[QUOTE=Yogkog;38687270]You could pretty much take any Western from the 60s/70s and there would would be a good chance there would be a scene that's dragged out for too long[/QUOTE]
Yeah but I haven't seen any westerns that I didn't like that's why I ask.
[editline]3rd December 2012[/editline]
Also I don't see how "overlong" always has to be bad.
Dances With Wolves director's cut is 4 hours and I loved every second of it.
[QUOTE=igamiwarr;38686309]
Drive 9/10
With all of the people comparing Hotline Miami to this I thought it was going to be a really fast paced mindless action movie, and I was pleasantly surprised with what I got instead.[/QUOTE]
Who the hell does that?
[QUOTE=Xephio;38687113]i didnt like lotr trilogy, but im hoping the hobbit will be way better[/QUOTE]
I personally like TLOTR, but I have to admit that often it does tend to drag and considering the source material, the books tend to drag even more than the movie. The Hobbit is much shorter and has, let's say, more going on in a shorter time. So I'd expect it to have a faster pace and less chit chat.
[QUOTE=Frisk;38686858]The LOTR trilogy was boring as shit.[/QUOTE]
As I may partially agree with this, I wouldn't be so harsh. It's very well made, the scenery and camera work is amazing. I just wasn't that interested enough to watch the rest of them. I only saw the first movie. I could see why mostly everyone loves it though. I was just not that interested.
Edit:
Also I saw V for Vendetta for the first time. 8/10 really good.
Looper - 8/10
ok, some aspects of the movie blew me away at how good it was. it created a believable environment and realistic potrayal of the job the Loopers did.
However here are some points that i found too unexplored and some points just bad.
spoilers:
[sp]1. The whole part at the farm just felt pretty long compared to the movie's total duration.
from this sci-fi immersive urban area in the city with all kinds of little neat futuristic details that actually made it feel like it was from the near future, it goes to spend half of the movie in some farm place surrounded by wheat.
It wasnt a good place, because you couldnt tell it was from our time, from 50 years ago or from 50
years in the future. it was just a farm.
At Skyfall atleast the mansion where James was raised up in had a symbolic meaning to it. but in Looper it was just again, a completely normal farm
2. "10% of the population start to have a TK mutation. PERIOD."
for a movie where its about realistically portraying a job that is build around timetravel and other scientific inventions, you dont just go and add Telekinesis without ANY deeper story and exploration to it. Don't get me wrong, i actually liked the whole telekinesis addition to it, it felt fresh and just made it more interesting. But atleast try to give a logical and scientific explanation to it.
3. in short, the intense load of plotholes in the timetravel. they shouldve shown alot more complexity.
Time travel doesnt work if you keep it braindead simple, especially not considering how many types of timetravels exist made up by people
4. This one is kind of personal but i think most will agree.
the little kid being a main focus near the last 40 minutes.
Adding small kids to the story is a risk at itself, especially when you give them a big role.
the ending is supposed to be emotional and dramatic, but everyone in the theatre just laughed or daw'd loudly everytime the kid did something. (other then getting shot in the face that was unexpected)[/sp]
But yea conclusion its a good movie, but it goes kind of downhill after the first half
and an extra point for the awesome acting of Joseph gordonlevitt, he fucking nailed acting like Bruce Willis
[b]Shutter Island[/b]
9/10
Amazing movie with amazing acting. It's really well done on every level, the camerawork is amazing and so are some of the subtle hints and effects that you notice after watching very closely. It just plays so well together. The only thing I disliked is the massive amount of effects that they used in the first dream and during some storm sequences, it would have worked without all the neat effects. But that is just me.
I definitly recommend this movie to anyone.
[QUOTE=junker|154;38690643][b]Shutter Island[/b]
9/10
Amazing movie with amazing acting. It's really well done on every level, the camerawork is amazing and so are some of the subtle hints and effects that you notice after watching very closely. It just plays so well together. The only thing I disliked is the massive amount of effects that they used in the first dream and during some storm sequences, it would have worked without all the neat effects. But that is just me.
I definitly recommend this movie to anyone.[/QUOTE]
not a single academy award nomination, and it was better than almost every movie nominated for best picture, save inception and toy story 3.
[b]No Country For Old Men[/b]
9.5/10
This movie is such a great piece of art, there is nothing that I can complain about. It's intense, suspensful, deep and great looking. The acting is so great, every character in the movie is memorable. The dialogues are so genius, furthermore the accents fit so well to the whole theme.
