What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)

[JoeinAR 1,957]

Why do people hate it so much?

Is it the innovative visual style?

The story? The acting?

Innovative visual style, I would say. It's visual fetishism.I read a lot of comments about 300 (and other Snyder movies for that matter) and one of the biggest complaints is that it doesn't look natural (design, colors, the way it's shot, et cetera).

that is a plus in the films favor, but the Jude law Gwenyth Paltro film Sky Captains was odd looking too. Nice visual style,

Like cotton candy. You're drawn to it and then you taste it.

I will avoid the sequel to 300 like the plague.

[TheTennisBallKid 27]

One of the reasons i veered off summer blockbusters is that i usually slumbered deep after 40 minutes and woke up for the finale. So my lukewarm reception of ST INTO DARKNESS is based on 75 minutes of it. I am almost certain i slept through TND, if that was the Jonathan-Price-movie.

One particular delight was sleeping through the dreadful ALONG CAME A SPIDER, only to be awoken by a Goldsmith power horn fanfare still new to me. Enjoy from 00:40:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMB6dl5KQEg

I have Along Came a Spider on DVD, and will occasionally pop it in just for that scene. For seven minutes Jerry turns the turd into a edge-of-your-seat thriller.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

I find Snyder to be completely unwatchable. His visual style is not even innovative nor his own. It started with Sin City and there it was just Frank Miller's comics put to screen.

Also, Brad Pitt has an ego? lol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

You praise Bay, but bash Snyder?

minus-zero cred!

Koray i was talking specifically about World War Z. He is in virtually EVERY scene, and in every scene the focus is on his character. Calling the shots, finding everything out, etc etc...

Pitt is actually very effective in this movie (Leo DiCaprio wanted to do it, but he would have been wrong for this role)

[Brónach 1,330]

Why do people hate it so much?

Is it the innovative visual style?

The story? The acting?

To me it just feels stupid.

[Marian Schedenig 11,695]

Yeah, it's not so much the direction and/or visual style.

There's just nothing to drive it really.

I could forgive uninteresting story, if the characterization was any good.

I've only seen 300 once, but I rather like it. I don't think good characterisation would be right for it. It's the film version of the *telling* of an old heroic tale, with all its exaggerations and implausibilities. I don't think the narrator would have cared much about making his characters three dimensional.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

To me its just one long God Of War cut scene, meodramatic writing and all.

[A24 5,156]

If it was a mere popcorn film it would not be so hated!

Hatred is always a good sign, in my book. Good movies usually are controversial. They create lots of admirers and equally as much as haters. Blade Runner, 2001, 300, Watchmen, Star Wars, Alien ....

300 and Watchmen are not good movies. imho, 300 is cotton candy, tasteless fluff but pretty to look at.

Star Wars and Alien were not controversial.

No, they weren't. Nor could they remotely be said to have created an equal number of "haters" and "admirers." They were straight-up, front-line cinematic entertainment, and audiences ate them up. The "haters," such as they were (and are), emerged only after too many sequels/prequels.

- Uni

Many critics thought Alien was too preoccupied with its looks. Empty and 'style over substance', they called it. The same was said about Blade Runner. I never understood that.

And Star Wars, well, I thought I mention that one because it's often blamed for ending the last golden age of filmmaking. Not by the audience at large, but by those who saw freedom disappear. Hollywood became McDonald's. Many directors were afraid too. Fear creates hatred.

I agree, perhaps not the best of example ... but still ...

[Brónach 1,330]

I don't think good characterisation would be right for it. It's the film version of the *telling* of an old heroic tale, with all its exaggerations and implausibilities.

This is kind of stupid. Old heroic tales can have a ton of characterization.

To me its just one long God Of War cut scene, meodramatic writing and all.

The unintentionally funny moments are the best.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

You praise Bay, but bash Snyder?

minus-zero cred!

Koray i was talking specifically about World War Z. He is in virtually EVERY scene, and in every scene the focus is on his character. Calling the shots, finding everything out, etc etc...

Pitt is actually very effective in this movie (Leo DiCaprio wanted to do it, but he would have been wrong for this role)

I've explained my thoughts on both directors in detail before. I praise Bay for films like The Rock and Bad Boys, not shit like Transformers 2.

I haven't seen World War Z but Karol made it seem like he's a self-centered superstar, with 'some idie films' to water it down. Having a personality doesn't mean you a have an ego. He's one of the few actors that can pull off both personality roles and character roles. Like George Clooney, he makes mass market films and then uses the profit to turn around and produce an art house flick.

