liked. The film was the "mumble core" psycho thriller A Horrible Way to Die and the follow up was the satirical home invasion film You're Next. When I stuck it out to the end the second time I really liked A Horrible Way to Die, even if initially the way it's made struck me as confusing and off-putting. So occasionally I get it wrong, but I think it's rare and not worth wasting time on all the films where I don't enjoy myself.


I wish I had given up on Guardians Of The Galaxy earlier. Gave it a whole hour.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 18, 2016)

Reno said:


> I never understood the 2001 = dull complaint. I find the entire mid-section which is HAL vs the astronauts, among the most tense sequences in cinema and that's the main bulk of the film. I also think it's still the most beautiful looking science fiction film  ever made and if you bother to engage with it, there are genuinely great ideas in it.
> 
> It took a couple viewings for the film to really click with me, but since then I revisit it at least every couple of years.



Damn right. I saw that on RTE when I was a kid - and the continuity announcer said "RTE are proud to present the premiere of 2001" (I think it was 1980 - films took a while to get onto the telly back then). My Mom snorted "proud" - she and Dad saw it when it came out originally and hated it. I was transfixed. I've probably seen it about 6 times & the last time I saw it was at the cinema (last year, I think) and I was blown away all over again!


----------



## gosub (Mar 18, 2016)

Reno said:


> I never understood the 2001 = dull complaint. I find the entire mid-section which is HAL vs the astronauts, among the most tense sequences in cinema and that's the main bulk of the film. I also think it's still the most beautiful looking science fiction film  ever made and if you bother to engage with it, there are genuinely great ideas in it.
> 
> It took a couple viewings for the film to really click with me, but since then I revisit it at least every couple of years.


didn't really getit until I read 2010


----------



## 8115 (Mar 18, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Lincoln. Awful.


I thought it was just me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 18, 2016)

8115 said:


> I thought it was just me.


try the much better 'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter'


----------



## Sue (Mar 18, 2016)

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The only film I've ever walked out of. An hour of my life I'll never get back.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2016)

Sue said:


> Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The only film I've ever walked out of. An hour of my life I'll never get back.


saved myself that experience by not walking into it


----------



## Sue (Mar 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> saved myself that experience by not walking into it


It was even worse than My Own Private Idaho.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2016)

Sue said:


> It was even worse than My Own Private Idaho.


yeh didn't see that either


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2016)

walked out of 'three men and a baby', tho prawns and jelly babies flying round the cinema, culminating in a girl screaming 'i've been hit by a fish', played a part in it.


----------



## Sue (Mar 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> walked out of 'three men and a baby', tho prawns and jelly babies flying round the cinema, culminating in a girl screaming 'i've been hit by a fish', played a part in it.


Good Lord, which cinema?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Mar 18, 2016)

three men and a baby was from the 1980s wasn't it? also who take prawns to a cinema?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 18, 2016)

skyscraper101 said:


> three men and a baby was from the 1980s wasn't it? also who take prawns to a cinema?


followed later by the equally poor 'three men and a little lady'

still not ted dansons worst hour by miles, thats got to be Parent Hood with Mcaully Culkin.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2016)

Sue said:


> Good Lord, which cinema?


barnet odeon


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2016)

skyscraper101 said:


> three men and a baby was from the 1980s wasn't it? also who take prawns to a cinema?


someone who has had a couple of cans of strongbow before attending the afternoon performance

there was a party of girls at the film throwing jelly babies round the place and when one hit me i threw a prawn - with notable accuracy considering the darkened room - leading to the outburst referred to above. following which i and a friend departed with our heads held high.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Mar 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> followed later by the equally poor 'three men and a little lady'
> 
> still not ted dansons worst hour by miles, thats got to be Parent Hood with Mcaully Culkin.



Parenthood was Steve Martin wasn't it? I don't recall Mcaully Culkin in it either.


----------



## Reno (Mar 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> still not ted dansons worst hour by miles, thats got to be Parent Hood with Mcaully Culkin.


Neither actor was in Parenthood, if you mean the 1989 film (which is not bad at all)


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 18, 2016)

Reno said:


> Neither actor was in Parenthood, if you mean the 1989 film (which is not bad at all)


just googled it, 'getting even with dad' is the title I was thinking of.


----------



## Reno (Mar 18, 2016)

gosub said:


> didn't really getit until I read 2010


I never read any of the books and I feel I got 2001 after a couple of viewings, apart from the things which I believe you are not supposed to get. I don't think the film is even that complicated to understand. The alien/s in it is or are so genuinely alien they are beyond our comprehension and the way they communicate may just be reality altering for humans. Which makes it the smartest depiction of alien life on film IMO.

The film of 2010 was terrible, I trust the book is better.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Mar 18, 2016)

Nothing worse than a crap sequel milking its legacy to make for a dull film. The Matrix has to rank most guilty in that regard, plus any of the post-James Cameron Terminator films. I actually bothered to watch Terminator Genysis on the plane a few weeks ago..jesus did that suck. And Beverly Hills Cop 3.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 18, 2016)

I got bored of Crank 2: High Voltage and stopped watching it about a third of the way in.


----------



## Reno (Mar 18, 2016)

NoXion said:


> I got bored of Crank 2: High Voltage and stopped watching it about a third of the way in.


You got further than me. I stopped watching 10 minutes into the first Crank, it gave me a headache.


----------



## Shirl (Mar 18, 2016)

I can't remember what it was called but on holiday one year my friend made me watch a film about a camel that cried. I cried too and the tedium of it.


----------



## Reno (Mar 18, 2016)

Shirl said:


> I can't remember what it was called but on holiday one year my friend made me watch a film about a camel that cried. I cried too and the tedium of it.



I haven't seen the film, but remember the title:





Now I want to know what made the camel cry.


----------



## dylanredefined (Mar 18, 2016)

Thermal imaging recognition part one.

 A film supposedly designed to teach you how to recognize stuff  through thermal imaging sights of the 80's.
 It is basically half an hour of fast moving blobs of helicopters and planes or slow moving blobs of tanks and stuff. It all looks the same to most people except for a few mutants.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> still not ted dansons worst hour by miles, thats got to be Parent Hood with Mcaully Culkin.



Classic dotcomfoolery


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 18, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Classic dotcomfoolery


annoyingly enough I remember keanu reeves in Parenthood being well dude as he helped that woman with her sons wanking


----------



## Reno (Mar 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> annoyingly enough I remember keanu reeves in Parenthood being well dude as he helped that woman with her sons wanking


I also remember a gag about that woman (played by the great Diane Wiest) wanking.


----------



## gosub (Mar 18, 2016)

NoXion said:


> I got bored of Crank 2: High Voltage and stopped watching it about a third of the way in.


silly, not dull


----------



## Reno (Mar 18, 2016)

gosub said:


> silly, not dull


I find films like Crank extremely dull.


----------



## ginger_syn (Mar 19, 2016)

For me it will always be the english patient.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 19, 2016)

Reno said:


> I find films like Crank extremely dull.



The first one was brainlessly entertaining enough but for some reason the second one lost me.


----------



## toblerone3 (Mar 19, 2016)

Compared to the excitement of real life, all films are dull.


----------



## toblerone3 (Mar 19, 2016)

They are all dull.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 19, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> Compared to the excitement of real life, all films are dull.



Does your real life have many lachrymose ungulates, does it, eh?


----------



## Calamity1971 (Mar 19, 2016)

Jason Statham acting badly and needing to shag in public to keep his Adrenalin up is dull.I can't decide which gender they are marketing the film for? Women craving an unrealistic male stereotype or men wanting to be him.


----------



## Favelado (Mar 19, 2016)

Indecent Proposal.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 19, 2016)

Requiem for a dream..

well aside from the 5 minute comedy ending


----------



## Calamity1971 (Mar 19, 2016)

Taken with Liam neeson, take your pick.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 19, 2016)

Reno said:


> The film of 2010 was terrible.



I thought it was considerably less dull than 2001.


----------



## Epona (Mar 19, 2016)

I find it quite difficult to sit through a film (even some quite worthy ones tbh), unless there are space ships, explosions, or car chases.  I do wonder whether that is at least in part due to my auditory processing disorder - unless a film is shown with good subtitles, I can find stuff with lengthy dialogue difficult to follow, so tend to prefer stuff that is quite visually impactful and light on plot and dialogue.


----------



## Reno (Mar 19, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> I thought it was considerably less dull than 2001.


2001 secured its place in film history as one of the greatest films ever made long ago. I think it will withstand you finding it dull.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 19, 2016)

Reno said:


> 2001 secured its place in film history as one of the greatest films ever made long ago. I think it will withstand you finding it dull.



Well I suppose it will always appeal to the pompous and condescending.


----------



## D'wards (Mar 19, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Well I suppose it will always appeal to the pompous and condescending.


Well, unlike me I should imagine you are not bright enough to get it


----------



## Shirl (Mar 19, 2016)

Reno said:


> I haven't seen the film, but remember the title:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't remember but I'll ask my friend, she'd seen it a few times because she's weird.


----------



## Reno (Mar 19, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Well I suppose it will always appeal to the pompous and condescending.


...and I will withstand your bitchy remark.


----------



## ginger_syn (Mar 20, 2016)

Reno said:


> 2001 secured its place in film history as one of the greatest films ever made long ago. I think it will withstand you finding it dull.


Never been able to watch that film all the way through without falling asleep,I don't find it dull as such just very soporific. I preferred the book.


----------



## Casually Red (Mar 20, 2016)

skyscraper101 said:


> Beverly Hills Cop 3.



1,2 and 3 

" get the fuck out of here " ..cue uproarious laughter . Repeat . The end .


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 20, 2016)

Reno said:


> I haven't seen the film, but remember the title:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


some cunt's sitting on it


----------



## SE25 (Mar 20, 2016)

Lost in Translation is a yawnfest


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 20, 2016)

ginger_syn said:


> Never been able to watch that film all the way through without falling asleep,I don't find it dull as such just very soporific. I preferred the book.



I'm the same. I just drift off looking at it.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 20, 2016)

Citizen Kane is daf.


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Citizen Kane is daf.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 20, 2016)

ginger_syn said:


> For me it will always be the english patient.



Oh, I loved that. Big epic film, set in a dessert and lovely Ralph and Kristin. Not to mention lovely Juliette and Naveen. One of the great romantic films of our time.