The whole scenery looks amazing and you really get this vibe after a short while. Nearly every scene is intense, I sat in my chair like a maniac due to the suspense. A great thing about the movie is the amount of detail. Especially the scences with Moss and Chigurh, how they treat their wounds, take measures or plan ahead. The whole game of cat-and-mouse blurrs after a while and things get out of hand, making it even more intense.
The only thing that I felt was lacking is additional explanations on the failed deal, like how much money it actually was and more infos about the 2 criminal organizations.. Although you understand the whole scenario pretty fast.
The end was quite confusing to me, I was not fully able to grasp what this movie is all about except for the obvious theme of crime and violence. The whole role of Lee Jones is deep and thought provoking.
[QUOTE=Xephio;38690614]Looper - 8/10
ok, some aspects of the movie blew me away at how good it was. it created a believable environment and realistic potrayal of the job the Loopers did.
However here are some points that i found too unexplored and some points just bad.
spoilers:
[sp]1. The whole part at the farm just felt pretty long compared to the movie's total duration.
from this sci-fi immersive urban area in the city with all kinds of little neat futuristic details that actually made it feel like it was from the near future, it goes to spend half of the movie in some farm place surrounded by wheat.
It wasnt a good place, because you couldnt tell it was from our time, from 50 years ago or from 50
years in the future. it was just a farm.
At Skyfall atleast the mansion where James was raised up in had a symbolic meaning to it. but in Looper it was just again, a completely normal farm
2. "10% of the population start to have a TK mutation. PERIOD."
for a movie where its about realistically portraying a job that is build around timetravel and other scientific inventions, you dont just go and add Telekinesis without ANY deeper story and exploration to it. Don't get me wrong, i actually liked the whole telekinesis addition to it, it felt fresh and just made it more interesting. But atleast try to give a logical and scientific explanation to it.
3. in short, the intense load of plotholes in the timetravel. they shouldve shown alot more complexity.
Time travel doesnt work if you keep it braindead simple, especially not considering how many types of timetravels exist made up by people
4. This one is kind of personal but i think most will agree.
the little kid being a main focus near the last 40 minutes.
Adding small kids to the story is a risk at itself, especially when you give them a big role.
the ending is supposed to be emotional and dramatic, but everyone in the theatre just laughed or daw'd loudly everytime the kid did something. (other then getting shot in the face that was unexpected)[/sp]
But yea conclusion its a good movie, but it goes kind of downhill after the first half
and an extra point for the awesome acting of Joseph gordonlevitt, he fucking nailed acting like Bruce Willis[/QUOTE]
I disagree with most points.
[sp]it doesn't really matter whether or not the farm looks like it's from the future, neither did most of the city. by that point it's already established they were in the near future. it wasnt important anymore. the movie was about the characters, not the setting.
it would have seriously cheapened the tk thing if they tried to throw some bullshit movie science reason for it, who cares.
the kid was great, one of the only child actors that age that's actually fucking believable. he did a good job.
[/sp]
[QUOTE=Pops;38693247]not a single academy award nomination, and it was better than almost every movie nominated for best picture, save inception and toy story 3.[/QUOTE]
Dude, you don't get how the criteria works.
Unlike Cannes festival committee who I actually respect, the acadamy looks for a film which has a big standing among a large amount of people. They think because they're masters of cinema, they can give prestige to only the films made with a complete sound mind.
Shutter Island was fairly disconnected from that, and it'll be like saying "David Lynch's films own but no oscar nominations :(". You really shouldn't care.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/xNlOi.jpg[/IMG]
The Comedy (2012)
This is probably one of my favorite movies of the year, and probably one of the darkest comedies I've seen. It's awkward as hell and dark as hell. Tim Heidecker also did a fantastic job with the role. I hope he does some more drama stuff.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;38693314]No love for "Inglourious Basterds"? :([/QUOTE]
IB was a 2009 film.
[editline]4th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=AK'z;38694036]Dude, you don't get how the criteria works.
Unlike Cannes festival committee who I actually respect, the acadamy looks for a film which has a big standing among a large amount of people. They think because they're masters of cinema, they can give prestige to only the films made with a complete sound mind.
Shutter Island was fairly disconnected from that, and it'll be like saying "David Lynch's films own but no oscar nominations :(". You really shouldn't care.[/QUOTE]
david lynch receives more credit than he deserves at time. scorcese earns his credit with each film he makes.
