Last movie seen — Page 292

Oh and 4.0 out of 10 on my scale means that it is just below average.

To give you some idea of what that means I consider Search for Spoke to be a 5.0, so a 4.0 isn't good but it is far from the worst I have seen.  if this movie had just had someone with a brain look at it's script and it had been edited down to eighty minutes or so it would have been much better.

Oh and if you insist on putting pointless robots in your movie make them look like something other then cardboard boxes.  The robot in a $200 million movie from 2014 should not look worse then ones seen in a 1970s episode of Doctor Who that had a budget of a few thousand dollars.

Nope, it's good, you're wrong, I'm right.  Not an opinion.  Interstellar is a great movie, that's a fact, and there can be no debating it.  I win you lose.

Trident said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Oh and 4.0 out of 10 on my scale means that it is just below average.

To give you some idea of what that means I consider Search for Spoke

Is that a show about missing parts on a bicycle?

 I give this post a 6.0 out of 10, meaning it's just above average.

Possessed said:

Trident said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV's Frink said:

I'm pretty sure Two Girls One Cup had a limited theatrical run.

I really wish I didn't know what that is. 

 What's so bad about knowing what a theatrical run is?

 *snickers to self about that video being mentioned in the same sentence as the word "run"*

Possessed said:

Nope, it's good, you're wrong, I'm right.  Not an opinion.  Interstellar is a great movie, that's a fact, and there can be no debating it.  I win you lose.

If I could, I'd kill Ayn Rand for creating objectivism. 

From my point of view, nu-uh!

DrCrowTStarwars said:

RicOlie_2 said:

No doubt his expectations were too high and he ruined the movie for himself.

 Not really, if Micheal Bay had directed this movie I still would have felt like throwing up when all that insanity about love controlling the laws of time and space showed up.

That is the kind of garbage that is it were put in a Disney movie it would get called out for the badly written sap that it is but because Nolan made it this trash gets a pass for some reason.  Every time he does something no matter how stupid it is it gets praised as the greatest thing the human race has ever produced when if you had Micheal Bay make the exact same movie it would have a 12% on RT.

People say that like Nolan's movies because it is cool to like them not because they really think they are any good.  He's a name brand at this point, not a director.  He needs to stop trying to make deep epics and start making smaller films that have to stand on their own merits.

 Um, no.

I am so happy I just pretend Nolan and his films don't exist anymore. It saves me from putting myself through the wringer of anger, frustration, and/or disappointment that DrCrow is currently cycling through.

If I wasn't already excited to see Interstellar before, I certainly would be after reading the last several posts.

TV's Frink said:

If I wasn't already excited to see Interstellar before, I certainly would be after reading the last several posts.

I'm not old. I just feel that way.

TV's Frink said:

If I wasn't already excited to see Interstellar before, I certainly would be after reading the last several posts.

I believe you'll enjoy it.  If you don't, you can slap me silly.  

What does that phrase mean any way?

I mean why would slapping someone make them silly, and how long would you have to do it for any way?

There are some good parts of this movie, I like the built up in the first act and the fact that unlike most movies they don't show the disaster wiping out the human race over night and instead it took almost 100 years.  Also anything to do with the relative time aspect of the story I liked.  It's just in the end it was too long, too talky, and the ending was just way to silly for my taste.

If this were any episode of say The Twilight Zone where the rule of science go out the window I think I would have liked it better but I feel like they told me that the story was playing by one set of rules but when the story ran into a wall they completely changed them and so the last act feels like it belongs to another movie, and sadly since it is a time travel ending it messes with the rest of the story so this whole movie just ended up feeling silly.

Oh and just a general note, am I the only one who is getting a little tired of the way all modern movies seem to run almost three hours?  It's just too long in my book and even the movies I like these days I almost always end up wishing about half an hour of scenes were cut.  Maybe I am alone in this but I end up feeling board and worn out by the end of most movies these days and so I find myself less and less likely to set aside the time to watch them.

Neglify said:

I agree there are a lot of long movies nowadays. Blame LOTR and Avatar, and Gamblor.

 Gamblor will devour us all.

Interstellar is not an action movie. It's an epic, so I would say the near-three hour runtime is justified. Same goes for LOTR.

You could probably argue that Avatar didn't need to be so long, but it's James Cameron and he can do what he wants and it didn't stop the film from making money. Anyway, that's kind of an epic too, with an action movie climax. 

Nolan does tend to run a little long, but besides TDKR and Interstellar none of his pics run longer than two and a half hours and he balances story and action pretty well with much more of the former than typical blockbusters, so I think he gets a pass.

The two Avengers movies have so much going on that the long runtimes are pretty justified.

The main perpetrator seems to Michael Bay, I think. The problem is his movies keep making money, so the studios don't feel the need to force cuts.

He's not the only one who embellishes, of course. It just the times, I think. People are willing to watch longer action movies now, so we see longer action movies. Pacing is much more important than length, and quality too, as Silverwook points out.

I'm a big supporter of the 90 minute film, but I'm also a big supporter of the two hour plus film. If that's what the filmmaker needs, so be it. Better than the studios getting in the way, as has happened far too often in the past. 

Tobar said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Interstellar.

Okay I am a huge Nolan fan and I defended both The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel.  I also believe Person of Interest is one of the best TV shows ever made, so please remember that.

 Not much of a fan if you're only seeing it now. You didn't get the full experience unless you caught either a 35mm showing or the 70mm IMAX film performance.

Seeing this film on a full sized IMAX screen in 70mm was breathtaking.

 Sorry but at the time due to medical bills and my dad being in and out of work due to the medical issues I didn't have the money to see this in theaters, my family was some times going days between eating just so we didn't end up on the streets.  When I can get the movie a few months later out of the library for free I can't really justify spending $13 to see a movie once, no matter how big a fan I am of the director.  Sorry.

Now I know there have been long movies in the past and I am not in favor of studios getting in the way, it's just it seems like all the movies I see lately run at least two and a half hours and a lot of it feels like padding to me.  I think that may be one reason I am watching more TV these days, say what you will about the 42 minute run time of most shows but it does keep the plots focused and the action scenes don't tend to drag.  I think one problem these days is that a lot of actions scenes just go on and on to the point where I get board, it seems like in the past action scenes were faster paced and got to the point faster.

I know I may be alone in this and that given some of the movies I am a fan if this may seem like a strange stance but I just think we need more 90 minute movies these days.  I feel like if the films just got to the point and didn't leave me looking at my watch and getting too tired to finish them in one sitting then I wouldn't notice half the plot holes I do and be tempted to nitpick them.

Maybe this movie was better in theaters but I feel that with just one more rewrite or two and some editing it could have been a great movie at home as well as at theaters and I wish the last act didn't take that nosedive into being complete sap.

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Interstellar.

Okay I am a huge Nolan fan and I defended both The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel.  I also believe Person of Interest is one of the best TV shows ever made, so please remember that.

By the way, Nolan is not the reason for Man of Steel's suckage, that's a Zack Snyder film. And Person of Interest is Jonathan Nolan, not Christopher.