----------



## spliff (Mar 20, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Citizen Kane is daf.


What's 'daf'? 
Citizen Kane is ace. It says on the poster *"It's Terrific"* and it is.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 20, 2016)

spliff said:


> What's 'daf'?
> Citizen Kane is ace. It says on the poster *"It's Terrific"* and it is.



Dull as fuck. Tabloid owner gets rich has an affair and dies lonely. He should just get over himself already. Yawn.


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Dull as fuck. Tabloid owner gets rich has an affair and dies lonely. He should just get over himself already. Yawn.


You are watching it wrong.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 20, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Dull as fuck. Tabloid owner gets rich has an affair and dies lonely. He should just get over himself already. Yawn.



It's about the corrupting nature of wealth and power on idealism and the loss of childhood innocence. How can you find it dull?


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2016)

Citizen Kane is the rare film entirely thought through in how to tell a story in visual terms, it's endlessly inventive in how it employs the camera, editing and special effects. Any one-sentence synopsis as a reason to dismiss it is genuinely missing the point of a film which invented its own visual language. I find the film endlessly watchable because I still discover new details all the time. I can't imagine anybody genuinely interested in film getting bored by it. If that makes me condescending again, fuck it and "fuck you" in advance.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 20, 2016)

The Deer Hunter.

Anything with Woody Allen.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 20, 2016)

Reno said:


> You are watching it wrong.



Ah yes, my mistake. I'm sure I will realise how wrong I am once I receive proper instruction in watching films appropriately so as to align my opinion with apparent critical consensus.


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Ah yes, my mistake. I'm sure I will realise how wrong I am once I receive proper instruction in watching films appropriately so as to align my opinion with apparent critical consensus.


Instructions above and fuck you !


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 20, 2016)

I'd agree that Citizen Kane offers something new with every viewing. It's a wonderful film in many ways and deserves all the accolades it receives....

....I have no idea if I've been watching it the right way though.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The Deer Hunter.
> 
> Anything with Woody Allen.



TDH has it's flaws; the patriotism angle, the misogyny and the depiction of Vietnamese but it's still an epic watch.

Anything with Woody? Even Annie Hall? The Front (which he didn't direct)?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 20, 2016)

Broadway Danny Rose is great fun...


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 20, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Anything with Woody? Even Annie Hall?


Absolutely. 

The presence of the supremely untalented WA as an actor has fucked up some otherwise decent films. 

Anyone who thinks otherwise is watching them wrong.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> The presence of the supremely untalented WA as an actor has fucked up some otherwise decent films.
> 
> Anyone who thinks otherwise is watching them wrong.



I saw my first WA film as a kid, back in the 70s. "Take the Money and Run" - always loved his stuff. Mind you, I haven't seen anything he's done since Blue Jasmine. Which he wasn't in, iirc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 20, 2016)

2001 the book is a different experience to 2001 the film. One is C Clarke telling you a story, a good one. The other is really kubrik telling it. I don't know how either could bore anyone.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 20, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 2001 the book is a different experience to 2001 the film. One is C Clarke telling you a story, a good one. The other is really kubrik telling it. I don't know how either could bore anyone.



Even the kids can enjoy it!


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 20, 2016)

We're currently struggling through _Spooks: The Greater Good._ 

Rank bad acting and boring.


----------



## Santino (Mar 20, 2016)

I like 2001 but it is dull in parts.


----------



## 8115 (Mar 20, 2016)

Have we addressed the yawnfest that is The Shawshank Redemption yet?


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 20, 2016)

8115 said:


> Have we addressed the yawnfest that is The Shawshank Redemption yet?



Some great samples in it:


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2016)

8115 said:


> Have we addressed the yawnfest that is The Shawshank Redemption yet?



I didn't find it dull, just daft.


----------



## Reno (Mar 20, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> Compared to the excitement of real life, all films are dull.


That's deep, man.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> I didn't find it dull, just daft.



It's too derivative. Escape from Alcatraz, Birdman of Alcatraz, Papillon etc all do it much better.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 2001 the book is a different experience to 2001 the film. One is C Clarke telling you a story, a good one. The other is really kubrik telling it. I don't know how either could bore anyone.



It is possible to just disagree with the story being told though.  I hated the film and disliked the book.  Sorry.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> It is possible to just disagree with the story being told though.  I hated the film and disliked the book.  Sorry.



Am wondering; did you find it a bit cold/clinical? That's a charge often levelled at Kubrick's films...


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Am wondering; did you find it a bit cold/clinical? That's a charge often levelled at Kubrick's films...



No, I disliked the premise at the start of 2001 for idealogical reasons.  The film was still massively dull though.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> No, I disliked the premise at the start of 2001 for idealogical reasons.



That the arrival of the monolith co-incided with a momentous step in the evolutionary development of humankind? 

I could have misinterpreted that - I'm sure Reno will set me straight.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> That the arrival of the monolith co-incided with a momentous step in the evolutionary development of humankind?
> 
> I could have misinterpreted that - I'm sure Reno will set me straight.



No, more that the first tool use was for violence for very little reason, I find that premise more disturbing than a Western with cowboys shooting at one another.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> No, more that the first tool use was for violence for very little reason, I find that premise more disturbing than a Western with cowboys shooting at one another.



I get that. It's a negative take on the start of the journey of humankind but to me, that journey ends with a kind of elightenment at the close of the film.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> No, more that the first tool use was for violence for very little reason, I find that premise more disturbing than a Western with cowboys shooting at one another.


So you don't like the idea that human consciousness comes with the potential for violence ? It may be disturbing but it's not exactly wrong is it ?


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> So you don't like the premise that human consciousness comes with violence ? It may be disturbing but it's not exactly wrong is it ?



I think it is wrong, as an archaelogist I think it is wrong, I think a lot of what we think of as the past (especially if you are talking about very early hominids) is coloured by our perceptions of society today, and trying to make sense of what it must have been like, and projecting modern values back onto that era.  Incorrectly.  Most of the reason I disagree with the film is because I am an archaeologist.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> I think it is wrong, as an archaelogist I think it is wrong, I think a lot of what we think of as the past (especially if you are talking about very early hominids) is coloured by our perceptions of society today, and trying to make sense of what it must have been like, and projecting modern values back onto that era.  Incorrectly.



But violent behaviour isn't a modern value; it's in all animals & always has been, no?


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> But violent behaviour isn't a modern value; it's in all animals & always has been, no?



If you think the stone age was all about bashing each other over the heads then you're very misguided.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> If you think the stone age was all about bashing each other over the heads then you're very misguided.


The prologue wasn't supposed to be a naturalistic portrait of all the Stone Age encompasses, it was a parable about the downside of civilisation.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> If you think the stone age was all about bashing each other over the heads then you're very misguided.



That's a bit disingenous . I'm saying that violent behaviour is inherent, not just in humankind and it's predecessors but in all animals. The film deals with two groups of hominids and outbreaks of violence. It's not constant but it is present; just like it is today. But the film goes far beyond the limitations and possibilities of violence towards a spectacular jump in evolution when humankind can leave all that behind. I think.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> That's a bit disingenous . I'm saying that violent behaviour is inherent, not just in humankind and it's predecessors but in all animals. The film deals with two groups of hominids and outbreaks of violence. It's not constant but it is present; just like it is today. But the film goes far beyond the limitations and possibilities of violence towards a spectacular jump in evolution when humankind can leave all that behind. I think.



And I think you're an idiot if you think that.  At least I have some educational background in archaeology and palaeontology backing up my views.  I can't really be arsed to get into this with you, because it's not that important to me to spend time arguing about it.  Sorry!


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 21, 2016)

I am not sure that thinking violence is present in the history of mankind makes someone an idiot.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> And I think you're an idiot if you think that.  At least I have some educational background in archaeology and palaeontology backing up my views.  I can't really be arsed to get into this with you, because it's not that important to me to spend time arguing about it.  Sorry!


I'd say you are the idiot here for not understanding that films deal with themes in an allegorical way and are not necessarily supposed to be literal representation of historical facts as you personally understand them  (which in any case are based on spurious claims by you)

Did you get out of the wrong side of the bed today ?


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> I'd say you are the idiot here for not understanding that films deal with themes in an allegorical way and are not necessarily supposed to be literal representation of historical facts (which in any case are based on spurious claims by you, to say the least)
> 
> Did you just get out of the wrong side of the bed today ? Massive overact ion here.



Haha!  All I started off saying was that I didn't like the premise of the film, it was others who wanted to argue with me about it.  I haven't over-reacted, I've just stated my views and knowledge.  Honestly, I have researched hominid skeletal remains, and they don't have the defensive injuries that would indicate large scale violence between different groups.

And I don't like the film, is it OK for me to not like the film?  I mean we are allowed to have our own views and opinions about films, aren't we?  Or is 2001 the point where we have to conform 'or else'?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 21, 2016)

Another vote for The Deer Hunter here. I'm sure they were trying to make some kind of point with that movie but I don't know or care what it was.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Haha!  All I started off saying was that I didn't like the premise of the film, it was others who wanted to argue with me about it.  I haven't over-reacted, I've just stated my views and knowledge.  Honestly, I have researched hominid skeletal remains, and they don't have the defensive injuries that would indicate large scale violence between different groups.


There was no "large scale violence" in the film, there was a single violent act. 

Apart from that it is besides the point of what the film is doing, you trying to tell us that no prehistoric man ever behaved violently against another is laughable and a quick google into the behaviour of prehistoric humans makes your claims void.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> There was no "large scale violence" in the film, there was a single violent act.
> 
> Apart from that it is besides the point of what the film is doing, you trying to tell us that no prehistoric man ever behaved violently against another is laughable and a quick google into the behaviour of prehistoric humans makes your claims void.



The whole point of that single violent act though, was that in the film it was posited as the basis for all violent acts since, a starting point.

And you are trying to warp what I have said.  I am not saying that no-one in the prehistoric era acted violently, but violent acts certainly seem to have been less prevalent then (judging by injury patterns on skeletons) than they are today.  All I am saying, is don't try to use a past that you don't understand to explain the violence of the modern world - because you won't find an explanation there.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Nobody is misunderstanding the past. I simply reject you literal interpretation that a condensed allegory about civilisation has to conform to your ideas about historical accuracy. The prologue is like a biblical  parable and then it could be argued that the film goes on to shift our preception of god. If the film would be banging away at that one message about violence I'd understand your objection more, but it doesn't.

