What is not subjective is the quality of the film making, which involves a number of things including cinematography, sound, direction, acting, quality of writing etc etc. Of course people have their own preferences for even these things (some people hate 'shaky cam' some people don't like lots of quick cuts) but the technical skills are measurable.
In film-making all of these things can be judged subjectively, as all are done for effect. Preference and technical skills can be acknowledged here (the latter objectively), but one can still have genuine subjective issues with these aspects with regards to effect and how one responds (i.e. not how the film intended).
Yeah, back in 2008 I got absolutely *slated* on a couple of forums for stating what seemed the obvious at the time - that TDK was one big, unfocused mess of a film...
Isn't it just. The irony of all the Heath Ledger fuss is that he's the only thing worth watching in it. A fumbling, stop-start affair not helped by Nolan's fidgety direction.
Now then, Shane Meadows. This is England. Dead Man's Shoes. Shocking faux-art rubbish both.
I see what you mean, he can be like that. I'm looking forward to Interstellar though. There was a comment made about The Prestige by a critic, and it resonated with me. The writer said something like "I don't mind watching science-fiction, I'd just like it if you told me first"
I remain optimistic about his films, because I know he's capable of excellent filmmaking, perhaps he benefits from not having complete creative control. (In the same way, since he's become successful, Tarantino's films have suffered...)
I've yet to see The Prestige so I can't comment...
Ugh yes! This drives me nuts!
It's only a remake if it takes elements created by the previous film and not the book/comic it was adapted from. Like for instance, if Hollywood made another Wizard of Oz it wouldn't be a remake unless they used the songs and red slippers from the first movie.
IF?
Oz, The Wiz, Journey Back to Oz, The Muppets World of Oz, Oz the Great and Powerful, Return to Oz,.......Tin Man as well.
It's a Wonderful Life doesn't deserve "classic" status. It was over-long, boring and I felt no empathy with the main character at all. I wish he'd topped himself at the start.
Oz, The Wiz, Journey Back to Oz, The Muppets World of Oz, Oz the Great and Powerful, Return to Oz,.......Tin Man as well.
I'm talking about within the next few years.
Also, those aren't remakes IIRC... Return to Oz is a continuation Oz, the Great and Powerful is a pre-quel and I haven't seen the Wiz in years...
As for the rest, don't believe I've seen them although TIn Man sounds vaguely familiar. Isn't that with Zoey Dashthingymabob?
Anyway, a remake has to copy elements from the original that was created by the original but I'm sure somebody will challenge me on that.
I would put Skyfall at the same level as Quantum of Solace and Moonraker. All movies have some good set pieces put the stories, music, theme music, etc. are terrible
My 'controversial' opinion is that opinions are subjective given that we all experience films in different ways based on our background and type of intelligence. What is a masterpiece to one person is entirely dull to another. The Godfather is one of my favourite films but my best friend hates it.
What is not subjective is the quality of the film making, which involves a number of things including cinematography, sound, direction, acting, quality of writing etc etc. Of course people have their own preferences for even these things (some people hate 'shaky cam' some people don't like lots of quick cuts) but the technical skills are measurable.
Acting...how good are they really do we actually know, the beauty of movies is you do a scene, but how many takes does that scene actually take to get right? Perhaps acting or calling them actors is to much of a compliment to many movie stars.
Not terribly controversial. The script for The Terminator is lean, and there isn't a scene in it which doesn't propel the story along. Terminator 2 is bloated and over-done by comparison. T1 is a masterpiece of storytelling.
Agreed. In discussions I've had in the past about this, some people favour T2 due to its bigger budget and better special effects. I prefer T1, mainly due to its raw energy and it's perfectly paced.
One minor quibble with T1 is with this scene, which should have been re-shot or edited better.
The cop takes Sarah Connor out of the car, puts his hand on her back and stares at her, then the camera pans away. It looks very odd and am slightly disappointed that it got into the final print.
