EchoDesiato Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 Grave of the Fireflies This was so sad, but it was really good. I rather liked how it had a sad ending. It made me feel like I was actually fed up of there being a happy ending in almost every film. Although the damn commercial breaks meant the emotion couldn't flow enough for it to be fully enjoyed. If it wasn't for the ad breaks, I might have enjoyed it a lot more. 9/10 Incredibly sad movie, but so goddamn amazingly good.
Coolness Bears Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 ADD generation? Heh, not really, I'm absolutely not a fan of all those films that just blast through the story and show you a thousand camera angles in 10 seconds. I can quite enjoy a "slower" film, but this one just had moments where it really stopped being interesting for me, mostly towards the ending. Plus I missed some music in the film, but that's just me. I think the first bit of music in the film is from some wandering Mexican's when he crosses the boarder. :p I can see what you are saying about it being slow. I could certainly see that but I loved the slowness of the film particularly at the end, I felt it added to the film. I really enjoyed No Country for Oldmen from start to finish even though I did get very confused! I have to agree with Oxigen I wanted more! I definately have a short attention span normally but this film (like Lord of the Rings) kept me captivated throughout. I also laughed inapproriately at one point as you know! It is one of my favourite films probably and I need to get it on DVD.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 I disagree. The film definitely did lose momentum towards the end. It reached a certain point, and then it just seemed to...sorta stand still for a while, with me. I've only seen it the once. I definitely think the first half is a damn sight better than the second. Although, all the actors were great. Really did enjoy the performances. You may disagree, but that's not true. The film never let go, from start to finish, a true manifestation of greatness by the Coens, pretty much proven so by all the awards and praise it got from the cinematic community. ADD generation? Heh, not really, I'm absolutely not a fan of all those films that just blast through the story and show you a thousand camera angles in 10 seconds. I can quite enjoy a "slower" film, but this one just had moments where it really stopped being interesting for me, mostly towards the ending. Plus I missed some music in the film, but that's just me. When I said ADD generation I wasn't talking about The Fast & The Furious or Die Hard 4 or anything of that sorts. What I'm talking about is today's standard in which a movie like... say... Lost In Translation is considered a slow movie which requires an effort from the watcher in order to be seen, when that's just not true... We're completey cut off and the reason why most people preffered the first half of NCFOM to the second one was because the first one was pretty much 100% explicit, whilst the second half was what really made the movie shine, those underlying contrasts between the past and the present, unspoken, unsettling, but ever so important. I mean, did anyone even give a fuck about that or was it just a Sheriff vs a Psycho vs some dude who found money? Was it all a big battle royale for you? You see, I get upset at people who get bored with the likes of NCFOM or There Will Be Blood solely because they attempted to say something without being blunt about it (which, in the end, makes the effort all the more noble and enjoyable), and that's what I call the ADD generation, today's generation who grew up with the in-your-face standards of the modern film industry and thinks Amelie was an artsy film. *Sigh* There's nothing wrong with the in-your-face motif, but there's something seriously wrong with the audience when they can't engage in a movie without said motif being present...
EchoDesiato Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 You may disagree, but that's not true. The film never let go, from start to finish, a true manifestation of greatness by the Coens, pretty much proven so by all the awards and praise it got from the cinematic community. When I said ADD generation I wasn't talking about The Fast & The Furious or Die Hard 4 or anything of that sorts. What I'm talking about is today's standard in which a movie like... say... Lost In Translation is considered a slow movie which requires an effort from the watcher in order to be seen, when that's just not true... Any movie that has Scarlet Johannsson's ass an an opening shot will not require an effort for me to watch it.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 Any movie that has Scarlet Johannsson's ass an an opening shot will not require an effort for me to watch it. Quite a good point.
Hellfire Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 Huh? When? I'm serious, I don't recall that. What a fucker! You even said you didn't like him because he looked like a monkey and a hillbilly, thus not spy material! No more Alzheimers for you! Lost In Translation is considered a slow movie which requires an effort from the watcher in order to be seen, when that's just not true... Indeed, I actually have to make an effort so my heart doesn't explode from all the awesome.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 What a fucker! You even said you didn't like him because he looked like a monkey and a hillbilly, thus not spy material! No more Alzheimers for you! Indeed, I actually have to make an effort so my heart doesn't explode from all the awesome. Oh, indeed, that's accurate. He looked like a monkey. But on the other hand he pretty much defined what James Bond is all about. He was the best Bond. Not my favourite, though... that would be Mr Moore. Completely fits the role.