[crocodile 9,724]

I think you might be taking my comments a tad too seriously.

Karol

[Uni 307]

And Star Wars, well, I thought I mention that one because it's often blamed for ending the last golden age of filmmaking. Not by the audience at large, but by those who saw freedom disappear. Hollywood became McDonald's.

I can see this—and I'm not sure I disagree with the sentiment myself these days—but I think it emerged more in later hindsight than at the time of the film's release.

Fear creates hatred.

No, no . . . it's fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. (Jeez, get it right, dude. . . .)

- Uni

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

Koray loves Crash, he is always serious.

[Marian Schedenig 11,695]

This is kind of stupid. Old heroic tales can have a ton of characterization.

Sure they can. But I don't think they'd be told that way in that context.

[crocodile 9,724]

Koray loves Crash, he is always serious.

Depends on what Crash are we talking about...

Karol

[Quintus 6,496]

Why do people hate it so much?

Is it the innovative visual style?

The story? The acting?

To me it just feels stupid.

As good a reason as any. Lots of people felt that way about 300.

I personally took it on its own terms and appreciated its sincerity, its desire to be entertain. It may have looked different but it told a very old fashioned tale.

We watched Captain America tonight. Good 'ol fashioned comic book movie without a single Nolan influence throughout. Even the direction felt authentically old hat - and all the better for it. Not a shaky cam or fast edit in sight. Remember the days when the camera wouldn't even move during explosions? Ahh, refreshing. Safe as houses and reliable. Just a shame Silvestri couldn't muster even one decent melody for the chap's main theme. WTF happened to that guy? And for the first time ever I became aware that film makers are so obviously gamers: because every single action scene felt like a mission from the latest action adventure. There was even a visible cover system during the train shoot-out! Wolfenstein was all over this, which was always gonna be a good source of inspiration in this most daft of genres. 3/5

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

It may have looked different but it told a very old fashioned tale.

Like Star Wars

[Koray Savas 2,260]

Koray loves Crash, he is always serious.

Talk about ego.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

I wasn't talking about ego!

[Koray Savas 2,260]

No I was talking about your ego, because despite the countless times I've explained to you that I don't love Crash you always whip it out as a cheap blow. Cue recurring post about how you don't really read my posts anyway.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

Well, as long as you are talking about me, I will always read it!

[Quintus 6,496]

It may have looked different but it told a very old fashioned tale.

Like Star Wars

But Steef, Star Wars didn't look particularly different. In fact one of its greatest strengths is how down to earth and recognisable it feels, in that galaxy far, far away.

I dunno, either you're missing the point of this discussion or you're participating in an entirely different one. The latter of which would be fine, since we've all done that on occasion.

Maybe if you elaborated a little further.

No?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

Actually for it's time Star Wars looked quite outlandish. It might look very restraint and 70's now. But at the time no one had ever seen anything quite like it.

[Quintus 6,496]

As I thought, you are talking about what's on screen, aesthetics. The fantastical.

I am talking about sensibilities. Star Wars had special effects that were out of this world, but the story they supported never went further than the backyard and the camp fire.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

And 300 never goes further then heroic myth. Neither are in the slightest original on that level.

[Quintus 6,496]

Which brings us to the heart of the matter: substance.

I've said it a million times and will say it again: some of us - not all - need more than just style in order to 'relate' with what our eyes see.

Reflection, retrospect and box office would suggest that 300 did not find relatively many whom related to what it had to offer; not in the way Star Wars did. Which is why it'll never be considered sublime.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

You last sentence puzzles me. the film was very succesful, despite critics being divided.

[Quintus 6,496]

I mentioned relativity. Relative to Star Wars (which you compared it to).

But if it makes it more straightforward then just bin the box office part.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

Well it wasn't the phenom that SW was, nothing since then was, not Jurassic Park, The Matrix, LOTR. etc

[Quintus 6,496]

Yeah, but that's a different convo.

Still, Jurassic Park, The Matrix and LotR are cinematic aristocracy whether you like them or not, the consensus is that they are highly regarded. They're considered legendary, iconic.

300 wishes.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

No. Didnt you listen to Alex. Star Wars was critically panned. It was "dangerous" cinema. Subversive. Like Deep Throat!

[JoeinAR 1,957]

If it was a mere popcorn film it would not be so hated!

Hatred is always a good sign, in my book. Good movies usually are controversial. They create lots of admirers and equally as much as haters. Blade Runner, 2001, 300, Watchmen, Star Wars, Alien ....