Going in cicles now, so I will leave it here.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Yes, yes, historical accuracy is a boring weight on filums.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> Nobody is misunderstanding the past. I simply reject you literal interpretation that a condensed allegory about civilisation has to conform to your ideas about historical accuracy. The prologue is like a biblical  parable and then it could be argued that the film goes on to shift our preception of god. If the film would be banging away at that one message about violence I'd understand your objection more, but it doesn't.
> 
> Going in cicles now, so I will leave it here.



Well maybe that's why I didn't 'get' the film, because I don't believe in any bible or god, so shifting my perception of something that I don't believe in is not going to happen.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Mar 21, 2016)

Watched Fifty Shades Of Grey last night. That was unbelievably dull.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

I hope you do all know that HAL is 1 letter up from IBM though, I think everyone knows that by now tbh.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Well maybe that's why I didn't 'get' the film, because I don't believe in any bible or god, so shifting my perception of something that I don't believe in is not going to happen.


I don't believe in the bible or in a god either, that's not the point. 2001 proposes a non-religious, scientific explanation for a creator, an alien life form whose purpose for us is not known. Many believe that the end takes us back to the start of the film, another leap in evolution. You don't have to believe in that either, you just have to be willing to engage with the idea. That's what science fiction does, it proposes speculative ideas based in science, which for some of us are enjoyable to engage with on a theoretical level.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> It is possible to just disagree with the story being told though.  I hated the film and disliked the book.  Sorry.


I'll let you off this time lol


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> I don't believe in the bible or in a god either, that's not the point. 2001 proposes a non-religious, scientific explanation for a creator, an alien life form whose purpose for us is not known. Many believe that the end takes us back to the start of the film, another leap in evolution. You don't have to believe in that either, you just have to be willing to engage with the idea. That's what science fiction does, it proposes speculative ideas based in science, which for some of us are enjoyable to engage with on a theoretical level.



Yeah, I'm not willing to engage with that idea tbh, I like sci-fi and am prepared for the occasional suspension of disbelief, but it's a shit idea (IMO).  Is it really that big a deal to you that I don't like the film?


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Yeah, I'm not willing to engage with that idea tbh, I like sci-fi and am prepared for the occasional suspension of disbelief, but it's a shit idea (IMO).  Is it really that big a deal to you that I don't like the film?


I thought we are on a forum to discuss ideas but don't worry, this is the post where I definitely stopped caring as you have nothing more interesting to say than "it's a shit idea"


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> I thought we are on a forum to discuss ideas but don't worry, this is the post where I definitely stopped caring as you have nothing more interesting to say than "it's a shit idea"



Have you not been around the rest of the boards?    You're hilarious 

If you HAVE been around the rest of the boards, then you know this is also a place where people are able to say "nope, don't agree".  Really sorry that I am unable to fall in line with your view of this film.  Let's try to remember that it is just a film though   And we all are allowed to have different opinions!


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Have you not been around the rest of the boards?    You're hilarious



You are more eloquent on the subject matter of cats, I give you that.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

The Good Shepherd. 

It's got De Niro, Matt Damon, Spies, CIA shit, The Bay of Pigs ..... can't go wrong, right?

Except there's almost no spying in it.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 21, 2016)

In Bruges - Belgium and Colin Farrell, how could it not be dull


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> In Bruges - Belgium and Colin Farrell, how could it not be dull


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> You are more eloquent on the subject matter of cats, I give you that.


I'm eloquent on a lot of things, I find it very interesting that on a subject like films that is so open to personal interpretation, people feel the need to jump in and say "you're wrong".  Obviously a lot of strong feelings here, I am very sorry that I did not enjoy or appreciate it.  Live with that, it's not like anyone reads my favourite books!


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> If you HAVE been around the rest of the boards, then you know this is also a place where people are able to say "nope, don't agree".  Really sorry that I am unable to fall in line with your view of this film.  Let's try to remember that it is just a film though   And we all are allowed to have different opinions!


No, it's all about winning the arguement. Really, some people !


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 21, 2016)

Contagion - a masterclass in how not to do a pandemic movie


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> No, it's all about winning the arguement. Really, some people !


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 21, 2016)

Any James Bond film.


----------



## Virtual Blue (Mar 21, 2016)

Shawshank Redemption - Story about a couple of prisoners who whinge for many years. One escapes. One gets parole. The end.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Any James Bond film.


... unless you're 12.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

I think On Her Majesty Secret Service is still a great film...


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 21, 2016)

Virtual Blue said:


> Shawshank Redemption - Story about a couple of prisoners who whinge for many years. One escapes. One gets parole. The end.


I'm glad I'm not the only person who hates this film!!


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 21, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Another vote for The Deer Hunter here. I'm sure they were trying to make some kind of point with that movie but I don't know or care what it was.


Same director as Heaven's Gate... In which case if they didn't see the Heavens Gate disaster coming along after this tedious piece of crap then they didn't deserve to be working in film anyway!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> ... unless you're 12.



Most of the Roger Moore ones are too dull even to entertain a child.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Most of the Roger Moore ones are too dull even to entertain a child.



he should have stuck to playing football


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> The whole point of that single violent act though, was that in the film it was posited as the basis for all violent acts since, a starting point.
> 
> And you are trying to warp what I have said.  I am not saying that no-one in the prehistoric era acted violently, but violent acts certainly seem to have been less prevalent then (judging by injury patterns on skeletons) than they are today.  All I am saying, is don't try to use a past that you don't understand to explain the violence of the modern world - because you won't find an explanation there.


Believe  it or not,  the world is a lot less violent than it used to be and is getting less and less violent


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Believe  it or not,  the world is a lot less violent than it used to be and is getting less and less violent


yeh because you swallowed pinker's book. i'm with john gray on this one


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Believe  it or not,  the world is a lot less violent than it used to be and is getting less and less violent



Bullshit.  Utter bullshit.  Don't forget you're talking to someone with a degree and specialist interest in the ancient world, not some numpty.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 21, 2016)

Magic Mike XXL.  Oh EM Gee.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Bullshit.  Utter bullshit.  Don't forget you're talking to someone with a degree and specialist interest in the ancient world, not some numpty.


Well can you support that with something other than 'because I say so'?

If we simply take into account wars and the frequency of them over historical periods, intuitively I'd say you were wrong.

Then you also need to define _violence_.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

This is mostly another "acclaimed/ popular films I didn't like but will get attention for dissing" rather than the "dullest film ever" thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well can you support that with something other than 'because I say so'?
> 
> If we simply take into account wars and the frequency of them over historical periods, intuitively I'd say you were wrong.
> 
> Then you also need to define violence.


or you could read the john gray article i link to


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

The thing is, you can name a lot of wars you were taught in school.  The fact is that there is little physical evidence of warfare on the remains of prehistoric people.  We all know about the Napoleonic war, the 100 years war, because that is the sort of thing we are taught in school, no-one is taught that virtually no prehistoric remains have been found showing injuries that would have been sustained from combat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> The thing is, you can name a lot of wars you were taught in school.  The fact is that there is little physical evidence of warfare on the remains of prehistoric people.  We all know about the Napoleonic war, the 100 years war, because that is what we are taught in school, no-one is taught that virtually no prehistoric remains have been found showing injuries that would have been sustained from combat.


not to mention there are a number of very cogent reasons why more wars are likely in the future.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well can you support that with something other than 'because I say so'?
> 
> If we simply take into account wars and the frequency of them over historical periods, intuitively I'd say you were wrong.
> 
> Then you also need to define _violence_.


when you say 'wars' do you mean _formally declared _wars? i think we should be told.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> The thing is, you can name a lot of wars you were taught in school.  The fact is that there is little physical evidence of warfare on the remains of prehistoric people.  We all know about the Napoleonic war, the 100 years war, because that is what we are taught in school, no-one is taught that virtually no prehistoric remains have been found showing injuries that would have been sustained from combat.


I don't doubt that there were no wars in prehistoric times. Too few people, too far apart for one thing.

That still has nothing to do with what's depicted in 2001, apart from that it's suggested to be the moment that spells end of prehistory.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Bullshit.  Utter bullshit.  Don't forget you're talking to someone with a degree and specialist interest in the ancient world, not some numpty.


Doesn't mean you know everything


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> and specialist interest in the ancient world



Like Middle Earth?.....that Sauron was a right rotter.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Doesn't mean you know everything



I think I know a bit more about prehistory than a lot of people here though.  What with actually having studied it, being an archaeologist, and being able to interpret physical remains.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Doesn't mean you know everything


yeh but it would be nice if when you make a provocative statement as you did you could show you know something


----------



## spliff (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> This is mostly another "acclaimed/ popular films I didn't like but will get attention for dissing" rather than the "dullest film ever" thread.


So lets go back 12 years, post #48


spliff said:


> Last Year In Marienbad


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> I think I know a bit more about prehistory than a lot of people here though.


Could probably do with a better overview though ,  as well as not interpretating an art film literally


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Believe  it or not,  the world is a lot less violent than it used to be and is getting less and less violent


I'd say considering the number of people there are now and how industrialised and institutionalised war is these days - that seems very unlikely.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2016)

Interstellar bored me a lot but I ploghed through it and it perks up when they hit the planet. But it takes far, far to long to get there. one that is so frequently mentioned to become almost cliche is Battlefield Earth, but the cliche is their for a reason. Its just dull. And I went into it with high hopes. Alienz! Spaceships! etc!


----------



## Virtual Blue (Mar 21, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only person who hates this film!!



Thank you. 
The other one that is shit is The Green Mile.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Could probably do with a better overview though ,  as well as not interpretating an art film literally



All I said initially was that I didn't like the film.  I am allowed to not like the film.  Or is that not allowed?  The feeling I am getting right now is that it really isn't allowed for me to not like the film, and I'm going to be treated horribly as a result of not liking it.  Is that OK?


----------



## Sea Star (Mar 21, 2016)

Virtual Blue said:


> Thank you.
> The other one that is shit is The Green Mile.


I hate that!!!


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> This is mostly another "acclaimed/ popular films I didn't like but will get attention for dissing" rather than the "dullest film ever" thread.


Not really. 

There are many thousands of dull films and to list them would be impossible as well as completely subjective. So, what people are doing is mentioning well known films that _they've found dull_ which is the only way the thread can work given that there's no universal consensus on what constitutes a dull flick.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> The thing is, you can name a lot of wars you were taught in school.  The fact is that there is little physical evidence of warfare on the remains of prehistoric people.  We all know about the Napoleonic war, the 100 years war, because that is the sort of thing we are taught in school, no-one is taught that virtually no prehistoric remains have been found showing injuries that would have been sustained from combat.