Dan_Dare Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 I'm gonna go ahead and say it. Moore was shit. Dalton, now he was good.
Fierce_LiNk Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 I'm gonna go ahead and say it. Moore was shit. Dalton, now he was good. I like Dalton. But, Roger Moore was awesome. Dude, you suck anal-beads.
Ellmeister Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 Roger Moore I reckon is my favourite. Daniel Craig is up there as well for me.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 I don't like Dalton or Lazenby. Moore is the perfect Bond, mr. playboy. Too bad all his movies are average-ish. Connery brought the most out of the character. Brosnan was the midground. He wasn't perfect, but wasn't bad either, he fitted the role very well. As for Mr Craig, I'll have to see QoS, but I loved him in Casino Royale.
Beast Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 OK, I watched Casino Royale again today since people disagree with me saying Daniel Craig don't fit as James Bond and, after watching it again, I still can't see him being Bond. I don't know whether it's because of his performance in Casino Royale or what. I think I will see Quantom of Solace, maybe that might change my mind about him but at the moment, he doesn't fit as James Bond to me, haha. By the way, I'm not saying he is a bad actor because he isn't. I'm just saying he doesn't fit the profile of James Bond. Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D This was actually a really good movie. Great effects and great timing in when to use the 3D. 7/10
Chris the great Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 i respect no country for old men, id have liked it to go on, to you, know, finnish. if was building you a table, handed you a table with a missing leg and said done "Done", youd be mad. i could claim it was for an artistic flair, but end of the day, youd still have a table with somthing missing. Im not exactly ADHD, but i do need a little somthing in my films that stops me getting bored. maybe im just not a film buff. but at least i didnt enjoy fast and the furious.
Dan_Dare Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 there's absolutely nothing missing from that film whatsoever. It's the perfect ending.
Chris the great Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 well in that case, heather mills has a perfect pair of legs.
jayseven Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Go read the book and then shhh. It's a good adaptation of a great text. No shame in that.
Dan_Dare Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Well, in the nicest possible way I'm just gonna say that if you think that NCFOM ended badly, you missed the point entirely. It's thematically the only way it could have ended, really. Yes it's unconventional, and yes it's abrupt but open your mind to more elaborate narrative techniques and there's really nothing wrong with that.
Chris the great Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 i actualy agree, it was the best way to end it, though it just felt a bit of a kick in the teeth, spend a few hours getting us to know a few people, then give us no closure. for all the artistic and narative merit, it still leaves a twinge of annoyance.
jayseven Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Well that's life, innit! Just as you start caring for a character BAM, and the dirt is gone. You know it's a good film when you sit there staring at the credits with your brain pirouetting -- thinking about just what it all meant
Chris the great Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 i do enjoy thinking. though alot of films these days leave me thinking "i want my money back" transformers and eagle eye are two good examples.
EEVILMURRAY Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Kindergarten Cop Some of the lines were in my head so I had to watch it to silence the voices [it got in the way of the normal ones]. I normally end up watching some film when I get home from work, but this was an hour later. A cracking film, with some quality Arnie lines. Plus when O'Hara was opening a sandwich I felt inspired to make one of my own. Which I promptly did. Shabba Rating coming soon. Photobucket is bullshitting me.
Goron_3 Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Quantom Of Solace Never saw Casino Royale so was pretty excited to see this, especially because last week I watched Goldeneye, Goldeneye and a couple of others Bonds. What did I think of this? Well, I liked it. Alot actually. Thought Craig was a great Bond aswell. That said, one thing that annoyed me was the camera work. I dunno, it made some of the action scenes very annoying to watch because you could barely tell what was going on. All in all though, it was a great watch! Must definately go out and get Casino Royale now! 8/10
Hellfire Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Quantum of Solace I dunno, the action is awesome I really love this new "Bourne" direction they're taking, but... where's the rest? There's nothing there, I mean... it's like everything's completely disonnected, I don't watch 007 for the story, but it still caught me by surprise and disapointed me.
Slaggis Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 High School Musical 3 (4th viewing) Fudging love it. Uncontrollable laughter/10. Captivity Shit. 2/10
Recommended Posts