What is the last film you watched?

[A24 4,359]

Duel: I never knew Spielberg put so much references of Duel into his other movies. The lady with the snakes in 1941, the roar of the 'dying' truck in Jaws, etcetera.

Are there others?

Personally, I like Duel a lot. For a first feature (a made-for-tv feature, granted, but a feature nonetheless), it's a damned accomplished piece of work.

Yes, the shark and the old truck descend to oblivion in identical ways. The old couple who were very reluctant to help Dennis Weaver ("We don't want any trouble.") reappear in another Spielberg movie, but I forgot which one. Then there's the little girl with the red coat ...

[indy4 155]

I only saw the last third of the film, but I enjoyed it. Though the final car chase was a bit too long for my taste.

Duel: I never knew Spielberg put so much references of Duel into his other movies. The lady with the snakes in 1941, the roar of the 'dying' truck in Jaws, etcetera.

Are there others?

Personally, I like Duel a lot. For a first feature (a made-for-tv feature, granted, but a feature nonetheless), it's a damned accomplished piece of work.

Yes, the shark and the old truck descend to oblivion in identical ways. The old couple who were very reluctant to help Dennis Weaver ("We don't want any trouble.") reappear in another Spielberg movie, but I forgot which one. Then there's the little girl with the red coat ...

Don't forget Spielberg's favorite similarity: Jaws and Duel both have 4 letters.

[Morlock 11]

Vivre Sa Vie. I am definitely a fan of early Godard. Remarkable film. Also has the plus of being the first Godard film I've seen that actually feels respectful towards the composer (and Legrand's theme is quite good).

[Nick Parker 3,040]

You know, of the hundreds of films listed in this thread, I probably have not seen at least three quarters of them. Is that a problem?

[Quintus 5,399]

Why on earth would it be?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

I do not know. That is why I asked.

[Quintus 5,399]

Well then there you go!

[Morlock 11]

No, it is not a problem. If however you are looking for some recommendations, there have been many excellent titles mentioned.

[Wojo 2,453]

Don't forget Spielberg's favorite similarity: Jaws and Duel both have 4 letters.

Don't forget Hook and the aforementioned 1941 (such that letters & numbers = characters).

Does this do anything to your logic?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Don't forget Spielberg's favorite similarity: Jaws and Duel both have 4 letters.

Don't forget Hook and the aforementioned 1941 (such that letters & numbers = characters).

Does this do anything to your logic?

Not that I am aware of.

[Quintus 5,399]

This is a good thing.

[A24 4,359]

Iron Man: Nothing special, extremely forgettable. No really, I can't think of anything to be positive about.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

To be honest, I never saw the film.

[Morlock 11]

Iron Man: Nothing special, extremely forgettable. No really, I can't think of anything to be positive about.

I thought that Downey was fun, Bridges and Paltrow brought a very low-key likablity to the roles. But it's a very pedestrian. No personality. Even Downey's persona feels like it's there despite the director and script. And the score is horrendous on all counts.

Morlock- currently going through the new L.A. Confidential DVD's special features

[Hitch 57]

Iron Man. Biggest load of poo ever.

[Trent B 337]

Iron Man. Biggest load of poo ever.

Only to someone like you who can't just sit and enjoy a film.

I thought Iron Man was a fun film to watch.

[Henry B 50]

It's okay, I guess.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

I enjoyed the fact that, from what I remember, it was a superhero movie that for once didn't try to pass itself off as the Second Coming. It was just a fun popcorn flick, which is fine.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

What Chris said. It was a new and fresh take on the superhero genre. It was entertaining and fun, and it didn't end with the superhero jumping into the camera, which even Batman Begins conformed to.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Actually, I think the main reason it worked was the very unconventional casting of RDJ as the main character. His "sarcastic asshole" persona gave the whole thing a lighter, tongue-in-cheek feel.

[Romão 2,274]

I don't Gwyneth Paltrow ever looked lovier than in Iron Man

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yeah I was actually surprised she looked so good.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Fireproof, a preachy low budget film that is aimed at Christians, yet its actually a somewhat funny and charming film in its own right.