So your suggestion is that there were fewer wars in pre-history. What about 1000 years ago? 500? 400 ... etc? 

Again, how are you defining violence? By the numbers of people killed? How about by the likelihood of being violently dealt with (but not killed) for transgressing rules? How about incidents of rapes and beatings? Torture?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> or you could read the john gray article i link to


Read some but it's longer than I thought. Will read it properly tonight but it looks like I'll have to read Pinker's stuff too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So your suggestion is that there were fewer wars in pre-history. What about 1000 years ago? 500? 400 ... etc?
> 
> Again, how are you defining violence? By the numbers of people killed? How about by the likelihood of being violently dealt with (but not killed) for transgressing rules? How about incidents of rapes and beatings? Torture?


i'd have thought that advances in medicine no longer make number dead a worthwhile comparison.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Read some but it's longer than I thought. Will read it properly tonight but it looks like I'll have to read Pinker's stuff too.


1000+ pages of bollocks? save yourself the time.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Not really.
> 
> There are many thousands of dull films and to list them would be impossible as well as completely subjective. So, what people are doing is mentioning well known films that _they've found dull_ which is the only way the thread can work given that there's no universal consensus on what constitutes a dull flick.



Now see I thought The Postman was the epitome of dull films (over 2 hours long and nothing happens), but my OH loves it for some reason   (I can live with that, as long as he never tries to make me sit and watch it with him). There really is no consensus.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So your suggestion is that there were fewer wars in pre-history. What about 1000 years ago? 500? 400 ... etc?
> 
> Again, how are you defining violence? By the numbers of people killed? How about by the likelihood of being violently dealt with (but not killed) for transgressing rules? How about incidents of rapes and beatings? Torture?



1000 years ago isn't fucking prehistory, ffs...


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> I think I know a bit more about prehistory than a lot of people here though.


Again, you called bullshit on OU's suggestion that the world is less violent "than it used to be", but he didn't mention pre historic times.

There needs to be some definition here. 

The world has most certainly been _less violent_ in the last 10 years than it was in the 10 years preceding 1945, for example.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> 1000 years ago isn't fucking prehistory, ffs...


Err, precisely!


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Do none of you seriously know the definition of prehistory?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Eraserhead - I like Lynch, but I find Eraserhead incredibly dull


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Do none of you seriously know the definition of prehistory?


 I'm pretty sure we all do.

What's your point?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Do none of you seriously know the definition of prehistory?



Before Dinosaurs invented Bic pens?


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I'm pretty sure we all do.
> 
> What's your point?



Go on then, no-one has said what they mean by prehistory other than mentioning spurious and debated periods of supposed conflict.  If "we all do", then tell me what it is


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Points will be deducted for cut and pastes from wikipedia!


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Do none of you seriously know the definition of prehistory?


Still doesn't change the fact that your dismissal of the "premise" of 2001 on behalf of the fact that no combat injuries have been found on prehistoric, humanoid fossils is pants, because the film depicts no combat and does not claim to be historically accurate (the alien monolith should be a clue!).

You can lord your degree in ancient history over us till you are blue in the face and it still has nothing to do with the film.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Go on then, no-one has said what they mean by prehistory ...


Why? It's moot.

You're the only one who's banging on about pre-history. Others have stated that the world is less violent _than it used to be. _That isn't necessarily referencing pre-history. It could be referencing recent history.

Do you think the 1990s were more or less violent than the 1940s?

How would you compare the violence of the 2000's against that of 1900s?

Last year v the year before?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

One Million Years B.C.

That was dull.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why? It's moot.
> 
> You're the only one who's banging on about pre-history. Others have stated that the world is less violent _than it used to be. _That isn't necessarily referencing pre-history. It could be referencing recent history.
> 
> ...



There are more people in the world engaged in war now than there were in the 1940s.  We may not have been in a state of declared war in the last few years, but there are more people than ever engaged in the profession of killing and dying.  At least back when I was a kid stuff was at least acknowledged by the general public as a war after a few years (Vietnam), these days we just try to pretend it isn't happening.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> There are more people in the world engaged in war now than there were in the 1940s.


Define "engaged in war".


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Define "engaged in war".



You really are starting to come across as a bit naive.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why? It's moot.
> 
> You're the only one who's banging on about pre-history. Others have stated that the world is less violent _than it used to be. _That isn't necessarily referencing pre-history. It could be referencing recent history.
> 
> ...



As far as recorded history is concerned the amount of violence and war has been steadily declining over a time scale of centuries. Despite Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Suharto and Phil Collins the 20th century was mankind's least grisly century since records began.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> You really are starting to come across as a bit naive.


Am I?

I'm simply asking you to be clear in your assertions.

By "engaged in war" do you mean the number of people under arms? The number of people fighting? The number of people affected by fighting? What?

You've said that there are more people engaged in war now than there were in the 40s, during which at least 50 million people _were killed in war_, let alone _engaged_ in it.

So what are you saying?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> As far as recorded history is concerned the amount of violence and war has been steadily declining over a time scale of centuries. Despite Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Suharto and Phil Collins the 20th century was mankind's least grisly century since records began.


I'd have agreed with this before this thread. 

Now I've got some reading to do!


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Am I?
> 
> I'm simply asking you to be clear in your assertions.
> 
> ...



There hasn't been a war-free year in decades now.  Oh sure, I understand that some of them are not "officially" wars - like Vietnam was a police action or somesuch, and maybe you would classify this decade as having been largely free of war so far if you found enough names to call all the conflicts to make them something other than war.  Because I don't see it like that at all, there has not been peace.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> There hasn't been a war-free year in decades now.  Oh sure, I understand that some of them are not "officially" wars - like Vietnam was a police action or somesuch, and maybe you would classify this decade as having been largely free of war so far.  Because I don't see it like that at all.


I don't either. But I still don't get where you're coming from with "more people engaged in war now than in the 40s". That's clearly nonsense unless you're using a unique definition of "engaged in war", which is why I'm asking what it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I'd have agreed with this before this thread.
> 
> Now I've got some reading to do!


Steven Pinker has written about this and done some number-crunching, based on the likelihood of a man to die a violent death at the hands of another man. Using that measure, he plots a steady decline up to the present day. 

Be interesting to see figures for non-combatant deaths, but given that many empires didn't pay soldiers in the past, giving them official pillaging rights upon victory, I'd guess those have also been in decline over the longer term.


----------



## Hulot (Mar 21, 2016)

Last Tango in Paris is tedious in the extreme.
Barton Fink vies with Lost In Translation in terms of insulting the audience with a drawn-out set-up for a punchline that's oh-so-clever-cleverly withheld.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 21, 2016)

Surely we should be looking at "proportion of people deliberately killed or injured by other people" as that's the kind of evidence we can find in archaeology.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I don't either. But I still don't get where you're coming from with "more people engaged in war now than in the 40s". That's clearly nonsense unless you have a unique definition of "engaged in war", which is why I'm asking what it is.


How is it nonsense?  Are you just counting people in the armed forces?  Because surely a lot more people now are involved in various conflicts worldwide, or harmed by them.  It's not WW2, or any one conflict, it's that over the last 40 years we have seen a lot of conflict over different parts of the world, and more people now are either fighting someone or displaced due to conflict.

And that war is now easier, more distant, more technology, you don't have to rely on some 18 year old boy with a rifle and a conscience to kill the enemy, you can send in a drone or drop a bomb or something.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Steven Pinker has written about this and done some number-crunching, based on the likelihood of a man to die a violent death at the hands of another man. Using that measure, he plots a steady decline up to the present day.


Picker's thinks Pinker's a plonker.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Picker's thinks Pinker's a plonker.


I have massive issues with lots of stuff Pinker says. But I'm guessing he did his research honestly.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

I think this genuinely is down there with the dullest films I've ever seen. Endless low budget CGI environments, not a smidgen of characterisation and zero narrative momentum.



I lasted 45 minutes and had to climb across an aisle of people at a film festival on my way to the exit but I would have chewed of my foot to get out of the theatre.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

..and this thing was just as bad:



Perpetrated by the film maker who later had his mercifully brief Hollywood moment by making the atrocious Catwoman movie with Halle Berry


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Are you just counting people in the armed forces?  Because surely a lot more people now are involved in various conflicts worldwide, or harmed by them.  It's not WW2, or any one conflict, it's that over the last 40 years we have seen a lot of conflict over different parts of the world, and more people now are either fighting someone or displaced due to conflict.


Ok, so you're defining "now" as "the last 40 years", and "engaged in war" as "fighting someone or displaced due to conflict". 

That's quite some leeway you're looking for to back-up your original "more people engaged in war now than in the 40s". 

Tbh, I still think you're wrong. 

Do you reckon 50 million people have died in all the wars of the last 40 years?


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

This one completes my trilogy of the dullest films I've ever seen at the cinema, not least to get the thread back on topic.



They are all quite similar, directors impressed with what they can do with CGI on liminted resources, who didn't seem to have any talent or interest in their films beyond that.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, so you're defining "now" as "the last 40 years", and "engaged in war" as "fighting someone or displaced due to conflict".
> 
> That's quite some leeway you're looking for to back-up your original "more people engaged in war now than in the 40s".
> 
> ...



Oh for crap sake, I'm just older than I realise - I think "the last 40 years" is basically anything since the end of WWII.  If you want to have a go at me, don't do it on the basis that I'm old. OK?

Oh and who exactly do you think is not at war at the moment?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Oh for crap sake, I'm just older than I realise - I think "the last 40 years" is basically anything since the end of WWII.  If you want to have a go at me, don't do it on the basis that I'm old. OK?


I'm not having a go at you. Just disagreeing with you.

And I'm older than you too.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Fwiw, I also think_ 2001:ASO_ was shite.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

And actually, approximately 50 million people died in war between the end of WWII and 2000.

Good on you for being older than me, congratulations.. or something


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 21, 2016)

What's the dullest war film then? Got to be Apocalypse Now. Either do a film of a 19th Century novel or do a Nam film, but conflating the two is like setting Shakespeare in 19th century Japan, yes As You Like It is dull too, as are all the other Shakespeare films.


----------



## Santino (Mar 21, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> but conflating the two is like setting Shakespeare in 19th century Japan


 I'd watch that.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 21, 2016)

Santino said:


> I'd watch that.



