[Movies] Confess your movie sins to me, and be absolved
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
Don't bother, it's not the same when you see it as an adult.
I feel old because I was in high school when The Goonies came out...
S
SeraRelm
I have never seen The Prestige.
Necronic
Staff member
Although it may have been the best comic movie of it's time.
Since that time in the early 90's sucked overall, though, that's not saying much.
Great movie right until Bowie. Needless to say the movie swerves right into terrible.
I have never seen a Hitchcock or Kubrick movie all the way through. I need to fix that with Hitchcock, not so much with Kubrick.
The only western I've seen that didn't star the Duke is The Magnificent Seven, and Blazing Saddles (does it count?).
Tarintino somehow makes millions by making B movies with AAA budgets. Unlike Raiders of the Lost Ark none of his movies are any better than their inspirations.
I don't think I could disagree with this entire post possibly any more.
I don't want to push the disagree button. I'm trying hard not to.
But you make it so difficult.
$1m, $8m, $12m, $30m, $30m, ~$5m* $70m
You add all those up, WITH inflation, and it doesn't cost as much as half the summer blockbusters this year. I'm not gonna argue much for Tarantino. He is one of my favorites, but I understand not liking him / not getting him, whatever. But his films have hardly been A+ budgeted extravaganzas.
*Grindhouse was $10m total, I gave Death Proof half, which is generous since I'm fairly certain Planet Terror cost more.
**Also, ignoring another Kubrick dig because well whatever, live and let live
okay n/m live and let live suck my diiiiiiiiick
I saw 3 Ninjas Kick Back in theaters FOUR TIMES, that movie fucking rules
fade
Staff member
I'm confused. You and I usually agree on movies.
I love how cheap Pulp Fiction was, and then went on to make $200 million.
I don't care that 2001 is boring to today's audience. If you have a short attention-span, just fast forward through the special effects scenes. The actual mission is damn fine cinema.
Kubrick is a genius.
Spartacus
Dr Strangelove
Full Metal Jacket
for just those 3, I can forgive that 2001 drags at times, but it was mind blowing special effects then. I can even forgive Eyes Wide Shut, reminds me of a few nights that I've had...
Kubrick is a genius.
Spartacus
Dr Strangelove
Full Metal Jacket
for just those 3, I can forgive that 2001 drags at times, but it was mind blowing special effects then. I can even forgive Eyes Wide Shut, reminds me of a few nights that I've had...
While I partly agree with you, I don't think someone necessarily has a short attention span just because they don't find watching a ship land for 5-10 minutes interesting. It's not a matter of attention span length, but whether the special effects impress you.
S
SeraRelm
The conveyed depth and majesty of what humankind has achieved in so relatively short amount of time is what Kubrik seemed to be aiming for with those scenes. He's building a sense of anticipation and focus, a calm before the storm.
Perhaps it was more amazing to audiences when it was released because space launches/travel was still new then.
The mission is the good part of 2001 to me. I liked the prehistoric part. The ships, the talks, the moon, and the ending sequence could all go on the scrap heap for me. I thought the book was better. The post-HAL part of the book conveyed the majesty and wonder that Kubrick might have been after in the film.
The mission is the good part of 2001 to me. I liked the prehistoric part. The ships, the talks, the moon, and the ending sequence could all go on the scrap heap for me. I thought the book was better. The post-HAL part of the book conveyed the majesty and wonder that Kubrick might have been after in the film.
This. I think it's fair to say it's harder to impress a sense of majesty on someone solely with visuals if they find the visuals mundane rather than majestic.
The book was DIFFERENT. Arthur Clarke himself said he was happier with how some of his parts turned out in the movie than in the book. Bear in mind both were released simultaneously.
On the other hand, the movie 2010 is beyond rubbish, while the book 2010 is still quite decent. With 2061 and 3001 he did the same as he did with the last two Rama books though; sequels to philosophically interesting books, turned into cheap sociological commentary. (I'm still a huge fan of his though)
S
SeraRelm
BananaHands
Staff member
I've never seen Top Gun.
But I mean, is that really that bad?
But I mean, is that really that bad?
S
SeraRelm
You can be my wingman any time, BananaGoose.
Spawn is a great example of why corporate businessmen shouldn't have creative control. I know one of the guys who was involved in that in a pretty high up position, and the story I heard was basically like this:
The company: "You have to tone it down, it's got to be PG 13. Only teenagers go to see comic book movies"
Producer: "But the comic is for mature readers. It deals with some pretty heavy stuff."
The company: "Yeah, dumb it down a bit too. Kids aren't very smart. Lots of explosions and special effects."
Producer: "Well, All these effects shots you've got the writers to add in are stretching us thin. Can we at least get some more funding for the effects budget? ."
The company: "No."
HOMOPHOBE...
- Status