Official Film Discussion and Last Movie You Watched

[Tech]

Very very bland.

 

[Line]

Just checked it out from imdb. 9.3/10 wtf? This shit better be good.

This is why you should never, ever go by IMDB ratings.

 

[Anabolicus]

This is why you should never, ever go by IMDB ratings.

I hear you, man. I remember watching ''The Mist'' beacuase it had a rating over 7 at IMDB. It turned out to be complete shit.

 

[tim290280]

...but I wouldn't go this far.

Do you mean Bale's performance or that the film was better than the book?

I'd argue that the Patrick Bateman role essentially broke Bale as a leading man, and that he captured a lot of the nuances of the character without being exaggerated.

In terms of being better than the book, I thought the film version of American Psycho was essentially a great enaction of the key scenes of the book. It captured the declining mental state of Bateman, the ambiguous nature of the narrator's grasp on reality (thus objectivity as a narrator), and the indictment of the impersonal and pointless pursuit of affluence. It did this all without having to resort to the depths of exposition and graphic details used in the book, whilst still maintaining some level of that bleakness at its core to remain true to the source material. As such I felt it superior as it held a higher tone that was more accessible (I was really glad not to see the scene with canibalism and the rat clawing its way out of the victim's intestines).

Also just watched the worst Bond film ever: Never Say Never Again.
Woefully stupid and felt like one big waste of time watching. No charm, no chemistry, and you quite honestly didn't care if it was Sean Connery playing Bond. This is saying a lot considering how stupid a lot of the Bond films were (especially the Roger Moore ones were, and how dated some of the Connery and Dalton ones look now).

 

[Pickle]

This is why you should never, ever go by IMDB ratings.

lol, Imdb is on the whole pretty useful, see twilight reviews (the last one getting 4.5 out of 10 after 70,000 votes). I think someone performed inception on you making you want to be drunk all the time + hate for the sake of hating. Its good that you are critical and different, but heck when you rate a movie like Inception a 5 out of 10 i Really feel you are delibrately just not being honest for the sake of being different.

 

[Line]

In terms of being better than the book, I thought the film version of American Psycho was essentially a great enaction of the key scenes of the book. It captured the declining mental state of Bateman, the ambiguous nature of the narrator's grasp on reality (thus objectivity as a narrator), and the indictment of the impersonal and pointless pursuit of affluence. It did this all without having to resort to the depths of exposition and graphic details used in the book, whilst still maintaining some level of that bleakness at its core to remain true to the source material. As such I felt it superior as it held a higher tone that was more accessible (I was really glad not to see the scene with canibalism and the rat clawing its way out of the victim's intestines).

This is all fair, though I think many of the omissions you mention simply needed to be conceded due to the gap in the mediums. I still think Harron did an excellent job with the material and part of this is shirking all the redundant exposition, but this seems more akin to Bret Easton Ellis favoring Dostoevskian development and Harron realizing this motif simply won't work for an American movie with a presumably limited budget. That said, I don't think the overtly graphic nature of the book is a fault and, overall, characterizes Bateman as an entity more indicative to an era than the film does. Sure, the ostensible 80's tenor rings true enough in the movie, and Harron shoots the hell out of New York City, but I felt the novel painted Bateman's collapse as being better tied to its decade's Zeitgeist. That, and I don't necessarily love the ambiguity that Harron interjects into the work, essentially queering the De Sade-like psychology of the principle and instead diluting it by emphasizing a lack of cultural consequence. It's still a damn fine work, but I can't shake the feeling that Bateman - who, yes, was acted incredibly by Bale - is merely the cliff notes version of his printed-page counterpart in terms of his psyche and ruminations.

lol, Imdb is on the whole pretty useful, see twilight reviews (the last one getting 4.5 out of 10 after 70,000 votes). I think someone performed inception on you making you want to be drunk all the time + hate for the sake of hating. Its good that you are critical and different, but heck when you rate a movie like Inception a 5 out of 10 i Really feel you are delibrately just not being honest for the sake of being different.