 I wouldn't bother, it's dull: As You Like It (2006) - IMDb


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> What's the dullest war film then? Got to be Apocalypse Now. Either do a film of a 19th Century novel or do a Nam film, but conflating the two is like setting Shakespeare in 19th century Japan, yes As You Like It is dull too, as are all the other Shakespeare films.


You must be a huge fan of Akira Kurosawa then !


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> What's the dullest war film then?


Pearl Harbour, just for being shit.
U-571, for the shameless re-write of what happened.  
All of the Vietnam films with Chuck Norris in.
Most of the comedy ones like that bollocks with the pink submarine. 
The list is endless ....


----------



## trabuquera (Mar 21, 2016)

Surely the dullest film ever is one you can't even remember, it was so dull? There must be thousands and thousands of those I've watched, uncountable hours of brain time frittered away on dreck which never left the slightest trace of enlightenment, entertainment or anything else behind. Crappy B movies, westerns, made-for-TV housewives'-nightmares flicks, silly sci-fi, all sorts of things.

It's worth thinking what it is that makes a film dull - there are some where nothing happens, others where loads happens (space war, explosions, war, death, etc) but none of it sinks in because of bad technique or timing or acting or it just doesn't get to you in any way.

I have really ambivalent feelings about that particular arthouse style of Deliberate Dull, where they just stretch shots, conversations, conceits out for aaaaaaaaaaages and everything moves so slowly and characters mutter a few odd words grimly and sometimes nothing ever even happens right up until the end. Because on the one hand it makes me want to throw things at the screen and say "just get on with it, you pretentious arses, we've all got lives to live", but on the other, it's a technique used in some films that I've ended up really enjoying and found deep and moving and all that. (Slow West, Leviathan, Uzak, for instance). Alexei Sokurov, Russian director, uses Deliberate Dull to hyper effect - if you make the same mistake I did and try to watch _The Sun_, about Emperor Hirohito, thinking it will be a WW2 action movie you'll be unpleasantly surprised (and for a verrrry long time). But it can weave its own spell.

Casshern is a proper stinker (sympathies Reno) but I guess if you're an anime fan it might once have been the most exciting thing ever. But I can tell you all that the Story of the Weeping Camel is NOT dull at all, it's a beautiful touching story, it just moves very, very, very slowly and you have to be at least the tiniest bit interested in life on the Mongolian plain. Is that duller than the average episode of EastEnders?


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

trabuquera said:


> Surely the dullest film ever is one you can't even remember, it was so dull? There must be thousands and thousands of those I've watched, uncountable hours of brain time frittered away on dreck which never left the slightest trace of enlightenment, entertainment or anything else behind. Crappy B movies, westerns, made-for-TV housewives'-nightmares flicks, silly sci-fi, all sorts of things.
> 
> It's worth thinking what it is that makes a film dull - there are some where nothing happens, others where loads happens (space war, explosions, war, death, etc) but none of it sinks in because of bad technique or timing or acting or it just doesn't get to you in any way.
> 
> ...


I never forget a film I've seen and unmemorable films aren't necessarily dull to me. 

What you call Deliberately Dull is an art house style that has been discussed a lot in publications like Sight & Sound as "slow cinema"l I don't think slow = dull or that anybody apart from a few artists like Andy Warhol, make or made their films deliberately dull. Like with anything there are slow films which I enjoy and others which bore me to tears and find manic incoherence like a Michael Bay action fest boring and aggravating.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> And actually, approximately 50 million people died in war between the end of WWII and 2000.


Where did you get this figure from, out of interest?

I've been looking and can't get anywhere near 50 million.

I reckon it's about half that.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Where did you get this figure from, out of interest?
> 
> I've been looking and can't get anywhere near 50 million.


Well I am sure all of the families of those that either do or don't count as war deaths may feel it is some small thing to have one or two of us sat here trying to work out the numbers. Or not.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

I think I can cope with with most types of cinema, most genres have produced outstanding work from arthouse to action to grindhouse, but I failed miserably at making it through any of the Transformers films. They were awfully dull. 

I've probably found lots of action dull for about 10 years now. Too many car crashes, fights, buildings being smashed, is just not even visually exciting any more for me. The fight at the end of the last Superman film may as well have not happened. I just zoned out during the whole scene.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Well I am sure all of the families of those that don't count as war deaths may feel it is some small thing to have one or two of us sat here trying to work out the numbers.


I doubt they'd much care about what we think, but you were very specific that about 50 million had died _in war_ between the end of WW2 and 2000. You must have a source for that specific an assertion.

Just interested as to where you got that number from. Even using the higher estimates of all the conflicts from 1945 to 2000 from here I can't get much beyond about 20 million.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> What's the dullest war film then? Got to be Apocalypse Now. Either do a film of a 19th Century novel or do a Nam film, but conflating the two is like setting Shakespeare in 19th century Japan, yes As You Like It is dull too, as are all the other Shakespeare films.



I can hear the sounds of multiple toys hitting the ground as they are thrown out of the pram


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I doubt they'd much care about what we think, but you were very specific that about 50 million had died _in war_ between the end of WW2 and 2000. You must have a source for that specific an assertion.
> 
> Just interested as to where you got that number from. Even using the higher estimates of all the conflicts from 1945 to 2000 from here I can't get much beyond about 20 million.



For fuck sake, stop trying to pretend that either one of has has a better statistic than the other.  You can't get beyond 20 million and that's OK because it's not 50 million?  I am not playing fucking war dead top trumps.  You think 20 million dead is like some reasonable number????  I mean if it's off season that must be OK I guess.  Or FFS THIS IS INSANE! ly 20 million -20 million dead! If it's 20 million that's Ok then. Because it could have been worse?  There's something very wrong with the world we live in.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> For fuck sake, stop trying to pretend that either one of has has a better statistic than the other.  You can't get beyond 20 million and that's OK because it's not 50 million?  I am not playing fucking war dead top trumps.  You think 20 million dead is like some reasonable number????


Eh???

Why so aggressive?

I'm simply asking (quite politely) where you're getting these numbers from.

You either have a credible source or you're pulling them out of your arse. If it's the former it would update my knowledge; if the latter I can safely ignore what you say about it as nonsense.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I doubt they'd much care about what we think, but you were very specific that about 50 million had died _in war_ between the end of WW2 and 2000. You must have a source for that specific an assertion.
> 
> Just interested as to where you got that number from. Even using the higher estimates of all the conflicts from 1945 to 2000 from here I can't get much beyond about 20 million.


yeh cos it's only in conflicts that we see violence 

what about the violence in the great leap forward? fucking 45,000,000 in four years. or is artificial famine not violent enough for you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Where did you get this figure from, out of interest?
> 
> I've been looking and can't get anywhere near 50 million.
> 
> I reckon it's about half that.


Worldmapper: The world as you've never seen it before

perhaps an apology to Epona in order. took all of a moment to google - war deaths since 1945


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Eh???
> 
> Why so aggressive?
> 
> ...



We're just going into semantics here, which fuck knows is the most beloved of Urban diversions.

If you must know, Amnesty put the number of deaths caused by the US alone at 20-30 million since WWII. There are also wars going on that - I was going to say do not involve the US, but I expect they had a spoon in the pot for most of them - but other wars, which have been going on all over the world, the toll is much higher.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster i'm waiting on that apology for Epona


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> We're just going into semantics here, which fuck knows is the most beloved of Urban diversions.
> 
> If you must know, Amnesty put the number of deaths caused by the US alone at 20-30 million since WWII. There are also wars going on that - I was going to say do not involve the US, but I expect they had a spoon in the pot for most of them - but other wars, which have been going on all over the world, the toll is much higher.


see my post 538


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Worldmapper: The world as you've never seen it before
> 
> perhaps an apology to Epona in order. took all of a moment to google - war deaths since 1945


Of course no apology is necessary. I was asking for a source, not saying he's wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of course no apology is necessary. I was asking for a source, not saying he's wrong.


i've given you a source and as you'd know if you'd been paying attention since 2001 Epona is a woman.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> For fuck sake, stop trying to pretend that either one of has has a better statistic than the other.  You can't get beyond 20 million and that's OK because it's not 50 million?  I am not playing fucking war dead top trumps.  You think 20 million dead is like some reasonable number????  I mean if it's off season that must be OK I guess.  Or FFS THIS IS INSANE! ly 20 million -20 million dead! If it's 20 million that's Ok then. Because it could have been worse?  There's something very wrong with the world we live in.


Earlier you complained that otheres "treated you horribly" for disagreeing with you in a manner that was quite civil. Please a look at your own posts own and how you come across and maybe calm down a little.

What is this endless discussion which started with you missing the point of prologue of 2001 still doing here anyway ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Steven Pinker has written about this and done some number-crunching, based on the likelihood of a man to die a violent death at the hands of another man. Using that measure, he plots a steady decline up to the present day.
> 
> Be interesting to see figures for non-combatant deaths, but given that many empires didn't pay soldiers in the past, giving them official pillaging rights upon victory, I'd guess those have also been in decline over the longer term.


yeh but pinker's a plonker then because advances in medicine mean people can survive greater violence than in the auld days.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i've given you a source ...


Thank you. If Epona had, it would've saved you the bother.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

I don't honestly understand how anyone can look at the world now and say we're less at war now than we were in prehistory (which is how this discussion started), I think anyone who believes that, looking around the world now at all the conflict, is actually fairly fucking batshit crazy.  Either completely deluded about how the world is now, or how it was 10000 years ago.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Thank you. If Epona had, it would've saved you the bother.


it was no bother


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Tbh, if it was a statistic that I could find with no bother, and Pickman's could find with no bother (thanks for linking it btw if I forgot to do so), then, it's probably easily googlable for anyone before they start shouting their mouth off about statistics.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> I don't honestly understand how anyone can look at the world now and say we're less at war now than we were in prehistory (which is how this discussion started), I think anyone who believes that, looking around the world now at all the conflict, is actually fairly fucking batshit crazy.  Either completely deluded about how the world is now, or how it was 10000 years ago.


I still think you're wrong.

You're only getting away with the 50 million number because I allowed you to define "now" as "everything since 1945", which is a HUGE stretch. Combine that with the fact that I took 50m as the number of dead during WW2 and that's a conservative figure (other estimates between 60 and 85 million), and whichever way you cut it up your summation is wrong.