Its hardly for everyone, but for its target audience it works well.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Hm. I never heard of the film. Anyways, I watched "Raiders of the Lost Ark" an hour ago. I do not think there is much to be said about the film that has not already been said.

[indy4 155]

Don't forget Spielberg's favorite similarity: Jaws and Duel both have 4 letters.

Don't forget Hook and the aforementioned 1941 (such that letters & numbers = characters).

Does this do anything to your logic?

It's not my logic, it's Spielberg's.

He said during an interview that one of the reasons he signed on to directed Jaws was because he noticed many similarities (he described Jaws as being Duel "in the ocean"). One of the connections he made was that Jaws and Duel both had four letters (he also chuckled at himself and admitted that he was being rather foolish).

Haven't you seen the Jaws Special Features?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

**** the actors, save the sound department!

[Bryant Burnette 655]

Fireproof, a preachy low budget film that is aimed at Christians, yet its actually a somewhat funny and charming film in its own right.

Its hardly for everyone, but for its target audience it works well.

We're showing that movie. It's done pretty well business-wise, but we're a fairly big market for Christploitation movies.

I didn't watch it, but we've gotten lots of positive comments from the customers.

[A24 4,359]

It's okay, I guess.

That's just it! Should we be satisfied with "It was okay" these days? I felt Iron Man added very little to what I already have seen. Besides the familiar plot, the film had nothing to offer. If this is the result of Marvel being in total control of the production then I think I'll pass the next time. It was just plot and no art. I don't need movies for that!

Alex

[Bryant Burnette 655]

It's okay, I guess.

That's just it! Should we be satisfied with "It was okay" these days? I felt Iron Man added very little to what I already have seen. Besides the familiar plot, the film had nothing to offer. If this is the result of Marvel being in total control of the production then I think I'll pass the next time. It was just plot and no art. I don't need movies for that!

Alex

Well, I for one thought it was better than okay. Maybe not a classic, but very good at the least. There really wasn't one single aspect of the movie that failed to entertain me. (Except maybe for the score, which was okay, but nothing I'd want to listen to on its own.)

I definitely disagree that there is "no art" in the movie. The performances by Downey, Paltrow, and Bridges are extremely good, and the effects are outstanding, if nothing else.

[A24 4,359]

It's okay, I guess.

That's just it! Should we be satisfied with "It was okay" these days? I felt Iron Man added very little to what I already have seen. Besides the familiar plot, the film had nothing to offer. If this is the result of Marvel being in total control of the production then I think I'll pass the next time. It was just plot and no art. I don't need movies for that!

Alex

Well, I for one thought it was better than okay. Maybe not a classic, but very good at the least. There really wasn't one single aspect of the movie that failed to entertain me. (Except maybe for the score, which was okay, but nothing I'd want to listen to on its own.)

I definitely disagree that there is "no art" in the movie. The performances by Downey, Paltrow, and Bridges are extremely good, and the effects are outstanding, if nothing else.

That's art to you? Shallow characters played by good actors and good SFX? Oh yeah! What a special treat! I really felt the soul of the artist at work here! Sorry, Bryant, how easily you're are satisfied.

[Bryant Burnette 655]

It's okay, I guess.

That's just it! Should we be satisfied with "It was okay" these days? I felt Iron Man added very little to what I already have seen. Besides the familiar plot, the film had nothing to offer. If this is the result of Marvel being in total control of the production then I think I'll pass the next time. It was just plot and no art. I don't need movies for that!

Alex

Well, I for one thought it was better than okay. Maybe not a classic, but very good at the least. There really wasn't one single aspect of the movie that failed to entertain me. (Except maybe for the score, which was okay, but nothing I'd want to listen to on its own.)

I definitely disagree that there is "no art" in the movie. The performances by Downey, Paltrow, and Bridges are extremely good, and the effects are outstanding, if nothing else.

That's art to you? Shallow characters played by good actors and good SFX? Oh yeah! What a special treat! I really felt the soul of the artist at work here! Sorry, Bryant, how easily you're are satisfied.

I'm anything but easily satisfied.

