Recommend (or don't) a movie thread v2

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Still worth watching despite this spoiler?

I don't think that spoiler would ruin the movie. Given the satirical aspect of it, it would've been more surprising if it didnt

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I don't think that spoiler would ruin the movie. Given the satirical aspect of it, it would've been more surprising if it didnt

It removes suspense from a few scenes for sure, but why even defend posting spoilers of any kind in a movie recommendation thread, especially for a brand new film? It's just such an ####### thing to do

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

It removes suspense from a few scenes for sure, but why even defend posting spoilers of any kind in a movie recommendation thread, especially for a brand new film? It's just such an ####### thing to do

Very sorry, I am bad for this, I need to use the spoilers tab more often.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

That would be Blade Runner.

Nah, Blade Runner is a bit on the slow side, but not even close to the glacial pace of even something like many modern indie dramas, let alone some classics of art house cinema. Aki Kaurismäki's Match Factory Girl has the first piece of dialogue at about 30 minutes into the movie, and it's two lines. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is also a LOT slower, and longer, than Blade Runner.

If you want to see REALLY slow movies, check out Andrei Tarkovskis filmography. Many of them are genuine classics, but they are truly really slow films.

As for older movies in general being slower, that's also just blatantly not true on average. Modern movies usually have more cuts per minute, but other than that many modern films are quite moderately paced when it comes to things like length of scenes, pace of dialogue and how fast character arcs develop in terms of overall screen time. Words of dialogue per minute is very often quite low these days. Go watch something like Casablanca and take note just how fast people talk, and then consider how long Keanu Reeves can take to say "woah"

There's also probably more screen time with no dialogue now, as films have more and longer transition shots and establishing scenes and action scenes have become a LOT longer. There's less montages now though than there were in the eighties.

Many older films are also based in plays rather than books, which is why they often had a ton of dialogue compared to many modern films (and also less filler-dialogue such as people talking to cashiers or cab drivers.)

In general people's attention spans have more likely gone up rather than down, as all our entertainment has become longer and longer. Books are much longer on average, TV episodes have gone from 20+ minutes with commercial breaks to 60 minutes without commercial breaks, and movies have have added an average of something like 30+ minutes of runtime. The same story that took 86 minutes in the black and white era now easily takes up ~120 minutes. Blade Runner Director's Cut is 116 minutes, while Blade Runner 2049 is 163 minutes.

Even songs on the radio have gone up in average length by more than a minute.

(Spotify of course is dominated by really short songs, but that's more about Spotify.)

[White Out 403]

I finally made it thru to the end of the new Matrix tonight after 2 tries. When it ended I boo'd at my TV alone at 130am. What a god damn tire fire.

[Itse]

Watched Godzilla vs Kong. It's better than King of Monsters and a perfectly watchable monster fight movie. 3/5 or something.

Rampage is still the best one of these though.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I finally made it thru to the end of the new Matrix tonight after 2 tries. When it ended I boo'd at my TV alone at 130am. What a god damn tire fire.

Congrats. Must have been soo hard.

[Hemi-Cuda]

I wanted to like Ghostbusters: Afterlife, but to me it's more like a 12-year old's Ghostbuster fanfiction than a true sequel to the first 2. The teenagers were alright, but the kids were not, especially the Asian podcast kid. Everytime he spoke my eyes wanted to roll back in their head. It was also missing most of the goofy charm of the original, the director was taking the source material way too seriously

Why is it so hard to make another regular Ghostbusters movie? Why does it have to be a kids movie, or a female empowerment piece?

[woob]

I've been meaning to sit down and watch the Unbreakable, Split, and Glass "trilogy" for awhile now. Finally sat down and watched Unbreakable last night. I had recollections of seeing it previously, though I don't think I had watched the whole thing. It was decent.

Now on to Split, but it's proving a bit difficult to find on streaming, so I'll likely have to rent it. Hope it's a good one!

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

It removes suspense from a few scenes for sure, but why even defend posting spoilers of any kind in a movie recommendation thread, especially for a brand new film? It's just such an ####### thing to do

The guy asked if the spoiler would ruin his viewing of the movie, i said probably not.