And once again, you are the only person looking to make comparisons with pre-history. Nobody else has mentioned it.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

You didn't "allow me" to do anything, you're a revisionist and at least do me the courtesy of saying you flat out disagree with me!  "I allowed you to" my fucking arse.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> You didn't "allow me" to do anything, you're a revisionist and at least do me the courtesy of saying you flat out disagree with me!  "I allowed you to" my fucking arse.


I've said that I flat out disagree with you several times and there's no revisionism going on here. What we do have is you shifting goalposts and gerrymandering with time periods to achieve the result that you're after!

First you wanted to bang on about pre-history which was never mentioned by anyone else, then you wouldn't define the period under discussion. After much teeth pulling it seemed that you wanted to go with 1945-2000 so I played along and you came up with 50 million, which is _still_ probably 10 to 30 million shy of the number killed in WW2.

So we're no further on are we?


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

No, what we have is you partially admitting to it, then saying you "allowed me"  Good luck with "allowing me".  Sounds like fun, might get a bit of mileage out of this.  Fuck knows I've been pulled up enough times for using the wrong word or turn of phrase.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2016)

actually had someone on here claiming the stonehenge rocks could have been stolen and part of a cultural war etc. You don't get multi generational conflicts that could do that, transporting all those stones from hither to thon without cooperation, before the whell ffs, would have been impossible without co operation between tribes. Work on that project would have been a lifelong achievement, and you might not have lived to see it done. Certainly the later netwok of religious? sites surrounding it do not suggest conflict. Yes cain raised a hand to able, and aren't these epic human dramas repeated every day and aren't our stories convinced by them and repeat them in diffireng forms endlessly?

I was thinking about that ice man, the docu I watched on his autopsy. Still had his shoes! a souljah noes what is most important. But he was shot in the back with arrows they recon, with a full belly. Suggests he was dined according to hospitality rules then tracked and shot [my theory]

but conflict between humans over resources is not natural, mutual aid is the more common solution. Even when that comes down to something as simple as cosying up for shared body heat. We are a social species, only the hardest hearts can see others go cold and hungry

The main problem is that certain classes have normalised their savagery and have retrospectively demanded that we all pay attention to the idea that man always wars with man. Its a lie. As much a lie as the idea that barter economy trading in prehistory is evidence of capitalism. A self serving framework imposed against evidence in order to justify a current mode of thinking. Epona has the right of it, if you want wars and 'human competition' to be the rule, show me your evidence? In the end its just a set of narrow social prejudices cast back to a time when humans AS A SPECIES learned how co operation was a massive advantage. How they could do projects like the damn henge. Self serving lies to re-write history in the mould of 'might has always been right' and yes that has prevailed sometimes but it has never been default mode, natural behaviour


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> I don't honestly understand how anyone can look at the world now and say we're less at war now than we were in prehistory (which is how this discussion started), I think anyone who believes that, looking around the world now at all the conflict, is actually fairly fucking batshit crazy.  Either completely deluded about how the world is now, or how it was 10000 years ago.



Don't think it's about being less at war but being less likely to die a violent death.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> No, what we have is you partially admitting to it, then saying you "allowed me"  Good luck with "allowing me".


Well now you're just waffling.

This all started with you calling bullshit on another poster over something that is very, very, far from being established as fact, and asserting your credentials as someone who knows more about this than most others because you're an archeologist. Or something. On examination you've come up short all round.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Buckaroo said:


> Don't think it's about being less at war but being less likely to die a violent death.


Well quite. Or at least _suffer violence_.

This goes back to my post #484.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Buckaroo said:


> Don't think it's about being less at war but being less likely to die a violent death.



Please explain to me how someone in say 300BC would be more likely to die a violent death than someone in 2016, or 1999 if we are splitting hairs.  Oh the 300BC guy could be in the army, and he might get pierced with spear or sword.  The same guy in 1999 might step on a landmine and have parts of them splatter all over, or I suppose being taken out in a hail of bullets may be what you would classify as neater and less violent I guess.  Or could just be someone's wedding that gets missiled, or someone's kid who gets shot on the street.

At least the majority of participants in a battle in 300BC knew what they were there for.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Please explain to me how someone in say 300BC would be more likely to die a violent death than someone in 2016, or 1999 if we are splitting hairs.



Oh god, not again.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

This is becoming the Dullest Thread Ever !


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 21, 2016)

I think the modern deaths by landmine or hail of bullets are possibly far less common than death by conflict was back in, say, the Iron Age.
There's billions of us now compared to then.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh god, not again.


Look, you have made a big effort to denigrate my posts, without actually saying anything.  No-one is just going to accept you going "oh god not again", I think you've misjudged urbanites if that is what you are trying to go for.

You seem to be absolutely adamant that prehistoric times were somehow more brutal and filled with war than the modern era, and you're wrong.  It's time to just drop it now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I think the modern deaths by landmine or hail of bullets are possibly far less common than death by conflict was back in, say, the Iron Age.
> There's billions of us now compared to then.


deaths by landmine less than common in iron age while i'm led to believe deaths by bullet more common then than generally supposed


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> You seem to be absolutely adamant that prehistoric times were somehow more brutal and filled with war than the modern era, and you're wrong.


Can you find and quote a post of mine to that effect?

You're just making things up and that's why this has all gone in circles.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I think the modern deaths by landmine or hail of bullets are possibly far less common than death by conflict was back in, say, the Iron Age.
> There's billions of us now compared to then.



Incorrect, there is very little evidence of people dying by one anothers hand in the iron age.  Most people were concerned with getting food to eat, and making tools.  The biggest type of injury in any frequency is when societies move to agriculture, and you start to see injuries from people tripping and hurting their wrists (Colles fractures) - not wounds from war, or fighting- just from tripping on ploughed soil and landing with your hands out in front of you.  Sorry if I burst anyone's "rawr, prehistoric man" bubble with that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Incorrect, there is very little evidence of people dying by one anothers hand in the iron age.  Most people were concerned with getting food to eat, and making tools.  The biggest type of injury in any frequency is when societies move to agriculture, and you start to see injuries from people tripping and hurting their wrists (Colles fractures) - not wounds from war, or fighting- just from tripping on ploughed soil and landing with your hands out in front of you.  Sorry if I burst anyone's "rawr, prehistoric man" bubble with that.


weren't the romans iron age?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

What a palaver. All this death over millions of years and we still can not have a discussion about dull films without war breaking out.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Incorrect, there is very little evidence of people dying by one anothers hand in the iron age.  Most people were concerned with getting food to eat, and making tools.  The biggest type of injury in any frequency is when societies move to agriculture, and you start to see injuries from people tripping and hurting their wrists (Colles fractures) - not wounds from war, or fighting- just from tripping on ploughed soil and landing with your hands out in front of you.  Sorry if I burst anyone's "rawr, prehistoric man" bubble with that.


Full of yourself, aren't you?
Think of the numbers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

not to mention the huns, goths, angles, saxons, warring states in china...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Full of yourself, aren't you?
> Think of the numbers.


yeh will no one think of the numbers?


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Full of yourself, aren't you?
> Think of the numbers.



Think of the numbers in the fucking modern age, millions of people died in WW1, WW2, the holocaust ffs, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan - we have crammed more killing into 100 years than anyone in the Iron age could even have imagined - are you really so goddamn stupid that you think the last century with its industrialisation of war, is somehow minor shit in comparison to the iron age with armies meeting on a field with iron and bronze swords and spears?  Really????


----------



## 8115 (Mar 21, 2016)

I think Epona is right.


----------



## Sue (Mar 21, 2016)

So anyway...dull films...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Think of the numbers in the fucking modern age, millions of people died in WW1, WW2, the holocaust ffs, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan - we have crammed more killing into 100 years than anyone in the Iron age could even have imagined - are you really so goddamn stupid that you think the last century with its industrialisation of war, is somehow minor shit in comparison to the iron age?  Really????


not to mention the c19 taiping rebellion, rwanda, cambodia.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Think of the numbers in the fucking modern age, millions of people died in WW1, WW2, the holocaust ffs, .....


But what about since then?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Also, as an individual, am I more or less likely to suffer some form of violence today than I would have in 1066, 1560, 1666, or 1840?


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> But what about since then?



FFS, what "since then" do you need?  Would all this be alright with you if there had been a "since then" where everyone has been at peace?  There Has Been No Peace.  There has been war, constantly, for 100 years.  Not war that *you* might have been involved in, but there has been war.  Don't try to make out that we live in an era of peace - because it's a fucking joke tbh that you even try to say it.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Don't try to make out that we live in an era of peace - because it's a fucking joke tbh that you even try to say it.


I'm going to lose my temper with you if you keep putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting what people are saying.

If you're really an archeologist you probably aren't completely fucking stupid, so stop acting like you are.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

8115 said:


> I think Epona is right.


Not about 2001, which is the only thing that should matter here and which I will bring up every so often to put the momentous ego trip here in context.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Look at all the cute little creatures


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Also, as an individual, am I more or less likely to suffer some form of violence today than I would have in 1066, 1560, 1666, or 1840?



Depends how close you are standing to me and the size of the frying pan I'll whack you with


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Think of the numbers in the fucking modern age, millions of people died in WW1, WW2, the holocaust ffs, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan - we have crammed more killing into 100 years than anyone in the Iron age could even have imagined - are you really so goddamn stupid that you think the last century with its industrialisation of war, is somehow minor shit in comparison to the iron age with armies meeting on a field with iron and bronze swords and spears?  Really????


Yes,  considering how many billions of us do not meet violent ends.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> Not about 2001, which is the only thing that should matter here and which I will bring up every so often to put the momentous ego trip here in context.



Sorry, what was the momentous thing that was different about 2001 that I lived through and kind of forgot but apparently should have remembered?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Sorry, what was the momentous thing that was different about 2001 that I lived through and kind of forgot but apparently should have remembered?



Do you actually read the posts you respond to?


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes,  considering how many billions of us do not meet violent ends.



How many billions do you think met violent ends in the past?  Do you really think "the past" is like some horrendous version of 300, with billions of people dying in a clash of swords every day?  Where on earth did you study?


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Do you actually read the posts you respond to?



Yes but sometimes stuff seems irrelevant (tbh about 95% of the stuff posted on Urban politics/massive bunfight forum is irrelevant and isn't needed), if it is supposed to be relevant to me, then remind me about it.


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> How many billions do you think met violent ends in the past?  Do you really think "the past" is like some horrendous version of 300, with billions of people dying in a clash of swords every day?  Where on earth did you study?