Now, Alex, so that I might learn from your obviously intimidating ability to suss out art, why don't you tell me what, exactly, qualifies as a movie that exhibits "the soul of the artist." I'm not looking for titles, either. Tell me what makes one movie art and another movie artless.

[QMM 4]

People find entertainment in different ways

[Bryant Burnette 655]

People find entertainment in different ways

Haven't you been paying attention? Entertainment isn't enough, man! You've got to exhibit the "soul of the artist," or you're worthless!

Speaking of the soul of the artist, the last movie I watched was the original Reefer Madness. Why, you might ask with good reason, would I do such a thing? Well, sometimes you end up at some friends' house, and your friends are big fans of cult cinema and decide that "it's time you saw Reefer Madness," and since you're a good friend, you say hey, what the heck, let's do it.

Later, your friends find themselves apologizing and explaining that "it was better when I was still smoking." That's kinda believable, you guess.

All I can say is that unless you have a very, very, VERY good reason, you should never watch Reefer Madness. (And I don't think friendship counts as a good enough reason; real friends don't do this type thing to each other, unless a history of drug use is involved somehow.) It's not even bad enough to be entertaining. It's just bad, as bad as any movie I've ever seen. It was about 70 minutes, but felt like 340.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I didn't know they had drugs in the 1930's. Thought all that started in the 1960's with all them damn hippie kids.

[A24 4,359]

I'm anything but easily satisfied.

I've said it several times before, Bryant, you love everything. Just read your posts in this thread. Everything entertains you.

Now, Alex, so that I might learn from your obviously intimidating ability to suss out art, why don't you tell me what, exactly, qualifies as a movie that exhibits "the soul of the artist." I'm not looking for titles, either. Tell me what makes one movie art and another movie artless.

Why explain? It seems to you everything is art. Make a film with Downey Jr, throw in some FX by ILM and you think you've created art.

[Bryant Burnette 655]

I didn't know they had drugs in the 1930's. Thought all that started in the 1960's with all them damn hippie kids.

The movie feels like it was made by people who not only had never taken drugs, but had also never actually witnessed anybody take drugs, never known anybody who had taken drugs, or even known anybody who had known anybody who had taken drugs.

It feels like an anti-drug movie made by somebody who had a friend who had a friend whose Aunt Mildred went to church one day and heard a story about someone who had gotten high and "done bad things." No evidence of actual knowledge of the subject is on display here. There is also no evidence of actual knowledge of subjects like acting, camerawork, editing, dialogue, etc.

It sounds like it'd be laughable, but it isn't; it's just tedious. Makes Plan 9 From Outer Space look like North By Northwest.

I've said it several times before, Bryant, you love everything. Just read your posts in this thread. Everything entertains you.

Well, we've already proven that you don't know how to read, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this lame comment.

Why explain? It seems to you everything is art.

Why explain? Because I don't think you actually know what art is. You've certainly failed to prove it.

But hey, if you're not up to it, that's okay by me. I just figured you'd enjoy the opportunity to espouse your view of what art is, since you seem to feel like you're the master of spotting it.

[A24 4,359]

Well, we've already proven that you don't know how to read, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this lame comment.

Hehe, proud Bryant is angry. Why don't you read your own posts? Scared to find out that you indeed love everything? It's all there, I don't have to do a thing.

And I can't read? Where does that comes from? Oh, right! Bryant: "If the story is good, I don't give a rat's arse about the music." I can read that just fine, Bryant. It's very telling about you too. Didn't I just say Iron Man is just plot and nothing else? Well, you've got your story so you're perfectly happy, aren't you?

Why explain? Because I don't think you actually know what art is. You've certainly failed to prove it.

I would say that calling Iron Man art proofs that you don't know what art is.

But hey, if you're not up to it, that's okay by me. I just figured you'd enjoy the opportunity to espouse your view of what art is, since you seem to feel like you're the master of spotting it.

A debate between two people with different views on 'what is art' has never led to anything. So yes, just because you want to go there doesn't mean I have to play along.

Alex

[Bryant Burnette 655]

Thank you, Alex, for once again proving my point about how poor a reader you are. (And if you can't read, why should anyone put any faith in your writing?)