Where did i defend him for it?

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by woob

I've been meaning to sit down and watch the Unbreakable, Split, and Glass "trilogy" for awhile now. Finally sat down and watched Unbreakable last night. I had recollections of seeing it previously, though I don't think I had watched the whole thing. It was decent.

Now on to Split, but it's proving a bit difficult to find on streaming, so I'll likely have to rent it. Hope it's a good one!

James MacAvoy is a criminally underrated actor.

[Fuzz]

I watched that trilogy a couple years ago, and it is very underrated. I really enjoyed it.

[bdubbs]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Congrats. Must have been soo hard.

Couldn't imagine spending the energy you use to criticize other people's opinions on a thread based on opinions. I guess it explains the rest of your posts on the board, though.

Regardless, to keep it on topic, the new Matrix movie is terrible, in my opinion.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by bdubbs

Couldn't imagine spending the energy you use to criticize other people's opinions on a thread based on opinions. I guess it explains the rest of your posts on the board, though.

Regardless, to keep it on topic, the new Matrix movie is terrible, in my opinion.

Calling that movie terrible is hardly an opinion IMO. Stuffing your film with highlights of previous movies is objectively a sign of lazy filmmaking.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I watched that trilogy a couple years ago, and it is very underrated. I really enjoyed it.

Thought it was fantastic. The final film wasn't as good as the first two.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Calling that movie terrible is hardly an opinion IMO. Stuffing your film with highlights of previous movies is objectively a sign of lazy filmmaking.

Might even say it’s a flawed movie.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

I wanted to like Ghostbusters: Afterlife, but to me it's more like a 12-year old's Ghostbuster fanfiction than a true sequel to the first 2. The teenagers were alright, but the kids were not, especially the Asian podcast kid. Everytime he spoke my eyes wanted to roll back in their head. It was also missing most of the goofy charm of the original, the director was taking the source material way too seriously

Why is it so hard to make another regular Ghostbusters movie? Why does it have to be a kids movie, or a female empowerment piece?

Don't really get why they have to make the Ghostbusters movies so family/kids friendly. The first two movies were for adults. Sleezy Bill Murray making all sorts of sexual innuendos. There's a scene where Dan Akroyd gets pleasured by a ghost. Sigourney Weaver demanding to be impregnated. There's all sorts of language issues.

it was a pretty raunchy adult comedy. I have no idea why film makers feel the need to change the tone of the originals so much.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

Don't really get why they have to make the Ghostbusters movies so family/kids friendly. The first two movies were for adults. Sleezy Bill Murray making all sorts of sexual innuendos. There's a scene where Dan Akroyd gets pleasured by a ghost. Sigourney Weaver demanding to be impregnated. There's all sorts of language issues.

it was a pretty raunchy adult comedy. I have no idea why film makers feel the need to change the tone of the originals so much.

Because they want the people who loved the originals, who are adults now, to be able to enjoy the movies with their own kids.

Kids have a tendency to like seeing movies they enjoy over and over again, which means people buy lots of tickets.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Locke

Because they want the people who loved the originals, who are adults now, to be able to enjoy the movies with their own kids.

Kids have a tendency to like seeing movies they enjoy over and over again, which means people buy lots of tickets.

Wait a sec. They want the people who loved the originals who are adults now to enjoy it.

That seems to imply they were children when it came out. It’s almost as if the original movie managed to successfully attract adults and children. But they had to change the new one in order to appeal to parents with kids? Just like the original did?

This version was sanitized and written/directed/marketed by a corporate focus group.

[getbak]

The first Ghostbusters came out in June 1984 and was rated PG in the States. The PG-13 rating came into use on July 1, 1984 (although, Red Dawn was the first PG-13 film released on August 10, 1984).

At that time, as long as you didn't cross the line into the R rating (which was usually excessive profanity or nudity), you got the PG.

All the subsequent Ghostbuster films were also rated PG, but the limit of what would qualify for the PG was lower because of the PG-13.