Sorry Epona, I can't be arsed anymore.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Yes but sometimes stuff seems irrelevant (tbh about 95% of the stuff posted on Urban politics/massive bunfight forum is irrelevant and isn't needed), if it is supposed to be relevant to me, then remind me about it.



I don't understand your answer to my question. Did you read my question?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> Sorry Epona, I can't be arsed anymore.



Fucking boring innit....


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> I don't understand your answer to my question. Did you read my question?



Not sure I can be arsed really.  I'm sure that if I duck out to spend time with my husband now he's home from work, you can probably make up an argument without me as your primary target to throw spears at


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> Sorry Epona, I can't be arsed anymore.



I felt that about 4 hours ago, glad to see everyone's now caught up


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2016)

no it isn't. I want to see the proponents of man-always-wars-with-man lay out their theories so I can rail against them. Shit just isn't true. 


Nanker Phelge said:


> Fucking boring innit....


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Not sure I can be arsed really.  I'm sure that if I duck out to spend time with my husband now he's home from work, you can probably make up an argument without me as your primary target to throw spears at



I'm not arguing with you, although you do seem intent on arguing with others, putting words in their mouths and generally not demonstrating that you have read anything they have written. In doing so you have derailed the thread (with help!).

Perhaps that's the way scholars debate and I'm just being thick, I left school at 16 to drive a fork truck and didn't study anywhere.

Have a good evening with your husband.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

And if anyone seriously thinks that battles in 400BC, and wars at that point were ANYTHING LIKE the devastation of WWI and WWII, then they are completely fucking batshit insane.


----------



## Sue (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona, maybe give it a rest eh?


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> I'm not arguing with you, although you do seem intent on arguing with others, putting words in their mouths and generally not demonstrating that you have read anything they have written. In doing so you have derailed the thread (with help!).
> 
> Perhaps that's the way scholars debate and I'm just being thick, I left school at 16 to drive a fork truck and didn't study anywhere.
> 
> Have a good evening with your husband.



Honestly, you've stumbled into this discussion halfway through.. thanks for the good wishes, the same to you


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Sue said:


> Epona, maybe give it a rest eh?



Who the fuck are you?


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

No seriously, where the fuck did you spring up from?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Honestly, you've stumbled into this discussion halfway through.. thanks for the good wishes, the same to you



I've been following this dull discussion all afternoon. There was no stumbling involved, but thanks for being so dismissive of humble old me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> And if anyone seriously thinks that battles in 400BC, and wars at that point were ANYTHING LIKE the devastation of WWI and WWII, then they are completely fucking batshit insane.


But the numbers not hurt by WWII are even more humongous


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 21, 2016)

I'll just leave these here. Two people I often take issue with taking issue with each other.

Pinker: The suprising decline in violence 


Gray: Steven Pinker is wrong about violence and war

*tiptoes away*


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> No seriously, where the fuck did you spring up from?



Who gives a shit. Posters are allowed to post and comment on Urban75. Even new ones.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> How many billions do you think met violent ends in the past?  Do you really think "the past" is like some horrendous version of 300, with billions of people dying in a clash of swords every day?  Where on earth did you study?


The world's population was tiny in ancient times, you big silly.  Hence my argument. 
Stop summing up people's arguments wrongly and maybe we'll get straight somewhere


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> And if anyone seriously thinks that battles in 400BC, and wars at that point were ANYTHING LIKE the devastation of WWI and WWII, then they are completely fucking batshit insane.


What the fuck are you on about now? 

Has anyone said anything like this? 

You're making up arguments to have with yourself.


----------



## Sue (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Who the fuck are you?



Just someone reading this who thinks you're way out of line and not for the first time either. And acting so aggressively all the time must be kind of exhausting...

If you want to discuss this pre history and numbers stuff, why not start a new thread and leave this one in peace?


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Who gives a shit. Posters are allowed to post and comment on Urban75. Even new ones.



So a new poster comes in and tells me to shut up?  Hilarious, it's got to be a previously banned poster, because no-one else would bother to come onto this insignificant thread and join in, Surely?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> So a new poster comes in and tells me to shut up?  Hilarious, it's got to be a previously banned poster, because no-one else would bother to come onto this insignificant thread and join in, Surely?



That poster has been here since 2004.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Sue said:


> Just someone reading this who thinks you're way out of line and not for the first time either. And acting so aggressively all the time must be kind of exhausting...
> 
> If you want to discuss this pre history and numbers stuff, why not start a new thread and leave this one in peace?



Fuck off, you interfering shit


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> That poster has been here since 2004.



I've been here since 2001 if that makes any difference


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

It makes no difference.


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Please explain to me how someone in say 300BC would be more likely to die a violent death than someone in 2016, or 1999 if we are splitting hairs.  Oh the 300BC guy could be in the army, and he might get pierced with spear or sword.  The same guy in 1999 might step on a landmine and have parts of them splatter all over, or I suppose being taken out in a hail of bullets may be what you would classify as neater and less violent I guess.  Or could just be someone's wedding that gets missiled, or someone's kid who gets shot on the street.



.


----------



## Sue (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> So a new poster comes in and tells me to shut up?  Hilarious, it's got to be a previously banned poster, because no-one else would bother to come onto this insignificant thread and join in, Surely?



Actually, I was posting on this thread on Friday and, as pointed out, I've been a member since 2004.



Epona said:


> Fuck off, you interfering shit



Can you see why saying stuff like that is unacceptable?


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Pinker is a fucking idiot then.


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Sue said:


> Actually, I was posting on this thread on Friday and, as pointed out, I've been a member since 2004.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see why saying stuff like that is unacceptable?



Go get yourself a moderator badge, then come back and moderate the thread.  Otherwise you are just some random person who has stepped in, and you have no authority here.  You can't tell me how to post, or not to post.  So go away.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Blimey. You're one of the most aggressive posters I've come across on here.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2016)

remember the huge, massive non violent cost of ww1 mobilisation in europe was the spread of flu, venereal disease and people who came home but never left the war really. Mental and physical health was shot for vast swathes of the working classes and in my opinion we still live with that today.



yeah praps for another thread. But ancient man didn't wage war like the pople of the 16th did, even if they lacked the BURN IT ALL TO WIN mindset the resource chain needed to sustain an army was not there was it


----------



## Sue (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Go get yourself a moderator badge, then come back and moderate the thread.  Otherwise you are just some random person who has stepped in, and you have no authority here.  You can't tell me how to post, or not to post.  So go away.



I give up.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Angry Archaeologist....


----------



## Epona (Mar 21, 2016)

Aye, I gave up about 15 minutes ago, I wouldn't even be here now if it wasn't for Sue trying to prolong the argument


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 21, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Angry Archaeologist....


Stop digging!

Oh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Not sure I can be arsed really.  I'm sure that if I duck out to spend time with my husband now he's home from work, you can probably make up an argument without me as your primary target to throw spears at


i'll be your huckleberry


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 21, 2016)

Epona said:


> Aye, I gave up about 15 minutes ago, I wouldn't even be here now if it wasn't for Sue trying to prolong the argument



last time I try to give a coherent answer to a oh fuck it....


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> But the numbers not hurt by WWII are even more humongous


so what you're really arguing isn't a decline in your actual violence but some half-baked bollocks that the % of injury/dying in war rather lower for most people. ignoring completely the violence that for so many people forms part of and frames their everyday lives.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Stop digging!
> 
> Oh.



I'll stop sticking my trowel in the trench....


----------



## Reno (Mar 21, 2016)

Sue said:


> I give up.


Please do and please go fuck off now that you've insulted one of my favourite posters on this forum and showed yourself to be a nasty piece of work and a bully several times over while playing the victim. Sue is someone who regularly has something intelligent to say on the subject matter this forum is about, unlike you. Yes, that would be "the new" poster.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

Reno said:


> Please do and please go fuck off now that you've insulted one of my favourite posters on this forum and showed yourself to be a nasty piece of work and a bully several times over while playing the victim.


What???

You're telling _Sue_ to fuck off?

Seriously?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 21, 2016)

i think he's quoted the wrong person


----------



## Sue (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What???
> 
> You're telling _Sue_ to fuck off?
> 
> Seriously?


Hope not .From reading the rest of his post, think Reno misquoted.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Life on this thread needs dulling down a bit....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 21, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Life on this thread needs dulling down a bit....





I love that someone did that.

Also, that wins the thread, surely.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 21, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Life on this thread needs dulling down a bit....




Pretty sure that's just a still image of some paint.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Pretty sure that's just a still image of some paint.



Everyone's a fucking movie critic these days....


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Pretty sure that's just a still image of some paint.


Yep. 

Flick between 1 minute and 9 hours and there is no change!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 21, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Pretty sure that's just a still image of some paint.


You've ruined the magic.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yep.
> 
> Flick between 1 minute and 9 hours and there is no change!



They had a small effects budget


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 22, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Life on this thread needs dulling down a bit....




Still better than Battlefield Earth


----------



## Santino (Mar 22, 2016)

As one extreme example of ancient war, when Carthage was finally destroyed by the Romans in 146BC an estimated 200,000 people died in the siege. The remaining 50,000 were sold into slavery.


----------



## Santino (Mar 22, 2016)

In terms of proportion of the world population at the time, that's equivalent to the deaths of around 9 or 10 million people today.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 22, 2016)

Here we go again.


----------



## Santino (Mar 22, 2016)

By contrast, a conflict such as the Thirty Years War was the equivalent of anything between 40M and 140M casualties today (estimates vary greatly).


----------



## Santino (Mar 22, 2016)

For completeness, the 60M casualties of the Second World War are the equivalent today of around 210M.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 22, 2016)

Epona said:


> And I think you're an idiot if you think that.  At least I have some educational background in archaeology and palaeontology backing up my views.  I can't really be arsed to get into this with you, because it's not that important to me to spend time arguing about it.  Sorry!


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 22, 2016)

Epona said:


> I've been here since 2001 if that makes any difference



2001? Great film, that. To me it shows that out of our inherent violence an amazing evolutionary jump will come.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 22, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> 2001? Great film, that. To me it shows that out of our inherent violence an amazing evolutionary jump will come.


We're so fucking dumb, only aliens can save us?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We're so fucking dumb, only aliens can save us?


aliens: or greater beings than ourselves, as per e.g. xianity, islam etc etc ad nauseam


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 22, 2016)

Yeah, something suitably vague and confusing. My reading of 2001, fwiw, is about the opposite of krtek's. Apes in space, floundering around, needing to be saved from ourselves.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We're so fucking dumb, only aliens can save us?



