Amon wrote:
Avatar: my niece said oh there is lovely elves in it, I found myself quickly bored by lack of good story or interesting characters, movie dragged on for too longn I found it a bad copy of Dances with Wolves
What's the age old saying about there being only five different stories? Or whatever the number is, or only one if you believe the latest Spider-Man film.
As for being a similar story to Dances With Wolves, I never understand why that is so often given as a criticism, Dances is a good film, and is over an hour longer.
Amon wrote:
American Beauty: my sister said it's good, watched it on TV, I was like wth are there peopel loving such a disturbing depressing story?
I thought that it was an uplifting movie. A man starts as sad and depressed, and quickly ends up happy via some amusing situations.
Amon wrote:
Big Fish: I like fantasy , fairy tales and I like Tim Burton's work, a friend recommended it to me, all I got was an incoherent story about a father telling stories about himselmf as a big hero which made no sense at all and led to nowhere
It's one of Burton's worst. And not helped by the fact that Mcgregor can't carry a film. He lacks the charisma. He's a decent supporting actor who happens to be good looking enough to get offered leading roles.
Amon wrote:
The Matrix: no fan of action movie but it is considered a classic, however most of time I did not have a clue what it was about
It's a Japanese anime. Made into an american live action film. With some Hong Kong martial arts films copied (sub-standard) into the mix. Some of the elements are ripped directly from other films.
Amon wrote:
Harry Potter: you could not see past the success of its books even though I didn't read a single one of them, my niece and nephew forced me to watch 2 of those movies, although the concept of a wizard school is cool to me, its characters were so freakingly lame and stupid IMO, the storyline was also nothing to write home about for me and Harry is in my opinion the most annoying hero I can imagine, maybe the series was better with a cool wizard girl as protagonist
I didn't watch them all, but I can give a synopsis of the ones I did:
Potter: <Whine> There's a bad guy out there.
Everyone else: No there isn't.
<Generic action scene>
End film.
Amon wrote:
Twilight: recommended by a friend who likes vampires, even though I am yet to find a good movie about vampires, gave it a shot, found myself very bored halfway, lack of good story or interesting characters, seems to be very loved by teenage girls, I also heard it created some kind of feud between Twilight and Harry Potter fans, thank God I like neither
I have no time for Christian allegories of any kind. But it's shorter than the bible, so that's good...?
Amon wrote:
Ghostbusters: no one recommended it but I was too young to watch when those came out, I only remember the cartoons which were not great but pretty cool, few years ago I saw the 2 movies were on DVD and thought ok let's give it a shot, my feeling after watching them was ok I guess when it came out it must have been spectacular and funny but to be honest I didn't find it funny nor entertaining, very boring. I guess I saw these way too late
If you don't find Bill Murray amusing then you're dead inside
Amon wrote:
Mulholland Drive: perfect example of why movies told in a non-chronological way are often a miss for me, recommend by a friend who said it was a movie with an interesting lesbian theme, it all started out interesting even though scenes that didn't make sense were thrown in, when I realized that the movie's premise on the box was totally misleading and the storyline so basic that I was like ok why the hell did they make such a long movie about it. It really got me avoiding movies that want to sound intelligent by showing scenes in a non-chronological order, throw in scenes that add more art or violence or boring dialogue than content (reason I have never cared to watch Pulp Fiction). 11:14 being a big exception.
I still can't figure out what it's about, and neither can anyone else according to Wikipedia, the director hasn't explained anything either. But I think that it's a good example of a film that doesn't make much sense but is nonetheless well made, vs a bad film because it's been made badly or because the script is bad.
As for Pulp Fiction, I don't remember that the chronology switches back and forth too much, more that you switch back and forth between connected characters at the same time in the film, and their plots are set during slightly different times. So don't let that put you off. However, I don't think it's Tarantino's best film, and he's become even more self indulgent ever since.
As for films wanting to sound intelligent by mixing the chronology, how does that work? I think you read too much into the intent other than to entertain you and maybe make you think a bit.
If you know in advance that it's mixed up, then that's going to change the understanding of the film and wouldn't be how it was intended to be viewed. Knowing the final act reveal of a film (Fight Club, Sixth Sense, The Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight Rises...) beforehand completely changes the meaning of the film. Though some are interesting to re-watch when knowing the reveal and seeing how the emphasis and meaning is different and how it can be ambiguous.
Amon wrote:
Titanic (1997): I saw it in theatre as teenager as my mum didn't want to go alone, I have nothing against a love story but this one dragged on and on, the actual sinking scene wasn't good either, they just kept on focusing on the love birds most of time, I have never been able to rewatch this one
As with American Beauty, have you ever heard of the saying of 'getting out of a film what you take into it'? I think you expect a different film than the one it is. Imagine complaining that the romantic element of Transformers wasn't developed enough...
Amon wrote:
Underworld: a war between werewolves and vampires with a Romeo and Julia love theme, it sounded cliché to me but hey I love fantasy and mythical creatues, man was I disappointed to find out that it all took place in modern settings, fighting with guns, I found it all stupid as hell, same can be said of the Blade movies
There's nothing to review here. It's just bad. And only exists as an excuse to have a 'hot woman' in skin tight clothing run around. The fact that it's had two/three successful sequels says more about the general public than the film makers I think.
You can generally tell from the poster who the film is marketed at, (and look at the ones you've listed, Titanic isn't and action film poster, it's a romance set against a horrible event. Just like Dr Zhivago isn't a war film etc) and thus if a film will be bad or good. If someone told me to watch Underworld I would disregard everything they ever said about film or television for eternity!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