Find for me, please, the post in which I made the claim that Iron Man is art. Can't do it? Not surprising, since there is no such quote. You are a master of seeing what you want to see. (And, I suspect, not seeing what you don't want to see.)

However, since you've had no luck in finding me referring to Iron Man as art, I'll do it for you now: Iron Man is art.

You also have this baffling notion that I love every movie I see. I don't know where on Earth you're getting this from. Oh, wait, I do know: you're getting it from your own brain, which seems to be fairly prone to making things up. I can recall numerous instances on this board in which I've spoken pretty vehemently about movies I disliked. Transformers comes to mind immediately, and The X-Files: I Want to Believe, and Star Trek: Nemesis; I blasted a few Bond movies, as well, which I do love, with with a keen understanding of their many deficiencies. Lest you think it's love-or-hate with no in-between with me, I can also recall posting about being in a middle-of-the-road position on movies like Pineapple Express and Get Smart.

But hey, man, you feel free to ignore the facts and say whatever you want. You make me look better and better each time you do so.

And I can't read? Where does that comes from? Oh, right! Bryant: "If the story is good, I don't give a rat's arse about the music." I can read that just fine, Bryant. It's very telling about you too. Didn't I just say Iron Man is just plot and nothing else? Well, you've got your story so you're perfectly happy, aren't you?

I wanted to be sure to single out this remarkable section.

You're on me for saying that if the story is good, the score is irrelevant.

I can see how that might make me suspect as far as my opinions about music go. But in this particular instance, we're not talking about music, we're talking about movies, and the implication of what you're saying is that the score is more important than the story. If that's what you're actually saying, then I rest my case on the subject of your ability to critique movies. Thanks for hanging yourself and saving me the trouble.

[A24 4,359]

Find for me, please, the post in which I made the claim that Iron Man is art. Can't do it? Not surprising, since there is no such quote. You are a master of seeing what you want to see. (And, I suspect, not seeing what you don't want to see.)

I said "Iron Man is all plot and no art." Then you come and reply (read very carefully now, Bryant): "I TOTALLY DISAGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The acting was great and so were the SFX." First of all, that's not what I meant (obviously, I meant that what the director brings to it: his voice, his signature, his personal stamp, and that distinguishes it from an ordinary run-off-the-mill movie and that aims for something more than just a filmed script), and second, I don't think the acting and SFX of Iron Man, while good and professional workmanship, are worth calling art.

You also have this baffling notion that I love every movie I see. I don't know where on Earth you're getting this from. Oh, wait, I do know: you're getting it from your own brain, which seems to be fairly prone to making things up. I can recall numerous instances on this board in which I've spoken pretty vehemently about movies I disliked. Transformers comes to mind immediately, and The X-Files: I Want to Believe, and Star Trek: Nemesis; I blasted a few Bond movies, as well, which I do love, with with a keen understanding of their many deficiencies. Lest you think it's love-or-hate with no in-between with me, I can also recall posting about being in a middle-of-the-road position on movies like Pineapple Express and Get Smart.

So you remember a few titles that you don't love. Well, I can name a thousand titles that you do "love". OK, I guess you don't really love everything. My bad.

[Bryant Burnette 655]

Find for me, please, the post in which I made the claim that Iron Man is art. Can't do it? Not surprising, since there is no such quote. You are a master of seeing what you want to see. (And, I suspect, not seeing what you don't want to see.)

I said "Iron Man is all plot and no art." Then you come and reply (read very carefully now, Bryant): "I TOTALLY DISAGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The acting was great and so were the SFX." First of all, that's not what I meant (obviously, I meant that what the director brings to it: his voice, his signature, his personal stamp, and that distinguishes it from an ordinary run-off-the-mill movie and that aims for something more than just a filmed script), and second, I don't think the acting and SFX of Iron Man, while good and professional workmanship, are worth calling art.