Well this is insulting. I like you, Pickle, I do, but this is ignorance of the highest variety. First, your not-so random sample of movies here are pretty useless. You can't say, "Well look, the Twilight films sucked and they're rated low, so IMDB is an effective tool ipso facto." You just can't, for that's a biased, and insignificantly sized sample. Anyway, about the site, it's based on consensus. And not a consensus of the educated, mind you, and not of those working in the industry, and not of those who have seen a large variety of movies, but a consensus of everyone who can be bothered to fill out a simple registration form. Giving everyone an equal say - though, yes, "special" considerations are factored into the top 250 voting - is only going to give populist opinions. And while I'm not trying to say that placing an objective value on art is possible, this list is more akin to what movies are popular than what movies are actually good. Take a look at that top 250, for example: it is dominated by American films. This is likely due to a very large portion of their members being American, being raised on American values, and having little experience outside of American films. The first French film, for instance, appears at #47. The title?: Am?lie, which is closer in spirit to the same kind of Hollywood whimsy that proceeds it than it is to anything of relevance that's actually emerged from the French filmmaking scene. Then there's the ridiculous favoring of more recent films (like Inception, Toy Story 3, The Dark Knight, WALL-E, The Departed, Eternal Sunshine, The Lives of Others, City of God, Inglourious Basterds, Requiem for a Dream, Pan's Labyrinth, Downfall, Up, Gran Torino, Gladiator, Spirited Away, Memento, and all three Lord of the Rings films) falling within the top 100. That's 20 films, by my count, from the past 11 years (2000 and on) taking up one fifth of the supposed cr?me de la cr?me. But with all these newer films being so prevalent, I must ask where are the Tsias, the Hous, the P.T. Andersons, the Lynchs, the von Triers, the Dardennes, the Desplechins, the Coens, the Vardas, the Deniss, the Malicks, the Desplechins, the Soderbergs, the Altmans, or the Godards? Surely the folks who have actually been working hard to create new, exciting - yet relevant - cinema should be allotted space on such a prestigious list too? These are the people, and not nearly all of them, who are trying to progress an artform rather than merely entertain, sell tickets, or both. But people don't care about art. They don't care who inspired what - which is humorous as Godard's first film on the top 250 is, well, nothing while Truffauts's The 400 Blows comes in at a meager 223 despite Pulp Fiction, something largely inspired by such French New Wave directors, is #6 all-time - and instead focus only on their immediate, oftentimes visceral, reactions to films. Without the Godards, Truffauts, Rohmers, Rivettes, and Chabrols we don't have Tarantino and we certainly don't have Pulp Fiction. Those voting on IMDB, for the most part, have a very small breadth of cinema. Those posting on the forums there are the scourge of the film discussion scene. Even those inhabiting the RottenTomatoes boards, which I've abandoned out similar frustrations, rip on those at IMDB. Really, the site is an effective tool to find out who starred in what, or directed this or that, but to give any heed to its top list or ratings is an exercise in futility.

Now, I can't say I don't enjoy many of the films on the top 250 list, or that I always disagree with how the voting there goes, but to accept anything with higher than an 8 or even 9 rating is absurd. This mentality squanders actual discussion and, instead, teaches us to blindly follow the masses. Though I haven't done so personally, I can see why some of my friends have abandoned the idea of rating films; it's too convenient, and lets people get away with not talking about what they did and didn't like. Sure, it gives everyone a voice, but if the extent of that voice is used to merely state a number, then they sure as hell aren't exercising it efficiently.

In any event, I believe in what I say about films and have even mentioned in this thread some of the things I didn't like about Inception. Your counter has been nothing but the citation of a site that, as stated above, I clearly don't take seriously. So I guess we're at an impasse. That is, unless you want to talk about the actual film, where Nolan took his inspirations from, and what it has to offer in terms of social relevance or cultural conscience, in which case, I'll be all ears. You're allowed to have different tastes than me, for you see the world differently than I do. That's all well and good, but to label me merely as a contrarian is not only taking the easy way out of an argument, it's slighting someone who cares a lot about the medium.

 

[tim290280]

Solomon Kane

Pretty average. It had a lot of the right ingredients, just lacked in the delivery. Characters were suddenly introduced out of nowhere, a couple of the performances were questionable and the story was a bit hamfistedly handled.

 

[Pain]

I'll be watching funny people tonight on sky hd movies.

 

[Skeptic]

I saw Inception last night. All in all I enjoyed the movie, however there were a few bits I didn't like (the ending for one thing).

 

[philosopher]

Inception - 8/10

Pretty good movie with a strong story. makes you wonder if your livein in the real world

 

[Daniel Andersson]

American History X - 8/10

 

[Pickle]

Well this is insulting. I like you, Pickle, I do, but this is ignorance of the highest variety. First, your not-so random sample of movies here are pretty useless. You can't say, "Well look, the Twilight films sucked and they're rated low, so IMDB is an effective tool ipso facto." You just can't, for that's a biased, and insignificantly sized sample. Anyway, about the site, it's based on consensus. And not a consensus of the educated, mind you, and not of those working in the industry, and not of those who have seen a large variety of movies, but a consensus of everyone who can be bothered to fill out a simple registration form. Giving everyone an equal say - though, yes, "special" considerations are factored into the top voting - is only going to give populist opinions. And while I'm not trying to say that placing an objective value on art is possible, this list is more akin to what movies are popular than what movies are actually good. Take a look at that top 250, for example: it is dominated by American films. This is likely due to a very large portion of their members being American, being raised on American values, and having little experience outside of American films. The first French film, for instance, appears at #47. The title?: Am?lie, which is closer in spirit to the same kind of Hollywood whimsy that proceeds it than it is to anything of relevance that's actually emerged from the French filmmaking scene. Then there's the ridiculous favoring of more recent films (like Inception, Toy Story 3, The Dark Knight, WALL-E, The Departed, Eternal Sunshine, The Lives of Others, City of God, Inglourious Basterds, Requiem for a Dream, Pan's Labyrinth, Downfall, Up, Gran Torino, Gladiator, Spirited Away, Memento, and all three Lord of the Rings films) falling within the top 100. That's 20 films, by my count, from the past 11 years (2000 and on) taking up one fifth of the supposed cr?me de la cr?me. But with all these newer films being so prevalent, I must ask where are the Tsias, the Hous, the P.T. Andersons, the Lynchs, the von Triers, the Dardennes, the Desplechins, the Coens, the Vardas, the Deniss, the Malicks, the Desplechins, the Soderbergs, the Altmans, or the Godards? Surely the folks who have actually been working hard to create new, exciting - yet relevant - cinema should be allotted space on such a prestigious list too? These are the people, and not nearly all of them, who are trying to progress an artform rather than merely entertain, sell tickets, or both. But people don't care about art. They don't care who inspired what - which is humorous as Godard's first film on the top 250 is, well, nothing while Truffauts's The 400 Blows comes in at a meager 223 despite Pulp Fiction, something largely inspired by such French New Wave directors, is #6 all-time - and instead focus only on their immediate, oftentimes visceral, reactions to films. Without the Godards, Truffauts, Rohmers, Rivettes, and Chabrols we don't have Tarantino and we certainly don't have Pulp Fiction. Those voting on IMDB, for the most part, have a very small breadth of cinema. Those posting on the forums there are the scourge of the film discussion scene. Even those inhabiting the RottenTomatoes boards, which I've abandoned out similar frustrations, rip on those at IMDB. Really, the site is an effective tool to find out who starred in what, or directed this or that, but to give any heed to its top list or ratings is an exercise in futility.

