Last movie seen — Page 550

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

My opinion is that the joke is funny, not that the film is bad. I don’t have an opinion of the film, though I do think the twelve year shoot is inherently pretentious if it isn’t good.

That’s a dumb thing to think. If it isn’t good it’s not pretension, it’s just a failed experiment.

I suppose you’re not wrong, I just find it pretentious in an attention grabbing sort of way. Look at me, I spent a long time shooting this movie, now give me oscars.

So anytime a filmmaker wants to experiment with the filmmaking process it’s pretentious and attention grabbing? You don’t think it’s an interesting concept at all?

As for “now give me Oscars,” that’s ridiculous. This kind of thing is right in Linklater’s wheelhouse and he never gets nor (I would presume at this point) expects Academy recognition.

I guess it just seemed that way to me. It was a big marketing point IIRC.

It wasn’t. The movie wasn’t even really marketed all that much. The 12 years thing was all word of mouth.

Thing is, the movie is good.

Some beg to differ. But I won’t argue about the quality of the film since I ain’t seen it.

Exactly mfm’s initial point.

But mfm’s point is moot because I was never commenting on the quality of the film. I made a joke about people who think you aren’t allowed to dislike it because people were disagreeing with Handman about Birdman being better.

Nobody thinks people aren’t allowed to dislike it.

EDIT: I also think that it’s important to throw in here that you keep using the word “some” to refer to the critics that don’t like Boyhood, but you’re obviously specifically referring to one entity, which is two reviewers, one of whom disliked it and the other thought it was a mixed bag and then that same entity obviously later played up their negative review to a hyperbolic extent for attention and comedic effect. I don’t even like the movie that much, I just don’t like the RLM worship, and the reason I hate the RLM worship is because I actually really like RLM and don’t like the attitude of most of its fanbase.

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

My opinion is that the joke is funny, not that the film is bad. I don’t have an opinion of the film, though I do think the twelve year shoot is inherently pretentious if it isn’t good.

That’s a dumb thing to think. If it isn’t good it’s not pretension, it’s just a failed experiment.

I suppose you’re not wrong, I just find it pretentious in an attention grabbing sort of way. Look at me, I spent a long time shooting this movie, now give me oscars.

So anytime a filmmaker wants to experiment with the filmmaking process it’s pretentious and attention grabbing? You don’t think it’s an interesting concept at all?

As for “now give me Oscars,” that’s ridiculous. This kind of thing is right in Linklater’s wheelhouse and he never gets nor (I would presume at this point) expects Academy recognition.

I guess it just seemed that way to me. It was a big marketing point IIRC.

It wasn’t. The movie wasn’t even really marketed all that much. The 12 years thing was all word of mouth.

Thing is, the movie is good.

Some beg to differ. But I won’t argue about the quality of the film since I ain’t seen it.

Exactly mfm’s initial point.

But mfm’s point is moot because I was never commenting on the quality of the film. I made a joke about people who think you aren’t allowed to dislike it because people were disagreeing with Handman about Birdman being better.

Nobody thinks people aren’t allowed to dislike it.

I’m pretty sure they made that follow-up video because they got a lot of flak online for not saying it was good.

EDIT: I also think that it’s important to throw in here that you keep using the word “some” to refer to the critics that don’t like Boyhood, but you’re obviously specifically referring to one entity, which is two reviewers, one of whom disliked it and the other thought it was a mixed bag and then that same entity obviously later played up their negative review to a hyperbolic extent for attention and comedic effect.

There are other people who didn’t think the film was good. Mike and Jay are just a primary example since they started the joke that I referenced.

I don’t even like the movie that much, I just don’t like the RLM worship, and the reason I hate the RLM worship is because I actually really like RLM and don’t like the attitude of most of its fanbase.

I’m not worshiping RLM. I find their gags funny, so I reference them from time to time. God forbid someone reference a joke from the internet.

moviefreakedmind said:

Everything is a product of its time.

True to an extent, but some things age well and even look prescient.

Olympus Has Fallen- Soul-crushingly dull wannabe action movie with a stiff Gerard Butler performance at its center. Not one of its action sequences has any suspense or excitement, and it assumes no one in the audience has seen Die Hard, Red Dawn, or an episode of 24. Cliched dialogue, depressing crude violence, and a boring derivative plot. A total yawn.

Under the Skin

Masterpiece.

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

My opinion is that the joke is funny, not that the film is bad. I don’t have an opinion of the film, though I do think the twelve year shoot is inherently pretentious if it isn’t good.

That’s a dumb thing to think. If it isn’t good it’s not pretension, it’s just a failed experiment.

I suppose you’re not wrong, I just find it pretentious in an attention grabbing sort of way. Look at me, I spent a long time shooting this movie, now give me oscars.

