Recommend (or don't) a movie thread v2

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Sliver

What am I missing here?

Just that I find your persona amusing because it's literally the antithesis of me.

Originally Posted by fotze2

There is a a running across the top of the train scene in Killers of the Flower Moon? I have been reluctant to watch because it kinda looked like a climate change is bad theme.

It's not about climate change at all.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Just that I find your persona amusing because it's literally the antithesis of me.



It's not about climate change at all.

Then I will watch.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yeah, that probably indicates I'm not a basic bitch who just likes every movie, though. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny was boring AF. There was even a running across the top of a train scene, which is unacceptable in 2023. Way too cliché and predictable. I mean, if you like that stuff then go nuts, but there are people who appreciate more discerning reviews.

Annnd, have you seen the new 3.25-hour Scorsese film? It is boring with boring characters and a boring story.

I wont comment on that film in particular because I havent seen it, but it does seem like Scorsese is making films with staggering runtimes lately, almost like its some point of pride?

You can tighten 'em up a little Marty...

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Locke

I wont comment on that film in particular because I havent seen it, but it does seem like Scorsese is making films with staggering runtimes lately, almost like its some point of pride?

You can tighten 'em up a little Marty...

Oh yeah, it's just self indulgent. One guy who thinks his storytelling is so compelling and deep that he deserves over three hours of our attention. Then you get guys like Engine09 pretending he's operating on some deeper level because he can appreciate Scorsese's efforts, but a rube like me should stick to popcorn shoot-em-ups and car chases.

Reminiscent of the Mark Twain quote: "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead."

Anybody who has ever written in a professional capacity will know it's much more challenging to get your ideas across succinctly than it is to ramble on and just barf it all out there. I think movie making is the same. Well, obviously it is in that it starts with a script, which is just the written word, but there is also the advantage of the cutting-room floor, which apparently Scorsese has never seen.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Oh yeah, it's just self indulgent. One guy who thinks his storytelling is so compelling and deep that he deserves over three hours of our attention. Then you get guys like Engine09 pretending he's operating on some deeper level because he can appreciate Scorsese's efforts, but a rube like me should stick to popcorn shoot-em-ups and car chases.

Reminiscent of the Mark Twain quote: "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead."

Anybody who has ever written in a professional capacity will know it's much more challenging to get your ideas across succinctly than it is to ramble on and just barf it all out there. I think movie making is the same. Well, obviously it is in that it starts with a script, which is just the written word, but there is also the advantage of the cutting-room floor, which apparently Scorsese has never seen.

Okay, but I think we can also admit that there is room in the cinema Universe for some of that self-indulgence.

Personally that doesnt work for me, but Scorsese and Tarantino and Nolan have probably earned a little bit of lee-way and if people like you or I dont like it, we can skip it.

The thing annoys me about guys like Scorsese is that he wants to bitch about Superhero films, streaming, Cinema and whatever else but he simultaneously wants to pump out 3.5 hour films.

The Irishman. That movie took me 3 days to watch. It was so goddamned slow...

And the King of self-indulgence is Tarantino with Nolan not being far behind. But I still generally like their movies and if that motivates them then who am I to complain?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, but I think we can also admit that there is room in the cinema Universe for some of that self-indulgence.

Personally that doesnt work for me, but Scorsese and Tarantino and Nolan have probably earned a little bit of lee-way and if people like you or I dont like it, we can skip it.

The thing annoys me about guys like Scorsese is that he wants to bitch about Superhero films, streaming, Cinema and whatever else but he simultaneously wants to pump out 3.5 hour films.

The Irishman. That movie took me 3 days to watch. It was so goddamned slow...

And the King of self-indulgence is Tarantino with Nolan not being far behind. But I still generally like their movies and if that motivates them then who am I to complain?

Was The Irishman Scorsese, too? Holy crap, that was a slog as well. He's really out of touch with what makes a good character and what constitutes good pacing.

Nolan, though, made my favourite movie of all time: Interstellar. Two hours and 50 minutes, that one. You can do long, but long without a good story, a weak arc, flat characters who lack any development, etc. is ridiculous.

Tarantino has mostly made good to great movies, IMO, but Once Upon a Time was terrible.

So IDK, maybe my issue is less about length and more about quality.

This Flower BS movie I saw on Sunday was long and terrible. The Twain quote applies to it. Should have been shorter (still wouldn't have been good, really, because the story and characters were big nothings; it would have been more entertaining to follow me around running errands and then cut it into a 1:45 hour movie than that POS). Interstellar could have been five hours, but cutting it down to 2:50 was as short as it could possibly get to cram in all that awesomeness.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Was The Irishman Scorsese, too? Holy crap, that was a slog as well. He's really out of touch with what makes a good character and what constitutes good pacing.

