Jump to content
Welcome to the new Forums! And please bear with us... ×
N-Europe

Rate the last film you saw

Katie

By Katie
in General Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

jayseven Newbie

jayseven

Posted
Posted

Well to be honest I'm rather apprehensive about going to the cinema at all these days. My night blindness makes it rather a chore to navigate in teh dark, and rather embarassing at times, too. At home I can watch a film with the lights on, pause for loo breaks, etc, etc. My diminishing field of vision also means that I can rarely see the whole screen at once... so... yeah I'm in the minority and lying to myself to feel better about not really being able to appreciate cinemas as much as anyone else.

 

But that violin story wasn't needed - I was just a bit tired of the passive aggressive routine a mod has to traipse through and felt like going for the sympathy vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 15.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

LazyBoy
LazyBoy

Caught Spiderman: Gap Yah (far from home). On Friday. It's remarkable that the story faces the same unique problems that the commercial aspirations of the creators does - that of immediately foll

Josh64
Josh64

I guess at least when you use your free tickets to see it again you can Be Prepared for disappointment in that section

Happenstance
Happenstance

Project A Parts I & II Been in a Jackie Chan mood again lately so as a load of his older movies have been getting re-releases on blu ray thanks to Eureka Classics and 88 Films I’ve been able

Oxigen_Waste Newbie

Oxigen_Waste

Posted
Posted
Yeah I was gonna say, sometimes people analyse and look into ilms way too much, instead of just sitting back and enjoying them!

 

Because you see them as entertainment designed for your comsumption. But their supposed to be manifestos of a certain will/idea.

 

Avatar isn't one of those, of course. Analysing makes a good film better and a bad film worst. Just because you don't like cinema you can't criticize the ones who do.

 

True, but that's not reason not to appreciate it now. It's like anything, there will always be better along the line. But that's like saying a new world record is shit because it will be beaten eventually. Doesn't make the current achievement any less impressive.

 

When you look at Citizen Kane, which changed the world of cinema 70 years ago and still to this day stands tall as the brightest one of them all and remains completely unparallaled... yeah, I'd say it makes this particular achievement completely unimpressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oxigen_Waste Newbie

Oxigen_Waste

Posted
Posted
Such as the Cubes who are still unsure because everyone is telling them that it HAS to be seen in 3D and 3D has never worked for them before, possibly because of a wonky eye or something.

 

I'm on your team about the 3D. It's a gimmick and it doesn't really add anything to movies. Plus, those damned glasses make movies darker!

 

On Avatar specifically, it's ok, but I'd have prefered to have seen it in 2D. :bouncy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paj! Newbie

Paj!

Posted
Posted

Hmm. I think I'm very forgiving of it, perhaps because I just plain liked it. I liked the visuals, the story was familar and very Titanic and crowd-pleasing or whatever the correct term would be. Traditional, with moving bits, action etc.

 

If I wasn't interested in it or he visuals weren't so appealing to me, I think I'd be more critical. I know it wasn't great, I think a 6/10 is probably right for it as a film, but I loved the visuals which raise it for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Daft Newbie

Daft

Posted
Posted
True, but that's not reason not to appreciate it now. It's like anything, there will always be better along the line. But that's like saying a new world record is shit because it will be beaten eventually. Doesn't make the current achievement any less impressive.

 

That said, Avatar was a good film but not amazing. IMO etc.

 

Yeah, I wasn't thinking that while watching it. I'm just saying, take the currently amazing visuals away and you have an even poorer film - ie, the basics are shoddy.

 

Like you, I thought it was good, not amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SPAMBOT4000 Newbie

SPAMBOT4000

Posted
Posted
Yeah, I wasn't thinking that while watching it. I'm just saying, take the currently amazing visuals away and you have an even poorer film - ie, the basics are shoddy.

 

Totally agree with that. The basic plot and everything is pretty shite and it probably wouldn't be much without the visuals. However, I also think it's the visual style rather than the visual effects that people are creaming themselves over.

 

Although I can see its faults and although I realise it is probably going to be irrelevant in a decade, I can't help deny that I loved every single moment of it. Some films aren't meant to be analysed and picked apart, some are just meant to be enjoyed and then put away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eenuh Newbie

Eenuh

Posted
Posted

I'm the opposite. I didn't find the 3D stuff all that. Maybe it just doesn't work that well for me or something, what with my crappy eyes, but I didn't find it worth the extra money (paying more than 10 euro for a film is a bit much for me). Plus the stupid glasses hurt my nose so much I had to keep holding it up.