Now, I can't say I don't enjoy many of the films on the top 250 list, or that I always disagree with how the voting there goes, but to accept anything with higher than an 8 or even 9 rating is absurd. This mentality squanders actual discussion and, instead, teaches us to blindly follow the masses. Though I haven't done so personally, I can see why some of my friends have abandoned the idea of rating films; it's too convenient, and lets people get away with not talking about what they did and didn't like. Sure, it gives everyone a voice, but if the extent of that voice is used to merely state a number, then they sure as hell aren't exercising it efficiently.

In any event, I believe in what I say about films and have even mentioned in this thread some of the things I didn't like about Inception. Your counter has been nothing but the citation of a site that, as stated above, I clearly don't take seriously. So I guess we're at an impasse. That is, unless you want to talk about the actual film, where Nolan took his inspirations from, and what it has to offer in terms of social relevance or cultural conscience, in which case, I'll be all ears. You're allowed to have different tastes than me, for you see the world differently than I do. That's all well and good, but to label me merely as a contrarian is not only taking the easy way out of an argument, it's slighting someone who cares a lot about the medium.

good read, ill reply later, my reply may of sounded abrasive and it was delibrately basic but i meant no harm, i was looking merely to stir a nice response. xox

 

[Achilles]

The rise of a footsoldier, pretty descent movie 7/10

 

[Line]

good read, ill reply later, my reply may of sounded abrasive and it was delibrately basic but i meant no harm, i was looking merely to stir a nice response. xox

Sounds good. I too realized that my reply may have been a bit tonally aggressive, which isn't how I want to come off either. I was just a bit shocked to read that you thought I wasn't being honest, as I'm always honest. Hyperbolic? Sure! But never to the point where my true feelings are misrepresented or corrupted.

 

[BigBen]

reviewing movies is definitely not my talent, but I watched 12 monkies for the first time. I feel like not only was this brad pitt and bruce willaces best film, but that this is definitely one of if not my favorite movie purly based on the storyline and the underlining nihlistic theme.

I am actually really curious to hear what Line thinks of this film if you have watched it.

 

[tim290280]

^^ My favourite Terry Gilliam film. I don't know about the acting being fantastic but the casting was apt.

I thought that the entire film did delve into an interesting and well thought out set of parallel ideas. Namely the human psyche and time travel and consequences of each.

 

[El Freako]

I watched Scott Pilgrim vs The World last night and loved it. It was entertaining from start to finish, geeky as hell and a whole lot of fun. 8/10.

 

[BigBen]

^^ My favourite Terry Gilliam film. I don't know about the acting being fantastic but the casting was apt.

I thought that the entire film did delve into an interesting and well thought out set of parallel ideas. Namely the human psyche and time travel and consequences of each.

it is a shame that I have just now watched that movie. I am going to have to look him up to see if he has any other good films.

 

[Line]

it is a shame that I have just now watched that movie. I am going to have to look him up to see if he has any other good films.

Brazil is solid and many people hold Time Bandits in high regard, though I can't speak to it personally. Of course, there's also Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which I'm sure you're at least remotely familiar with. Many people also like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Not me, personally, despite being a fan of Hunter S. Thompson, but many people do. As for 12 Monkeys, I too was initially wowed by it, and have seen it a few times since that first viewing, but would have to watch it again to give any real opinion of the work. I do own it though, so take that for what it's worth. For me, interest in it waned a bit after seeing the short "La Jet?e," which inspired the premise for 12 Monkeys but is without Gilliam's psychedelically surreal lensmanship. In fact, the whole thing is a series of photographs sans I think one or two actual moments of kinesis. Worth checking out though, to be sure, and can be done so here.

 

[BigBen]

thanks i appreciate that.