| Author |
 Topic  |
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
 Posted - 01/12/2008 : 10:32:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
While we're on the subject of action movies, I feel I should point out that "300" is close to one of the best I've ever seen. I really can't imagine what people have against it, unless you don't like CGI. I mean, I like the Jason Bourne movies but there's a sense in which they feel they're above pulp pleasures so that they can present themselves as a thinking man's action movie, and I kind of resent that. "300" is better than any of them because it doesn't fuck around with such pretentious bullshit.
There's a stark difference though, which goes beyond simple enjoyment or tastes. The Bourne books are written as relatively complex and psychologically interesting thrillers, whereas 300 is a very basic graphic novel reimagining an historical event to mythical status. It's got nothing to do with "the thinking man's this or that" -the Bourne films are above pulp pleasures, because they aren't pulp movies. 300 is direct to the point, but that doesn't make it less pretentious than another film as a result.
But I can tell you quite easily what someone could have against it. It was childishly over the top, ridiculously camp to the point of gay fantasy, the acting was rotten from all involved, the style completely dominated the substance, and that style was overblown and cartoon. I was laughable until I got bored of all the slow-mo and shouting.
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think calling Sunshine one of the worst films of the year is a bit of an overstatement considering that Smokin' Aces, Alvin and the Chipmunks, and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles animated remake/sequel came out in the same year.
That I cannot deny, but as I choose not to spend my money on any of those films I can't really include them in my worst of the year. There are some things that really are a waste of good living time. |
 |
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/12/2008 : 23:26:30
|
quote:
the style completely dominated the substance, and that style was overblown and cartoon.
I honestly don't see why this is a complaint. My mind boggles.
As for the Bourne movies, they're more mature than 300 but they're not as mature as they present themselves. I definitely prefer 300's approach, which works well with CGI. I'm glad they went over-the-top with it -- a more realistic telling would yield something like "Gladiator" or "Troy," two real pieces of shit. 300 gains point for not even trying for historical accuracy, and I don't think it's that over-the-top, compared to something like "Charlie's Angels."
I just caught "Death Race 3000." Instantly one of my favorite movies. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 01:06:01
|
A lack of content for the sake of cool effects is alright as long as you are just trying to entertain and not tell an interesting story or say something important. Thermopylae is a story which probably deserves more than just a reaction along the lines of "whoa! cool!", and the net effect of the shouty slow-mo silliness was I couldn't give two shits about any of the Spartans living or dying. Not to mention the loathsome narrative voiceover. I'd accuse 300 of pretentiousness just for being so knowingly juvenile.
I'm glad we agree about Gladiator and Troy though. Never understood the public adoration of the former at all. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 02:38:38
|
Just watched Sunshine. One of my favorite movies of the year.
I don't think any of the complaints lodged towards it have any merit whatsoever. I'll accept some fudging on the physics, but I won't accept fudging on the psychology. And that's where I think -- the moral sacrifices made towards the greater good, the profoundly difficult choice to divert the course of -- these are legitimately, interesting dilemmas, not the fake dilemmas of Michael Clayton. And of course it establishes the miserable vacuum of space better than any movie I've seen the original Alien; it has control of its setting. Almost the equal to Children of Men, in my opinion. I can see where some people would object to the introduction of a psycho bad guy in the final reel, I didn't mind it it. I don't quite see where the illogic Sunshine is accused of comes from, but even if it were to be pointed out, I doubt I'd mind it.
And, you know, if we're going to throw out both the campy cartoonish 300 and the serious, gravid Sunshine, I don't think there's any action movies worth watching at all. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 03:31:58
|
You know, M.B.I., I can almost take for granted that if you love a film it is bad and if you hate one it is good.  I expect that you feel the same about my tastes. That said, if you like Children of Men, you're at least not always wrong. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 04:18:37
|
| For what it's worth, I don't spot a movie even remote worth defending on your worst list -- not even your most controversial pick, Inland Empire, which I hated. Lynch has very much lost his touch, he's always made abstract films, but now he's making abstract abstract films. Super-tedious, and this comes from someone who loved Mulholland Drive. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 01/20/2008 04:19:44 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 04:25:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
not even your most controversial pick, Inland Empire, which I hated. Lynch has very much lost his touch, he's always made abstract films, but now he's making abstract abstract films. Super-tedious, and this comes from someone who loved Mulholland Drive.
Yep, it is just so pretentious. That might even be O.K., were it interesting. I did find the occasional scene of some value, hence it isn't a 1/5, but there is just so much of the same. There's maybe enough material for a half-hour film. And all the rabbit stuff I just found dull. That said, it was so soporific I slept through some sections. Perhaps I missed the fascinating bits. |
|
|
|
Chris C 
"Four words, never backwards."
|
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 16:43:56
|
| I'd humbly like to nominate Die Hard 4.0 for the "worst action movie of the year" list. So bad it was laugh-out-loud at times, and slightly worse than Spiderman 3, which was just bad. |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 17:15:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
For what it's worth, I don't spot a movie even remote worth defending on your worst list -- not even your most controversial pick, Inland Empire, which I hated. Lynch has very much lost his touch, he's always made abstract films, but now he's making abstract abstract films. Super-tedious, and this comes from someone who loved Mulholland Drive.