 

So yeah, I could happily go without the 3D stuff. Hope it doesn't become standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fierce_LiNk Newbie

Fierce_LiNk

Posted
Posted

I did enjoy Avatar in 3D, but I wouldn't want to watch every film in that way. Not at the moment anyway, because I don't like wearing the glasses. It's a barrier between yourself and the film. But, if they can accomplish 3D without the need for glasses, I'd like to see what that would be like.

 

As for the plot of Avatar. Yeah, it wasn't extremely original. It's pretty much identical to the story of The Last Samurai, which I loved. But, it worked for me. Whilst it wasn't original, I didn't think it was a terrible story at all. The story isn't the focal point of the film anyway, it's mainly about the Na'vi, and Jake's interaction with them. Gradually throughout the film, you see less and less of the humans until the final battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cube Contributor

Cube

Posted
Posted
I'm on your team about the 3D. It's a gimmick and it doesn't really add anything to movies. Plus, those damned glasses make movies darker!

 

It's more that it simply hasn't worked for me in the past. It just makes the screen very blurry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chairdriver Newbie

chairdriver

Posted
Posted (edited)
But is ultimately completely unnecessary and irrelevant.

 

But 3-D adds something. In the same way that colour is unnecessary (Cinema survived without it for however many years), but adds something. And in the same way that most stuff in good music is unnecessary, but adds so much. Like Bon Iver's use of the vocoder in Woods [/love that song too much], and the poignant one pluck of the harp half-way through Joanna Newsom's Emily.

 

 

Still, considering films which have no saving grace are given 6, it feels a bit flawed to give Avatar the same score (unless you're basing it alone on story - but that's also flawed, because quite a few absolutely shit films are based on good stories).

 

 

Daft, your comments about stuff not being explained holds no ground. At all.

Watch 2001, one of the most celebrated sci-fis of all time, and nothing at all is explained. What the fuck is the LG chocolate slab doing there?

And it's pretty easy to explain the floating mountains - they're made of rock less dense than the atmosphere (which we know isn't the same as Earth's atmosphere). They've already introduced unobtainium (who the fuck made up that name...), so why is it so hard to suspend disbelief and accept a compound less dense than the atmosphere...

Edited by chairdriver
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gaggle64 Newbie

gaggle64

Posted
Posted

My biggest gripe about 3D is the way it's obviously going to became the idiots last defense for shite movie making, as HD was.

 

eg:

"Have you seen Transformers 2/3?"

"Yes. It was so awful I left before I shit myself to death."

"Did you see it in HD/3D?"

"No."

"Well obviously you haven't REALLY seen it until you've seen it in HD/3D. It's amazing!"

 

And then I'm forced to kill them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chairdriver Newbie

chairdriver

Posted
Posted

But it's like listening to an album with only one earphone in. You're not experiencing it as how it was created to be experienced.

 

But yeah, ultimately, a shit film is a shit film. I wouldn't call Avatar shit. It's "meh" at worst.

 

-------

 

I'm just waiting for a good director to make use of 3-D well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fierce_LiNk Newbie

Fierce_LiNk

Posted
Posted
But 3-D adds something. In the same way that colour is unnecessary (Cinema survived without it for however many years), but adds something. And in the same way that most stuff in good music is unnecessary, but adds so much. Like Bon Iver's use of the vocoder in Woods [/love that song too much], and the poignant one pluck of the harp half-way through Joanna Newsom's Emily.

 

 

Still, considering films which have no saving grace are given 6, it feels a bit flawed to give Avatar the same score (unless you're basing it alone on story - but that's also flawed, because quite a few absolutely shit films are based on good stories).

 

 

Daft, your comments about stuff not being explained holds no ground. At all.

Watch 2001, one of the most celebrated sci-fis of all time, and nothing at all is explained. What the fuck is the LG chocolate slab doing there?

And it's pretty easy to explain the floating mountains - they're made of rock less dense than the atmosphere (which we know isn't the same as Earth's atmosphere). They've already introduced unobtainium (who the fuck made up that name...), so why is it so hard to suspend disbelief and accept a compound less dense than the atmosphere...

 

Great post, man. :)

Also, props for mentioning 2001, I love it. Although, the book differs from the film, in that more is explained in it there. Kubrick really held back quite a few things when he made the film, because he thought it would add a more mysterious element to the film. Which it does.

Take that last scene for example. That scene left me scratching my head when I saw it. But, when I did some research into it, I found out that the book goes explain the purpose of it. So, I'm now trying to get the book! :D

I think something like the last 20 mins of that film feature no dialogue. It's definitely a trip, and I love it. A favourite of mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
1-up Mushroom

Support N-Europe!

Get rid of advertisements and help cover hosting costs on N-Europe

Become a member!

×
×
  • Create New...