You also have this baffling notion that I love every movie I see. I don't know where on Earth you're getting this from. Oh, wait, I do know: you're getting it from your own brain, which seems to be fairly prone to making things up. I can recall numerous instances on this board in which I've spoken pretty vehemently about movies I disliked. Transformers comes to mind immediately, and The X-Files: I Want to Believe, and Star Trek: Nemesis; I blasted a few Bond movies, as well, which I do love, with with a keen understanding of their many deficiencies. Lest you think it's love-or-hate with no in-between with me, I can also recall posting about being in a middle-of-the-road position on movies like Pineapple Express and Get Smart.

So you remember a few titles that you don't love. Well, I can name a thousand titles that you do "love". OK, I guess you don't really love everything. My bad.

Well, let's see what we got from Alex this time.

First off, we got a clarification of something you said in a previous post, because you realized all of a sudden that you hadn't done a very good job of saying it the first time around. (By the way, you didn't find the evidence you seem to think you found. You made the claim that Iron Man was "all plot and no art," meaning that there is no art anywhere in the entire movie. You can claim now that what you meant was the movie overall, but it's not what you said; your writing ability isn't any better than your reading ability. In any case, I disagreed that there was no art in the movie, and pointed out a couple of areas of the film that I felt DID exhibit signs of artfulness. You took this to mean that I thought the movie as a whole was art: I was literally making no such claim. Which is not to say that I don't think Iron Man is art; I do. But to be fair, I think every movie is art; the argument is over whether or not we think it's good art. And in that sense, I think it's okay; nothing special, but not worthless by any means.)

Then, we got an admission that you'd been wrong about one of your claims (the claim that I love every movie). You tried to pretend that the general meaning you were trying to convery is still valid, but you're not really fooling anyone, except maybe yourself. What you seem to want to think is that I've got no capacity for being critical, but there's ample evidence on this site to prove you about as wrong as wrong can be.

In essence, your ability to persuasively argue your side is once again shown to be poor. So why should I take anything you say seriously?

Once you've dug yourself deep enough to reach the center of the Earth, Alex, be sure to let me know what it's like; if there really are dinosaurs living there, I'd like to know about it.

[A24 4,359]

First off, we got a clarification of something you said in a previous post, because you realized all of a sudden that you hadn't done a very good job of saying it the first time around.

Your reply about great acting and SFX was beside the point. Admit it, it didn't come to you that I referred to the film itself, not even when I sarcastically hinted with "I truly felt the artist at work here." You simply didn't realize that I was talking about film as a whole. It is YOU who actually saw what you wanted to see. Where would we be if we consider every movie with good acting and good FX, or great makeup to other people, as art? I know, we all would be like Bryant Burnette loving every movie out there. Hahaha.

You made the claim that Iron Man was "all plot and no art," meaning that there is no art anywhere in the entire movie.

No, Bryant, that's what YOU thought it meant. Or do you really think I don't respect ILM or Jeff Bridges? Are their efforts alone enough to create art? Not in my book. I don't use that word lightly.

You can claim now that what you meant was the movie overall, but it's not what you said ...

That's precisely what I said and now, for the first time, you are realizing that. Before that, you chose to be nitpicky, you ignored what was obvious, and talked about the great acting (in a film with the most shallow characters) and SFX.

... your writing ability isn't any better than your reading ability.

Sure, Bryant, if that makes you feel better. Despite the fact that you interpretted my post from your own personal point of view, and thereby totally missing my point, you sure know how to write. I agree.

In any case, I disagreed that there was no art in the movie, and pointed out a couple of areas of the film that I felt DID exhibit signs of artfulness.

Yes, you did point that out, even though it was quite beside the point, not to mention trivial.

[Quintus 5,399]

That's just it! Should we be satisfied with "It was okay" these days?

Yes, it's absolutely alright to find a movie just 'okay'. I'll take a just okay movie over a George Lucas movie any day of the week.

This is all besides the point of course, since Iron Man is great fun. It had a spring in its step which didn't go unnoticed or unappreciated by this viewer. ***/*****

[A24 4,359]

You took this to mean that I thought the movie as a whole was art...

Actually, I tried to make you realize that I don't think that good makeup, good acting or SFX turn a film into 'art'.