I liked INLAND EMPIRE. Then I rented it a year later and, surprisingly, liked it even better. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 20:02:13
|
| Again, do we just hate all action and genre movies here? "Live Free or Die Hard" wasn't a great film, it had real problems, it had a lousy villain and it should have not tried to connect itself to 9/11 and technoparanoia crap. But for fuck's sake, it had Bruce Willis being Bruce Willis, it had Lucy McClane, and it had some really good action sequences. I don't understand you people at all. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/20/2008 : 20:58:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris C
slightly worse than Spiderman 3, which was just bad.
 |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 22:47:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Again, do we just hate all action and genre movies here? "Live Free or Die Hard" wasn't a great film, it had real problems, it had a lousy villain and it should have not tried to connect itself to 9/11 and technoparanoia crap. But for fuck's sake, it had Bruce Willis being Bruce Willis, it had Lucy McClane, and it had some really good action sequences. I don't understand you people at all.
I think it's a case of disliking generic movies due to the boredom they cause. There's nothing wrong with Britney Spears's music either, her voice is pretty enough, she can sing in tune, the rhythm section is flawless, the melodies are... melodic, there is nothing wrong with it at all. Except for the fact that it's totally generic, emotionless, boring and unfulfilling.
The same applies to generic action movies, there may not be much that's particularly wrong with them except that there's nothing new in them, hence they are rubbished. I've seen it all before and get bored completely. So watching Die Hard 4 is like watching Die Hard for the fourth time, or more to the point, watching Generic Action Movie 47 for the first time or Generic Action Movie for the 47th time.
I've just realised I haven't the faintest idea how old you are, perhaps you aren't old enough to have become bored by this stuff yet? I'm 40.
Most of the movies in my netlflix queue are from 1930-1970, as I haven't seen enough stuff from these eras to be bored yet (although that day will probably come - hopefully not before I'm as old as lemmy  ). There's not that much from post-1980 Hollywood that I watch these days, as much of the product is formulaic. BTW, I'm not a repeat-movie watcher, a movie needs to be brilliant for me to want to watch it a second time; for the same reason I have no interest in genre movies, as I've seen them all before. |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 01/21/2008 : 23:58:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Again, do we just hate all action and genre movies here? "Live Free or Die Hard" wasn't a great film, it had real problems, it had a lousy villain and it should have not tried to connect itself to 9/11 and technoparanoia crap. But for fuck's sake, it had Bruce Willis being Bruce Willis, it had Lucy McClane, and it had some really good action sequences. I don't understand you people at all.
I think it's a case of disliking generic movies due to the boredom they cause. There's nothing wrong with Britney Spears's music either, her voice is pretty enough, she can sing in tune, the rhythm section is flawless, the melodies are... melodic, there is nothing wrong with it at all. Except for the fact that it's totally generic, emotionless, boring and unfulfilling.
The same applies to generic action movies, there may not be much that's particularly wrong with them except that there's nothing new in them, hence they are rubbished. I've seen it all before and get bored completely. So watching Die Hard 4 is like watching Die Hard for the fourth time, or more to the point, watching Generic Action Movie 47 for the first time or Generic Action Movie for the 47th time.
I've just realised I haven't the faintest idea how old you are, perhaps you aren't old enough to have become bored by this stuff yet? I'm 40.
Most of the movies in my netlflix queue are from 1930-1970, as I haven't seen enough stuff from these eras to be bored yet (although that day will probably come - hopefully not before I'm as old as lemmy ). There's not that much from post-1980 Hollywood that I watch these days, as much of the product is formulaic. BTW, I'm not a repeat-movie watcher, a movie needs to be brilliant for me to want to watch it a second time; for the same reason I have no interest in genre movies, as I've seen them all before.
 First you diss Britney, and then insult me!!!!
Why I ought ta...! 
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 05:14:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
[quote]Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
The same applies to generic action movies, there may not be much that's particularly wrong with them except that there's nothing new in them, hence they are rubbished. I've seen it all before and get bored completely. So watching Die Hard 4 is like watching Die Hard for the fourth time, or more to the point, watching Generic Action Movie 47 for the first time or Generic Action Movie for the 47th time.
As far as I'm concerned, the day you stop liking generic action movies is the day you stop liking movies at all -- like Kael said, we've got to learn to appreciate great trash because there's very little great art. I'm happy dissecting the minute differences between Bridget Jones's Diary and Bridget Jones's Diary 2, and I have to think that people aren't trying hard enough if they can't do that, let alone if they need to have explained what makes Sunshine, of all things, distinct.
But that's very, very beside the point I was trying to make. My point was, this is the WORST FILMS OF THE YEAR list, not the VAGUELY DISAPPOINTING FILMS OF THE YEAR list. I can't understand at all what would make anyone who's seen more than two dozen films in a year put Live Free or Die Hard on their worst list. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Top Ten Least Favorite Films of the Year