The godfather while its a great movie. is not really that great. it could of done with a lot of trimming ( house party anyone) its nowhere near as good as once upon a time in america or goodfellers or other movies yet it is always ranked higher usually top 3 in most best lists
a lot of the old movies i see on best of lists annoy me that re not that good.
all spider man movies suck.
animation movies should not be classed along with proper movies
The godfather while its a great movie. is not really that great. it could of done with a lot of trimming ( house party anyone) its nowhere near as good as once upon a time in america or goodfellers or other movies yet it is always ranked higher usually top 3 in most best lists
I've always liked The Godfather but yeah that opening wedding reception (assuming you're talking about that) does go on forever.
I've always felt that The Godfather Part II is a vastly superior film. Though he was very entertaining in the role, Marlon Brando was just giving a mumblecore performance in the first film. I still hold the opinion that Pacino's performance in Part II is the single greatest acting performance ever. Part II is even longer but the story is genuinely engaging to make up for it.
I've always liked The Godfather but yeah that opening wedding reception (assuming you're talking about that) does go on forever.
I've always felt that The Godfather Part II is a vastly superior film. Though he was very entertaining in the role, Marlon Brando was just giving a mumblecore performance in the first film. I still hold the opinion that Pacino's performance in Part II is the single greatest acting performance ever. Part II is even longer but the story is genuinely engaging to make up for it.
yeah part 2 is great, both are i just think there's better movies
de nero stole part 2 for me
Would like to see more movies which DO NOT have a happy ending. Not suggesting that they should be gloomy and depressing, but sometimes feel that a happy ending has been tagged on, is unrealistic or is in conflict with the general tone of the movie.
Suspect that Test screenings can be responsible for this sort of thing.
This is from Wiki
Roger Ebert, the late reviewer for the Chicago Sun-Times, has written that test screenings by filmmakers are "valid" to get an idea of an audience response to a rough cut. But "too often, however, studio executives use preview screenings as a weapon to enforce their views on directors, and countless movies have had stupid happy endings tacked on after such screenings."
Understand the happy endings are appealing to the audience and studio executives want to make maximum profit, but it can make movies predictable or even completely ruin them.
There's no need to be pedantic when you could of let that one pass.
I just watched Martyrs the somewhat infamous French horror. I hate other films that have been termed torture porn yet I thought this movie, which is named by many as the sickest torture porn film around, was an excellent horror movie. I'd go so far as to say that I started watching the movie expecting and wanting to dislike it but it's a fascinating idea. That's probably an unpopular opinion amongst people who usually don't like movies like Saw and Hostel.
It's a difficult movie to explain. Imagine Elizabeth Bathory existed in the present day and had a cult around her and her interest in torture was for spiritual pursuit. That's about as close as I can get to explaining it.
Although compared to the wedding scene in The Deer Hunter it feels lean and concise.
In fact, the original cut of Greed would seem brief compared to the wedding scene in The Deer Hunter.
Beat me to it.
The thing about the wedding sequence in The Godfather is that quite a lot actually happens; we are introduced to most of the main characters, we learn of the dynamics of Don Corleone's business, about Sonny's infidelity, Michael's war record and his distance from the 'family business', that Tom is consigliere and an outsider, the Don's reputation for violence - tonnes of stuff really.
In The Deerhunter, very little in the interminable wedding scene moves the plot forward or informs the viewer. There is the scene with the reticent veteran but that's about it. The rest is just a frigging wedding.
The thing about the wedding sequence in The Godfather is that quite a lot actually happens; we are introduced to most of the main characters, we learn of the dynamics of Don Corleone's business, about Sonny's infidelity, Michael's war record and his distance from the 'family business', that Tom is consigliere and an outsider, the Don's reputation for violence - tonnes of stuff really.
In The Deerhunter, very little in the interminable wedding scene moves the plot forward or informs the viewer. There is the scene with the reticent veteran but that's about it. The rest is just a frigging wedding.
Fair play to Cimino though, the long, drawn-out and ultimately inconsequential tedium of the wedding scene perfectly reflects every wedding I've ever been to.
Comments
Isn't it just. The irony of all the Heath Ledger fuss is that he's the only thing worth watching in it. A fumbling, stop-start affair not helped by Nolan's fidgety direction.
Now then, Shane Meadows. This is England. Dead Man's Shoes. Shocking faux-art rubbish both.