Nolan, though, made my favourite movie of all time: Interstellar. Two hours and 50 minutes, that one. You can do long, but long without a good story, a weak arc, flat characters who lack any development, etc. is ridiculous.

Tarantino has mostly made good to great movies, IMO, but Once Upon a Time was terrible.

So IDK, maybe my issue is less about length and more about quality.

This Flower BS movie I saw on Sunday was long and terrible. The Twain quote applies to it. Should have been shorter (still wouldn't have been good, really, because the story and characters were big nothings; it would have been more entertaining to follow me around running errands and then cut it into a 1:45 hour movie than that POS). Interstellar could have been five hours, but cutting it down to 2:50 was as short as it could possibly get to cram in all that awesomeness.

Okay, so we're not going to agree here because I liked 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' I really didnt enjoy 'The Irishman' and "Interstellar' taught me how to take threads out of a theater seat and fashion a rudimentary noose out of them.

I thought of making a garotte but its almost physically impossible to strangle yourself, you require an outside force and gravity is just going to have to suck it up.

Regardless!

Much like 'Box Office Take' the Runtime of a film is not an indicator of quality.

I'd say that other than the Lord of the Rings films, the only movies I've seen where I really didnt care about the runtime were Marvel movies. Because they're fun and I didnt want them to end. The LOTR movies really, really pushed the boundaries there.

I literally checked my watch during the Star Wars sequels praying that they were soon over.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Oh yeah, it's just self indulgent. One guy who thinks his storytelling is so compelling and deep that he deserves over three hours of our attention. Then you get guys like Engine09 pretending he's operating on some deeper level because he can appreciate Scorsese's efforts, but a rube like me should stick to popcorn shoot-em-ups and car chases.

Reminiscent of the Mark Twain quote: "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead."

I find it funny to use Fast & the Furious to insult someone's criticism of too-long films because the last FF film to clock in under 2 hours was FF3. Fast X was (double checks because holy crap) 2:21 LOL.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, so we're not going to agree here because I liked 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' I really didnt enjoy 'The Irishman' and "Interstellar' taught me how to take threads out of a theater seat and fashion a rudimentary noose out of them.

I thought of making a garotte but its almost physically impossible to strangle yourself, you require an outside force and gravity is just going to have to suck it up.

Regardless!

Much like 'Box Office Take' the Runtime of a film is not an indicator of quality.

I'd say that other than the Lord of the Rings films, the only movies I've seen where I really didnt care about the runtime were Marvel movies. Because they're fun and I didnt want them to end. The LOTR movies really, really pushed the boundaries there.

I literally checked my watch during the Star Wars sequels praying that they were soon over.

Oh wow. I've yet to see a marvel movie I enjoy. I'm boycotting them and - as you can probably see - I go to every movie in the theater. Not marvel, though. They won't get another cent of mine.

LOTR were terrible movies. I remember looking around outraged at how boring and stupid they were. I had that antsy feeling like we were all going to start whipping our drinks at the screen and rioting. I was ready to rock for that. When I realized it wasn't going to happen I just sort of slunked in my seat and tried to get some shut-eye.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Oh wow. I've yet to see a marvel movie I enjoy. I'm boycotting them and - as you can probably see - I go to every movie in the theater. Not marvel, though. They won't get another cent of mine.

LOTR were terrible movies. I remember looking around outraged at how boring and stupid they were. I had that antsy feeling like we were all going to start whipping our drinks at the screen and rioting. I was ready to rock for that. When I realized it wasn't going to happen I just sort of slunked in my seat and tried to get some shut-eye.

Yeah. So we're not going to agree on some things. Thats fine.

Everyone likes different movies.

[Burninator]

I watched Big Trouble in Little China for the first time as an adult and thought it was great! It's weird, funny, has some great special effects and I loved that the main character is not the hero but the side kick. I thought it totally holds up.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I watched Big Trouble in Little China for the first time as an adult and thought it was great! It's weird, funny, has some great special effects and I loved that the main character is not the hero but the side kick. I thought it totally holds up.

man. I thought the special effects were laughable. and the kurt russell character wasn't funny but boorishly unlikable.

Would you call it a horror, though? someone said they believe it's the gold standard for comedic horror.

I didn't think there was more than 5 seconds of "horror" in the whole movie.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

man. I thought the special effects were laughable. and the kurt russell character wasn't funny but boorishly unlikable.