TDKR - 8/10
I really love this movie. The only problem with it was with the blu-ray because, in some scenes, it kept changing from full screen to wide, and it got pretty irritating.
[QUOTE=Syrix;38697965]TDKR - 8/10
I really love this movie. The only problem with it was with the blu-ray because, in some scenes, it kept changing from full screen to wide, and it got pretty irritating.[/QUOTE]
so did TDK. It's because it was based off an IMAX print. only the imax scenes are open matte. it's on purpose
Kingpin - 62/100
Pretty mediocre. Not very funny, but not really bad either.
Up in Smoke - 73/100
I had some laughs, but it's nothing special.
[QUOTE=Pops;38697930]
david lynch receives more credit than he deserves at time. scorcese earns his credit with each film he makes.[/QUOTE]
i don't get it, i thought we were talking about oscars.
David lynch has never won an Oscar and I think that's shocking tbh. he's a fantastic director.
To be honest I don't think David Lynch cares if he ever gets an Oscar.
he doesn't fit their criteria.
A lot of people don't, even if the film is great.. that's why I've lost respect for the academy.
What do you guys say about The Machinist? The trailer was really intriguing.
[QUOTE=junker|154;38699170]What do you guys say about The Machinist? The trailer was really intriguing.[/QUOTE]
saw the trailer, literally gives the film away..... and misrepresents the entire tone of the film.
you can watch the film, but you'll keep remembering the trailer and your experience won't be as good.
I knew I should have left the trailer out, they always spoil to much. I am currently looking for some crime themed movies. Like No Country For Old Men, Goodfellas, Public Enemies, Drive and so on.
Also I will soon watch Bad Lieutenant with Cage, it just looks so damn crazy :v:
the machinist owns
[QUOTE=junker|154;38699266]I knew I should have left the trailer out, they always spoil to much. I am currently looking for some crime themed movies. Like No Country For Old Men, Goodfellas, Public Enemies, Drive and so on.
Also I will soon watch Bad Lieutenant with Cage, it just looks so damn crazy :v:[/QUOTE]
Michael Mann's filmography, but give The Keep a miss and Miami Vice(the movie) isn't very Michael Mannly
more people need to watch Eastern Promises and In Bruges too
[QUOTE=junker|154;38699266]I knew I should have left the trailer out, they always spoil to much. I am currently looking for some crime themed movies. Like No Country For Old Men, Goodfellas, Public Enemies, Drive and so on.
Also I will soon watch Bad Lieutenant with Cage, it just looks so damn crazy :v:[/QUOTE]
Hm, Heat or Casino?
[editline]4th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=AK'z;38698862]he doesn't fit their criteria.
A lot of people don't, even if the film is great.. that's why I've lost respect for the academy.[/QUOTE]
I have to disagree to some extent. There are some movies that really don't fit the criteria you'd extrapolate from other nominations, Winters Bone for example. Really great movie.
[QUOTE=Konigstiger96;38699506]
more people need to watch [B]Eastern Promises[/B] and In Bruges too[/QUOTE]
surprised by how this film never got mentioned when it was out.
Skyfall - 9/10
Beautifully shot, only minor grievances.
[QUOTE=Killuah;38699514]
I have to disagree to some extent. There are some movies that really don't fit the criteria you'd extrapolate from other nominations, Winters Bone for example. Really great movie.[/QUOTE]
Not saying they choose bad films, but they do choose films based on a stereotypical mindset.
Why does Lars Von Trier never get nominated? It makes sense for him not to be because his films are a lot more detached from that mindset.
Honestly I was AMAZED that Tree of Life got nominated, it's definitely one that doesn't get anywhere near the criteria. Plus people are really divided about it.
It just seems to me that they're throwing in nominations to confuse people sometimes..
[editline]4th December 2012[/editline]
also Crash was probably their most surprising best film win in all their years.
"Why does Lars Von Trier never get nominated?"
because he makes bad pretentious movies?
'chaos reiiiggnns' gimme a break dude
[QUOTE=Rusty100;38699647]"Why does Lars Von Trier never get nominated?"
because he makes bad pretentious movies?
'chaos reiiiggnns' gimme a break dude[/QUOTE]
Tree of Life was miles more pretentious than anything Lars has done.
[editline]4th December 2012[/editline]
Breaking the Waves is probably his best and it got snubbed by every award.
sometimes I reckon people think "horribly depressive" translates as bad.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