I was literally making no such claim. Which is not to say that I don't think Iron Man is art; I do. But to be fair, I think every movie is art; the argument is over whether or not we think it's good art. And in that sense, I think it's okay; nothing special, but not worthless by any means.)

We can argue forever about whether something is art or not but I'm glad that you agree that Iron Man is nothing special.

Then, we got an admission that you'd been wrong about one of your claims (the claim that I love every movie).

Not only every movie, Bryant, but every TV series too. Why don't you accept your own posts as proof?

You tried to pretend that the general meaning you were trying to convery is still valid, but you're not really fooling anyone, except maybe yourself. What you seem to want to think is that I've got no capacity for being critical, but there's ample evidence on this site to prove you about as wrong as wrong can be.

Believe it or not, but your posts have formed my opinion about you. I didn't know someone is capable of so much "love". Hahaha.

In essence, your ability to persuasively argue your side is once again shown to be poor.

If you say so.

So why should I take anything you say seriously?

You don't have to. I, myself, find it rather difficult to take 'someone who loves everything' seriously too.

[Quintus 5,399]

Heh heh, a bit of tit-for-tat always brightens my day.

[A24 4,359]

And I can't read? Where does that comes from? Oh, right! Bryant: "If the story is good, I don't give a rat's arse about the music." I can read that just fine, Bryant. It's very telling about you too. Didn't I just say Iron Man is just plot and nothing else? Well, you've got your story so you're perfectly happy, aren't you?

I wanted to be sure to single out this remarkable section.

You're on me for saying that if the story is good, the score is irrelevant.

I can see how that might make me suspect as far as my opinions about music go. But in this particular instance, we're not talking about music, we're talking about movies, and the implication of what you're saying is that the score is more important than the story. If that's what you're actually saying, then I rest my case on the subject of your ability to critique movies. Thanks for hanging yourself and saving me the trouble.

Fortunately for me and my neck, that's not what I'm saying. Really, how you draw the line from one point to another is beyond me. I think you need help, Bryant. Knowing how to write isn't enough to get you through life. And certainly not when your BS is starting to show.

[Hitch 57]

Hm. I never heard of the film. Anyways, I watched "Raiders of the Lost Ark" an hour ago. I do not think there is much to be said about the film that has not already been said.

That it's crap?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Heh heh, a bit of tit-for-tat always brightens my day.

I know, right? This little quarrel is a great start to my day.

Alex is just being cranky. What's wrong with enjoying a summer blockbuster? And Bryant doesn't love everything as you claim, hell, he posted his hate towards Reefer Madness at the beginning of this whole argument.

[crocodile 8,033]

Iron Man is quite fun, but I agree that it's also forgettable. I never remember it when I list movies I've seen so far this year.

Wanted.

Another product that I soon won't remember. It is somewhat watchable and I like the idea of

Morgan Freeman playing a villain (which is refreshing)

. The slow motion action was already meh like eight years ago. Also, after seeing the film I like score even more. But it is mixed so low and the jarring intercutting of Fox in Control track with Andrea Boccelli crap is really offensive. But the music as written is definitly highlight of this year.

Tropic Thunder.

I could be good and it is so so. I appreciate the auto-ironic aspects of the film and there are some good moments. But then again all the rest is often embrassing to watch. Which was exactly the point, I think. And it's way too long. Not sure what to think about Tom Cruise. He just doesn't convince me. The rest is solid, Downey Jr. in particular. By far the best about this movie are the fake trailers in front of it.

Karol

[A24 4,359]

Alex is just being cranky. What's wrong with enjoying a summer blockbuster?

Loving a summer blockbuster? That's wasn't the topic. I never said it's wrong to love a blockbuster movie.

And Bryant doesn't love everything as you claim, hell, he posted his hate towards Reefer Madness at the beginning of this whole argument.

Yes, I already admitted he doesn't love everything. After all, 95% still isn't 100%, right?

Iron Man is quite fun, but I agree that it's also forgettable. I never remember it when I list movies I've seen so far this year.

You know, "fun" and "entertaining" (as someone else called it) are highly subjective. What entertains me might not entertain someone else, and vice versa.

[crocodile 8,033]

I would have never think of it myself.

Karol