Like Superman!


----------



## Santino (Mar 22, 2016)

In the un-filmed third sequel, 3001, the aliens have actually decided to destroy humanity because of its destructive nature, but the ghost of HAL saves the world by uploading a computer virus into the monolith.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 22, 2016)

Santino said:


> In the un-filmed third sequel, 3001, the aliens have actually decided to destroy humanity because of its destructive nature, but the ghost of HAL saves the world by uploading a computer virus into the monolith.



They needn't bother. We're pretty damn good at destroying ourselves


----------



## Reno (Mar 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, something suitably vague and confusing. My reading of 2001, fwiw, is about the opposite of krtek's. Apes in space, floundering around, needing to be saved from ourselves.


Apes never needed saving, they would have never gotten us into the mess we were in already by the 60s and I don't think that's what the film is about. Aliens saving humanity from itself is something a lot of science fiction does (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Abyss, every second Star Trek episode) but in 2001 the aliens' purpose for us remains unknown. The aliens are an enigma who are beyond our understanding and the idea was to rather than come up with some benevolent or monstrous creature, to go for something which is as mysterious as the universe itself. Some films aim to be ambiguous and a lot of people feel uncomfortable with ambiguity and they impose a pad solution or they outright reject it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 22, 2016)

Reno said:


> Apes never needed saving, they would have never gotten us into the mess we were in already by the 60s and I don't think that's what the film is about. Aliens saving humanity from themselves is something a lot of science fiction does (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Abyss, every second Star Trek episode) but in 2001 the aliens' purpose for us remains unknown and the aliens are an enigma who are beyond our understanding. Some films aim to be ambiguous and a lot of people feel uncomfortable with ambiguity and they impose a pad solution or they outright reject it.


Sorry, I don't agree. I think apes in space, floundering around, is a fair description. I take the point that the aliens' purpose remains unknown, but our floundering around is clear, imo.


----------



## Reno (Mar 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, I don't agree. I think apes in space, floundering around, is a fair description. I take the point that the aliens' purpose remains unknown, but our floundering around is clear, imo.


That I'm just about fine with, the "saving" I'm not as I don't think any animal needs saving because it is well adapted to its environment. The aliens give the humanoids an evolutionary push which will eventually allow them to explore space to meet their "benefactors", but the moral purpose behind that is cloudy to say the least. It may not benefit of the humans but the aliens.


----------



## Reno (Mar 22, 2016)

On second thought, why didn't they chose cats instead of simians, that would have been so much more cute.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 22, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


>


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 22, 2016)

Santino said:


> In the un-filmed third sequel, 3001, the aliens have actually decided to destroy humanity because of its destructive nature, but the ghost of HAL saves the world by uploading a computer virus into the monolith.



It's not a virus, it's the collected historical records of all mankind. The idea being to say to the aliens 'look, they're not all bad'. Which is like the opposite of what happens in the Fifth Element, where the collected historical records of all mankind makes Leelu decide to destroy Humanity.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 22, 2016)

My impression (which is influenced by having read the books) is that the Monolith builders weren't in the business of uplifting humanity specifically, but rather were a bunch of cosmic-scale gardeners of life, and (proto-)humans proved sufficiently interesting for them to cultivate. They would later ignite Jupiter into a new star in order to encourage life to further develop on Europa, while at the same time guarding that Galilean moon from interference by humans.


ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS—EXCEPT EUROPA 
ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE​


----------



## Santino (Mar 22, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not a virus, it's the collected historical records of all mankind. The idea being to say to the aliens 'look, they're not all bad'. Which is like the opposite of what happens in the Fifth Element, where the collected historical records of all mankind makes Leelu decide to destroy Humanity.


This is from the synopsis on Wikipedia:

"Frank conscripts Bowman and HAL, who have now become a single entity—_Halman_—residing in the monolith's computational matrix, to infect the monolith with a computer virus. The monolith does receive orders to exterminate humanity, and duplicates itself; whereupon millions of monoliths form two screens to prevent Solar light and heat from reaching Earth and its colonies. Due to Halman having already infected the first monolith, all the monoliths disintegrate."


----------



## Reno (Mar 22, 2016)

Ding, dong the witch is dead !

Those sequels to Renezvous With Rama weren't that great either.


----------



## ChrisC (Apr 7, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Inspired by the thread on Charlotte Gray.
> 
> I fell asleep during Gangs Of New York, Gladiator and The English Patient.
> 
> Solaris has to be the winner though.


44 Inch Chest. Ray Winstone. Awful film. I lost an hour and a half of my life watching that shit. 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 9, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Most of the Roger Moore ones are too dull even to entertain a child.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 9, 2016)

Epona said:


> For fuck sake, stop trying to pretend that either one of has has a better statistic than the other.  You can't get beyond 20 million and that's OK because it's not 50 million?  I am not playing fucking war dead top trumps.  You think 20 million dead is like some reasonable number????  I mean if it's off season that must be OK I guess.  Or FFS THIS IS INSANE! ly 20 million -20 million dead! If it's 20 million that's Ok then. Because it could have been worse?  There's something very wrong with the world we live in.





Spymaster said:


> Eh???
> 
> Why so aggressive?
> 
> ...



This is how wars start


----------



## TyphonBlue (Apr 9, 2016)

Broke Back Mountain; I have tried at least twice to watch it and have not managed to finish it, I find it soo utterly dull, it seems that absolutely NOTHING happens. I watched it or rather tried to watch it because it had won awards and received so much praise, even had personal recommendations that i thought I would give a go, but no, it is just so utterly dull and boring.


----------



## Cid (Apr 9, 2016)

Reno said:


> Ding, dong the witch is dead !
> 
> Those sequels to Renezvous With Rama weren't that great either.



The Rama sequels were mainly written by Gentry Lee though. And yeah, they're pretty shit. And somewhat dodgy.


----------



## billy_bob (Apr 9, 2016)

Watched Therese Desqueyroux with mrs_b last night. Mercifully it was only about 1hr 45m but it's still a contender for the thread title.

Stilted, unconvincing dialogue, tedious unlikeable characters all round, and that familiar 'oh pity the poor bourgeoisie' theme that made American Beauty so ahem moving, only with more period costumes.


----------



## Sue (Apr 9, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Watched Therese Desqueyroux with mrs_b last night. Mercifully it was only about 1hr 45m but it's still a contender for the thread title.
> 
> Stilted, unconvincing dialogue, tedious unlikeable characters all round, and that familiar 'oh pity the poor bourgeoisie' theme that made American Beauty so ahem moving, only with more period costumes.



I paid good money to see that at the cinema . Was it really only 1 hour 45 mins long...? 

I've heard the book is interesting and is maybe just a bit difficult to film but can't say I'm very motivated to find out.


----------



## Kesher (Apr 9, 2016)

Macbeth (2015)


----------



## Tankus (Apr 9, 2016)

The force wasn't  with me" in a galaxy far far away "..... Would have been happier somewhere else ..


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 9, 2016)

Has anyone mentioned "Steve Jobs" yet?

More talent than you can shake a stick at, but ultimately you're left with a film about a slightly unpleasant, rich bloke who became even richer.


----------



## Reno (Apr 9, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Has anyone mentioned "Steve Jobs" yet?
> 
> More talent than you can shake a stick at, but ultimately you're left with a film about a slightly unpleasant, rich bloke who became even richer.


Someone dismissed Citizen Kane for the same reason earlier on this thread.


----------



## magneze (Apr 9, 2016)

Watched a bit of Fantastic Four yesterday. Pretty tedious.


----------



## Cid (Apr 9, 2016)

Blindness (2008) was draining in its dullness.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 9, 2016)

Reno said:


> Someone dismissed Citizen Kane for the same reason earlier on this thread.


But Citezen Kane is on a different scale - both in terms of scope (it's about his whole life) and the effect of the protagonist's flaws on the world.  

"Steve Jobs" is about a man who isn't a very good mate to a small number of other grotesquely rich people, and most tragically, is a dreadful parent to his daughter.  But the tragedy of that flaw is poorly served by the rigid, tri-part structure.


----------



## DiBarsoum (Apr 11, 2016)

I tried to watch Soylvent Green to brush up on sci-fi history. Big mistake.


----------



## steveo87 (Apr 11, 2016)

Fifty Shades of Grey. I watched it because Mrs o87 loved it, I had my objections because a) I felt genuinely uncomfortable with the whole premise. b) it looked shit.

I soldiered through an hour of it before just giving up. It's soooo fucking dull! The female character was just so two dimensional it was impossible to feel any warmth to her, and the male character reminded me of blokes at Uni who hid their inability to form relationships with anything other than their own face by filling the air with stories of how "kinky" they were in bed...

Also Ex Machina, two hours of 'they're gonna have sex in a minute. But the bald bloke with the beard? Bit of a Dick."


----------



## Reno (Apr 11, 2016)

The bald bloke with the beard is supposed to be a bit of a dick.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Ex Machina is great because of the ending. Sometimes two hours of boredom is worth it.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2016)

Did we have The Godfather yet? No one cares about the criminal antics of your violently dysfunctional family.


----------



## Reno (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Did we have The Godfather yet? No one cares about the criminal antics of your violently dysfunctional family.


I don't know how you do it, but every opinion you have on film is just horribly, horribly wrong. Sometimes I wonder if you are a Random-Troll-Reno Generator.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 11, 2016)

Some days I dream about a Thunderdome-style death match between Reno and bi0boy


----------



## Reno (Apr 11, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Some days I dream about a Thunderdome-style death match between Reno and bi0boy


I will add that with other, non-film related issues I agree with bi0boy more often than not and I'm sure he is a lovely bloke, but when it comes to film....


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 11, 2016)

Reno said:


> The bald bloke with the beard is supposed to be a bit of a dick.


as is the pale bloke with the floppy hair.


----------



## moomoo (Apr 11, 2016)

Interstellar. I actually wanted to die.


----------



## adidaswoody (Apr 11, 2016)

I dunno if it's already been mentioned but, EVERYTHING MUST GO is so dull.
I thought having will Ferrell in it would be some silly goofy comedy with witty one liners and bizarre happenings.
Instead it took me almost 2 weeks to actually watch it all coz I was falling asleep every 10 minutes I watched.


----------