300 and Watchmen are not good movies. imho, 300 is cotton candy, tasteless fluff but pretty to look at.

Star Wars and Alien were not controversial.

No, they weren't. Nor could they remotely be said to have created an equal number of "haters" and "admirers." They were straight-up, front-line cinematic entertainment, and audiences ate them up. The "haters," such as they were (and are), emerged only after too many sequels/prequels.

- Uni

Many critics thought Alien was too preoccupied with its looks. Empty and 'style over substance', they called it. The same was said about Blade Runner. I never understood that.

And Star Wars, well, I thought I mention that one because it's often blamed for ending the last golden age of filmmaking. Not by the audience at large, but by those who saw freedom disappear. Hollywood became McDonald's. Many directors were afraid too. Fear creates hatred.

I agree, perhaps not the best of example ... but still ...

What you're talking about was not said back in 1977. It might be now, but not then. It's an unfair criticism. It was a glorious time seeing lines out the door and down the side of JC Penney's at the mall where I saw it. Star Wars was a success because it was a success plain and simple. It was great, it was grand, it was glorious, it was wide eyed filmmaking at it's best. It caught audiences off guard. Not all the critics loved it, but as soon as the scroll finished and the blockade runner and the triangular star ship came into view and audiences world wide dropped their jaws to the floor, everything changed forever.

[A24 5,156]

It may have looked different but it told a very old fashioned tale.

Like Star Wars

LOTR but shorter, more compact. And without this:

[Rachael Foley 10,162]

So a poor mans LOTR?

[A24 5,156]

Strickly on a story level, LOTR was a whole of fat and very little meat. 300 cuts most of the fat away.

Above all, it doesn't do 3 movies with this:

Actually for it's time Star Wars looked quite outlandish. It might look very restraint and 70's now. But at the time no one had ever seen anything quite like it.

True. At the time, Star Wars looked like a very expensive movie. Today, you can see the budget was limited. And artistically, it looks pretty plain. It was a kids movie, after all. Like John Williams said, good saturday matinee fun!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

Alex, don't embarrass your self by discussing LOTR. Its not your forté.

You do know LOTR was based on a 1200 page book and 300 on a comic strip right?

[A24 5,156]

That's just it! The films and probably the books as well are long-winded and repetitious. If this comes as a surprise to you then discussing these matters is not YOUR forté, Steef!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

The Lord Of The Rings is not about it's plot. It's about the journey, and how it's told.

Also, a lot of the things you probably hate about the films arent in the book.

[A24 5,156]

All I'm saying is that to me LOTR trilogy was long-winded and repetitive in its narrative. Of course, there is more story than in 300 but basically they are the same. 300 is more to the point and the 'how' endlessly more new and fascinating to me.

[Quintus 6,496]

300 is a skidmark in Gollum's undies compared to the ambition and accomplishments of Jackson's sweeping LotR epic.

There's no comparison.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

I dont really compare them.

[Mr. Breathmask 624]

Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever

I thought this might still be one of those so-bad-it's-good type of movies. It's not. It's just plain bad. Avoid, avoid, avoid!

[A24 5,156]

I dont really compare them.

Some people do compare them (for the obvious reasons) but they are indeed very different entities.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever

I thought this might still be one of those so-bad-it's-good type of movies. It's not. It's just plain bad. Avoid, avoid, avoid!

Even the "Ecks vs. Sever"title doesnt make sense...

[Marian Schedenig 11,695]

All I'm saying is that to me LOTR trilogy was long-winded and repetitive in its narrative. Of course, there is more story than in 300 but basically they are the same. 300 is more to the point and the 'how' endlessly more new and fascinating to me.

LOTR is about more years of active backstory than the years that have passed in the real world since the time when 300 supposedly takes place.

[Naïve Old Fart 13,023]

The other day I caught something called "Jackass 2" on Film 4. Good grief, was it purile, but was it ever funny!!!!!!!!

The butt chug, and fart mask sketches had me helpless with laughter!

[A24 5,156]

The Third Wheel: Most find Denise Richards downright hideous, but not me, I actually find her pretty sexy. And look at Ben Affleck! The movie poster doesn't even credit him! The producers had all their money on Luke Wilson! Where is he now?! 2/10

Alex

[JoeinAR 1,957]

I would have avoided it just because it said from the producers of American Pie.

[A24 5,156]

Unfortunately, it didn't say when they played it on TV. I wanted to give it a go because Denise Richards, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon are in it.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

so it's rather old then. Yeah we sometimes stop on a movie and end up watching it, even when it turns out to be a waste of time.