So anytime a filmmaker wants to experiment with the filmmaking process it’s pretentious and attention grabbing? You don’t think it’s an interesting concept at all?

As for “now give me Oscars,” that’s ridiculous. This kind of thing is right in Linklater’s wheelhouse and he never gets nor (I would presume at this point) expects Academy recognition.

I guess it just seemed that way to me. It was a big marketing point IIRC.

It wasn’t. The movie wasn’t even really marketed all that much. The 12 years thing was all word of mouth.

Thing is, the movie is good.

Some beg to differ. But I won’t argue about the quality of the film since I ain’t seen it.

Exactly mfm’s initial point.

But mfm’s point is moot because I was never commenting on the quality of the film. I made a joke about people who think you aren’t allowed to dislike it because people were disagreeing with Handman about Birdman being better.

Nobody thinks people aren’t allowed to dislike it.

I’m pretty sure they made that follow-up video because they got a lot of flak online for not saying it was good.

They didn’t get any flak. Read the comments of their original video. It’s nothing but agreement. They got flak for not pretending to like Rogue One and I think they got some flak for hating Man of Steal, but other than that I can’t think of any of their reviews getting any backlash. I know my RLM, by the way. I know their stuff by heart.

EDIT: I also think that it’s important to throw in here that you keep using the word “some” to refer to the critics that don’t like Boyhood, but you’re obviously specifically referring to one entity, which is two reviewers, one of whom disliked it and the other thought it was a mixed bag and then that same entity obviously later played up their negative review to a hyperbolic extent for attention and comedic effect.

There are other people who didn’t think the film was good. Mike and Jay are just a primary example since they started the joke that I referenced.

Name me one. I know that there are others that don’t like it, but you are obviously basing all of this off of one specific outlet and one outlet only.

I don’t even like the movie that much, I just don’t like the RLM worship, and the reason I hate the RLM worship is because I actually really like RLM and don’t like the attitude of most of its fanbase.

I’m not worshiping RLM. I find their gags funny, so I reference them from time to time. God forbid someone reference a joke from the internet.

RLM fans often treat RLM videos as scripture or gospel. There’s an attitude to it that I don’t like.

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

My opinion is that the joke is funny, not that the film is bad. I don’t have an opinion of the film, though I do think the twelve year shoot is inherently pretentious if it isn’t good.

That’s a dumb thing to think. If it isn’t good it’s not pretension, it’s just a failed experiment.

I suppose you’re not wrong, I just find it pretentious in an attention grabbing sort of way. Look at me, I spent a long time shooting this movie, now give me oscars.

So anytime a filmmaker wants to experiment with the filmmaking process it’s pretentious and attention grabbing? You don’t think it’s an interesting concept at all?

As for “now give me Oscars,” that’s ridiculous. This kind of thing is right in Linklater’s wheelhouse and he never gets nor (I would presume at this point) expects Academy recognition.

I guess it just seemed that way to me. It was a big marketing point IIRC.

It wasn’t. The movie wasn’t even really marketed all that much. The 12 years thing was all word of mouth.

Thing is, the movie is good.

Some beg to differ. But I won’t argue about the quality of the film since I ain’t seen it.

Exactly mfm’s initial point.

But mfm’s point is moot because I was never commenting on the quality of the film. I made a joke about people who think you aren’t allowed to dislike it because people were disagreeing with Handman about Birdman being better.

Nobody thinks people aren’t allowed to dislike it.

I’m pretty sure they made that follow-up video because they got a lot of flak online for not saying it was good.

They didn’t get any flak. Read the comments of their original video. It’s nothing but agreement. They got flak for not pretending to like Rogue One and I think they got some flak for hating Man of Steal, but other than that I can’t think of any of their reviews getting any backlash. I know my RLM, by the way. I know their stuff by heart.

Look, our memories on this subject are obviously contrary to each other, and if I’m going to be perfectly honest, I trust your memory/re-reading of comments over my own memory, so I’m happy to be wrong.

EDIT: I also think that it’s important to throw in here that you keep using the word “some” to refer to the critics that don’t like Boyhood, but you’re obviously specifically referring to one entity, which is two reviewers, one of whom disliked it and the other thought it was a mixed bag and then that same entity obviously later played up their negative review to a hyperbolic extent for attention and comedic effect.

There are other people who didn’t think the film was good. Mike and Jay are just a primary example since they started the joke that I referenced.

Name me one. I know that there are others that don’t like it, but you are obviously basing all of this off of one specific outlet and one outlet only.

I guarantee you that at least one of the comments in agreement came from someone who actually saw the film. I’m not going to look up any other reviews to appease your need to feel superior to me.

I don’t even like the movie that much, I just don’t like the RLM worship, and the reason I hate the RLM worship is because I actually really like RLM and don’t like the attitude of most of its fanbase.