I remain optimistic about his films, because I know he's capable of excellent filmmaking, perhaps he benefits from not having complete creative control. (In the same way, since he's become successful, Tarantino's films have suffered...)
I've yet to see The Prestige so I can't comment...
IF?
Oz, The Wiz, Journey Back to Oz, The Muppets World of Oz, Oz the Great and Powerful, Return to Oz,.......Tin Man as well.
I'm talking about within the next few years.
Also, those aren't remakes IIRC... Return to Oz is a continuation Oz, the Great and Powerful is a pre-quel and I haven't seen the Wiz in years...
As for the rest, don't believe I've seen them although TIn Man sounds vaguely familiar. Isn't that with Zoey Dashthingymabob?
Anyway, a remake has to copy elements from the original that was created by the original but I'm sure somebody will challenge me on that.
Acting...how good are they really do we actually know, the beauty of movies is you do a scene, but how many takes does that scene actually take to get right? Perhaps acting or calling them actors is to much of a compliment to many movie stars.
And none of those are remakes.
It's excellent (imo)
Agreed. In discussions I've had in the past about this, some people favour T2 due to its bigger budget and better special effects. I prefer T1, mainly due to its raw energy and it's perfectly paced.
One minor quibble with T1 is with this scene, which should have been re-shot or edited better.
Terminator Garage Car Chase
The cop takes Sarah Connor out of the car, puts his hand on her back and stares at her, then the camera pans away. It looks very odd and am slightly disappointed that it got into the final print.
I can't stand Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler and find neither of them funny in the slightest.
a lot of the old movies i see on best of lists annoy me that re not that good.
all spider man movies suck.
animation movies should not be classed along with proper movies
I've always liked The Godfather but yeah that opening wedding reception (assuming you're talking about that) does go on forever.
I've always felt that The Godfather Part II is a vastly superior film. Though he was very entertaining in the role, Marlon Brando was just giving a mumblecore performance in the first film. I still hold the opinion that Pacino's performance in Part II is the single greatest acting performance ever. Part II is even longer but the story is genuinely engaging to make up for it.
Read the post above mine. This craze for writing and saying "could of" instead of "could have" is annoying beyond belief.:o
yeah part 2 is great, both are i just think there's better movies
de nero stole part 2 for me
Well, you could of quoted that post, then I would have realised what you were responding to.
Suspect that Test screenings can be responsible for this sort of thing.
This is from Wiki
Understand the happy endings are appealing to the audience and studio executives want to make maximum profit, but it can make movies predictable or even completely ruin them.
Although compared to the wedding scene in The Deer Hunter it feels lean and concise.
In fact, the original cut of Greed would seem brief compared to the wedding scene in The Deer Hunter.
Mercy!:o
If I'd quoted it then I'd have been compounding a felony.
I know that makes me a teeny tiny minority
There's no need to be pedantic when you could of let that one pass.
I just watched Martyrs the somewhat infamous French horror. I hate other films that have been termed torture porn yet I thought this movie, which is named by many as the sickest torture porn film around, was an excellent horror movie. I'd go so far as to say that I started watching the movie expecting and wanting to dislike it but it's a fascinating idea. That's probably an unpopular opinion amongst people who usually don't like movies like Saw and Hostel.
It's a difficult movie to explain. Imagine Elizabeth Bathory existed in the present day and had a cult around her and her interest in torture was for spiritual pursuit. That's about as close as I can get to explaining it.
Dmuk should definitely not watch this one!
Beat me to it.
The thing about the wedding sequence in The Godfather is that quite a lot actually happens; we are introduced to most of the main characters, we learn of the dynamics of Don Corleone's business, about Sonny's infidelity, Michael's war record and his distance from the 'family business', that Tom is consigliere and an outsider, the Don's reputation for violence - tonnes of stuff really.
In The Deerhunter, very little in the interminable wedding scene moves the plot forward or informs the viewer. There is the scene with the reticent veteran but that's about it. The rest is just a frigging wedding.
Fair play to Cimino though, the long, drawn-out and ultimately inconsequential tedium of the wedding scene perfectly reflects every wedding I've ever been to.