Would you call it a horror, though? someone said they believe it's the gold standard for comedic horror.

I didn't think there was more than 5 seconds of "horror" in the whole movie.

Are those the 5 seconds that Kim Cattrall attempts to "act"? Sounds pretty horrific to me.

[timun]

Originally Posted by timun

I mean...

Most of your posts in this thread are about how "boring" movies are, after all. Like your recent review of Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny complained it was "boring AF" and "the main chick wasn't hot enough". You're not exactly setting yourself up as a tolerating anything that is "too posh for you"...

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yeah, that probably indicates I'm not a basic bitch who just likes every movie, though. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny was boring AF. There was even a running across the top of a train scene, which is unacceptable in 2023. Way too cliché and predictable. I mean, if you like that stuff then go nuts, but there are people who appreciate more discerning reviews.

Annnd, have you seen the new 3.25-hour Scorsese film? It is boring with boring characters and a boring story.

It's basically your default complaint. To wit:

Originally Posted by Sliver

Not a chance. It's boring AF now. I can barely get through it and my kids just kind of wandered away and didn't come back. Doesn't hold a candle to something modern like Live, Die, Repeat.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yeah, pretty boring. Can't believe the run these Marvel movies have had. They are all so glaringly mediocre.

Originally Posted by Sliver

I really liked Michael Cera in Super Bad and Arrested Development.

Scott Pilgrim is painful to watch. So fataing painful. It's like that try-hard quirky humour/style that I hate. Similar style to Everything Everywhere All at Once or whatever the name of that ####ty movie is that is getting some Oscar buzz - that one I walked out of from sheer boredom with maybe 15 minutes left. I just couldn't do it anymore.

Interspersed in those posts you complain about how "super distracting and annoying" it is that Emily Blunt "stands with her mouth open" in Edge of Tomorrow, you "hate Adam Driver" because "he seems like a big dopey moron", you complained "I hate Will Smith. I hate the other guy [Martin Lawrence]." and yet you still went to see Bad Boys for Life...

You're not exactly setting yourself up as a sophisticate.

[Sliver]

lol, you just listed a bunch of boring movies and called me out for identifying them as boring. I appreciate the time you took to prove me right on all counts and I especially enjoyed the trip down memory lane reading my sharp and accurate descriptions of those actors.

I wonder how many flies Emily Blunt has caught in that gaping mouth of hers between now and the time I wrote that comment.

[Sliver]

Buuut, not to dismiss your point or your efforts entirely. I'm a bit at the mercy of the movies that are available. Like, I wish everything was Pulp Fiction, Interstellar, Rushmore, Saving Private Ryan, etc. Heck, I really liked Rogue One even though all the other Star Wars movies have been crap. But, alas, most of the junk they pump out is garbage. I'm a movie-theater buff, though, so after I've seen the good movies I'm stuck with the dregs. I go to those, too (except Marvel), which sets me up for a lot of disappointing crap. Still get to chill for a couple hours and enjoy a bucket of popcorn, though, so it's not like I don't get anything out of it.

For $20 I get to check out something it took tens of millions of dollars to make. Movies are the best deal ever. If I don't like the movie I just walk out. IDGAF about staying through the whole thing if it's garbage.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Sliver

lol, you just listed a bunch of boring movies and called me out for identifying them as boring. I appreciate the time you took to prove me right on all counts and I especially enjoyed the trip down memory lane reading my sharp and accurate descriptions of those actors.

I wonder how many flies Emily Blunt has caught in that gaping mouth of hers between now and the time I wrote that comment.

Originally Posted by timun

You're not exactly setting yourself up as a sophisticate.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by timun

"not a sophisticate"

I'd be happy with that as a user title.

[Nadal Fan]

After watching Lawrence of Arabia I felt like I needed to watch another epic film, something that could match the grandeur of Lawrence. So naturally I went with Apocalypse Now, another one of the greatest films ever. The 4K looks absolutely breathtaking and the film is absolutely amazing, a slow decent into madness and really showcases the horrors of war. Now the question is what do I follow up Apocalypse Now with?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Nadal Fan

After watching Lawrence of Arabia I felt like I needed to watch another epic film, something that could match the grandeur of Lawrence. So naturally I went with Apocalypse Now, another one of the greatest films ever. The 4K looks absolutely breathtaking and the film is absolutely amazing, a slow decent into madness and really showcases the horrors of war. Now the question is what do I follow up Apocalypse Now with?

Apocalypse Later?