I’m not worshiping RLM. I find their gags funny, so I reference them from time to time. God forbid someone reference a joke from the internet.

RLM fans often treat RLM videos as scripture or gospel. There’s an attitude to it that I don’t like.

I’ve disagreed with their reviews multiple times in the past. I’m sure most of these worshipful fans are just like me. I like their jokes because I find them funny, and because of that I reference them from time to time. I will admit that their comment sections sometimes have an excess of that sort of thing though. And like I said, they have referenced the “12 years to make” joke since that follow-up video.

I like the joke, so I referenced it when relevant in the thread, sue me.

Who said anything about feeling superior?

ChainsawAsh said:

darthrush said:

Under the Skin

Masterpiece.

I don’t know if I’d call it a masterpiece, but it was certainly unique. I thought it succeeded in showing a view of our world from the perspective of a complete outsider. Probably one of those movies I’ll never watch again but I’m glad I did.

Interesting. I’m already ready to watch it again to soak everything up better this time around but I definitely agree it’s very unique and not for everyone. I just wish more people could have seen it.

darthrush said:

Under the Skin

Masterpiece.

Johnanson’s nude scene is what got all the press, but it’s an interesting, highly unusual film that I sort of observed at arm’s length for its technique and style rather than getting involved in it.

I wanted to like that, but it frustrated me to no end.

Terror Train- Utterly mediocre Halloween knockoff. Does almost nothing interesting with its setting, which some other directors would have a field day with. Not particularly gory by today’s standards, though too well-made to qualify as straight exploitation. John Alcott, Stanley Kubrick’s cinematographer, does conjure up a few interesting images and shadows. Otherwise, not shot with much style, uninteresting characters, doesn’t milk any of its ideas enough, and not outrageous enough to work as exploitation. Sadly, overall, just boring.

DuracellEnergizer said:

ray_afraid said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

★★★★★★★☆☆☆

I’m really surprised by this. I thought it stank.

I was impressed by the animation. Everything else was meh.

I’m surprised by that, too. But not because I disagree, just that you’ve been vocal about hating modern animation styles. I also prefer old school animation to 3D, but I also thought this was pretty cool. I also liked the post credits scene, only because it hints at one of my favorite monsters showing up later…

SilverWook said:

Mike O said:

darthrush said:

Under the Skin

Masterpiece.

Johnanson’s nude scene is what got all the press, but it’s an interesting, highly unusual film that I sort of observed at arm’s length for its technique and style rather than getting involved in it.

I wanted to like that, but it frustrated me to no end.

Terror Train- Utterly mediocre Halloween knockoff. Does almost nothing interesting with its setting, which some other directors would have a field day with. Not particularly gory by today’s standards, though too well-made to qualify as straight exploitation. John Alcott, Stanley Kubrick’s cinematographer, does conjure up a few interesting images and shadows. Otherwise, not shot with much style, uninteresting characters, doesn’t milk any of its ideas enough, and not outrageous enough to work as exploitation. Sadly, overall, just boring.

Wow. How do you go from lensing The Shining to Terror Train? A job is a job I guess. I’m curious enough to check it out now.

Dean Cundy was the cinematographer for Halloween and was also the cinematographer for Adam Sandler’s Jack and Jill.

Lol, that’s hilarious. Whatever drug inspired that decision should go straight to the top of his ranking.

Chasing Amy

Very Good.

Source Code (2011)

“[It]'s no Moon,” but I really liked it.

SilverWook said:

Mike O said:

darthrush said:

Under the Skin

Masterpiece.

Johnanson’s nude scene is what got all the press, but it’s an interesting, highly unusual film that I sort of observed at arm’s length for its technique and style rather than getting involved in it.

I wanted to like that, but it frustrated me to no end.

Terror Train- Utterly mediocre Halloween knockoff. Does almost nothing interesting with its setting, which some other directors would have a field day with. Not particularly gory by today’s standards, though too well-made to qualify as straight exploitation. John Alcott, Stanley Kubrick’s cinematographer, does conjure up a few interesting images and shadows. Otherwise, not shot with much style, uninteresting characters, doesn’t milk any of its ideas enough, and not outrageous enough to work as exploitation. Sadly, overall, just boring.

Wow. How do you go from lensing The Shining to Terror Train? A job is a job I guess. I’m curious enough to check it out now.

He’s gotta eat, I suppose. It’s watchable as slasher movies go, but nowhere near as stylish as Carpenter’s movie. My old film teacher’s favorite punching bag was Halloween, and I too beat on it for years. but more slasher films that follow in its wake that I watch, the more that I realize that I was rather unfair.

PS- Does anyone here know anything about that Mad Max mono?