Morlock 11 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It was kind of an weak tea...diluted Gondry -only his silliness, very little of the inspired imagination- mixed with Rogan and his co-writer's geek sensibility. I love Eternal Sunshine, and I love Pineapple Express, but the both of them, toned down, in the same film- didn't work at all. Not bad like Be Kind Rewind, just boring. All irreverence, no weight to anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,603 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 To Die For is a good one.Oops! Yeah, I forgot about that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Watched "Unstoppable" and it was pretty good. A no-nonsense, cut straight to the chase runaway movie and an enjoyable way to way to pass a couple of hours. The final act was quite thrilling and genuinely stirring, the assured execution, solid. 3/5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Yep, really fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share Posted January 24, 2011 Movies with trains are usually entertaining, with a few excpetions. Even stuff like Under Siege 2 is compelling to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
publicist 4,643 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Movies with trains are usually entertaining, with a few excpetions. Even stuff like Under Siege 2 is compelling to watch.And this one clocked in at 90 minutes. Good news, everyone, it is possible, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,603 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 You're all forgetting the two best movies set on trans:"The General", and "Murder On The Orient Express". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Imagine a Peter Jackson helmed runaway train movie. It'd be 3 hours long. And then you'd have the extended edition on Blu."Ten miles of extra track." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,603 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Imagine a Peter Jackson helmed runaway train movie. It'd be 3 hours long. And then you'd have the extended edition on Blu."Ten miles of extra track."Followed by the Jim Cameron Re-imagining: "40 Miles Of Bad Road". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The Lovely Bones. It was just kind of sad and foreboding, with trippy What Dreams May Come-esque afterlife scenes, good performances and a story that I generally found myself into. The wrap-up I think maybe could have used some work. I did get some Spielberg influence coming through. I was actually reminded of A.I. at some points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy 4,160 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Movies with trains are usually entertaining, with a few excpetions. Even stuff like Under Siege 2 is compelling to watch.And this one clocked in at 90 minutes. Good news, everyone, it is possible, after all.I gotta really respect that. Movies have lengthened on average by about 25% since Titanic. Why are comedies like Dinner for Schmucks 2 hours long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 It's gotten even worse since LotR. I was happy JJ and co. didn't try to stretch Star Trek any longer than 2 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Good God are you people really complaining about long movies? A 8 dollars or more for a ticket I don't want some 84 minute film, and if I'm going to see a event film I want something longer than 90 minutes. Realistically a movie should be as long as it needs to be. When the Lotr extended version came out all the virgins here got all hot and bothered, few complaints to be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff 10 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I just watched Jumper last night and at 88 minutes, it was just the right length. Any longer and I would have panned it. Sure, if a movie is spectacular and can keep you on the edge of your feet a full three hours, let it be. But most movies aren't masterpieces, and don't try to be. That doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed. But in those cases, there's no need to exceed 90 to 120 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 A summer movie, or a popcorn flick should be between 90 and 120 minutes in runtime length. An epic is allowed a longer runtime simply because the audience expects it - they put themselves in the right frame of mind when they go to see a 3 hour movie.It's wrong for indulgent directors and bad editors to expect an audience to endure 2.5-3 hours of their action adventure movie, just because LotR was a big hit. It's lazy.Peope have lives, stuff to do. A theatrical excursion shouldn't mean half of one's day gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 If a person can make a good 3 hour film, I'm all for it. It's just really hard to do. Many of the best movies are the best in part because they took the time to let everything breathe. It's not necessarily a genre thing- The Leopard's story isn't an epic one, yet it had to be the length it is to achieve what it did. I don't notice it as much with action-adventures (maybe I don't see enough of them), but I definitely agree that many comedies are overlong, and for no good reason at all, just poor directing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 It's funny how, depending of the film, time sems to go at a different speed.Actual talent and concern about what the story needs makes wonders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The PotC and Harry Potter movies are prime examples of woefully bad editing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The worst is Michael Bay. Pearl Harbour was bad enough, but why does Transformers 2 need to be two and a half hours long? Again, Bad Boys II, an excrutiatingly terrible movie, 147 minutes long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 I just stay away from Michael Bay films.For the record, I like long films, but there are some movies that can be told in less than 2 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,027 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 After Armageddon I pretty much skipped pretty much everything from Bay. But then I decided to give him a chance and went to see Transformers 2.Long story short... "I chose poorly".Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I enjoyed The Island. I want him to direct another original screenplay, or rather idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I enjoyed The Island. I want him to direct another original screenplay, or rather idea.The Island was not an original screenplay as it was an adaptation of a much better cheesy book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,355 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The Island was somewhat acceptable at first but then it became another dumb chase movie. Bay just flashes with a camera but he can't tell a story. Unless you think lots of explosions or 'destroying things' is the equivalent of fine storytelling, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Bad Boys 3 is were it's at! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I will give Bay credit in that at least he works, he's not like Spielberg and his endless list of films he's making execpt he's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,355 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I can't call Spielberg a lazy director. In fact, I think he sometimes works too fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datameister 2,052 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The PotC and Harry Potter movies are prime examples of woefully bad editing.I never noticed any issues with POTC. The first one works just fine, and the other two have so many other problems that the editing is hard to pay attention to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I can't call Spielberg a lazy director. In fact, I think he sometimes works too fast.no one called him a lazy director????he's a director who does not work. It will be 4 years between films for the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 If I had the money he had, that's exactly what I would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 if you had the money he has you wouldn't be a cheap jerk and say you couldn't get financing for Lincoln. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,355 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 no one called him a lazy director????he's a director who does not work. What is the difference? How is not working not lazy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 If I wasn't working because I didn't have a job and wasn't looking for one, but couldn't pay the bills, that would be lazy.If I wasn't working because I had made so much money over the last 40+ years of my professional life that I could take time off to do nothing, that's the achievement of the American dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Surely Michael Bay working is a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,355 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Weren't we all once complaining at how he was churning out one movie after the other? Maybe he finally changed his tactics. Heck, maybe Joey will like his movies again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 if you had the money he has you wouldn't be a cheap jerk and say you couldn't get financing for Lincoln.If I had the money he has I wouldn't even make Lincoln. I'd be trying to get first dibs on certain franchises so Bay and Bruckheimer, or any other of their kind, couldn't ruin them.Surely Michael Bay working is a bad thing.Since he's continuing to work, Transformers 3, I'd say that's a given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,225 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 he's a director who does not work. It will be 4 years between films for the guy.In Bay's case, I'd prefer it to be 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff 10 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Harsh, guys. If there were no Bay, where would we get our popcorn movies from? Don't you ever want to just watch a mindless explosion-fest?I'm no fan of Transformers (though I enjoyed watching each one once), but I actually really like Pearl Harbor. It needed the extra time to do the bombing sequence justice. That was a powerful thirty minutes of cinema. The rest of the movie was good, though not great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Harsh, guys. If there were no Bay, where would we get our popcorn movies from? Don't you ever want to just watch a mindless explosion-fest?Sure, just not when it's preceded by the words "A Michael Bay Film". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Since he's continuing to work, Transformers 3, I'd say that's a given. Transformers 3 makes absolutely no sense. I saw the trailer on the big screen, and it looks cool, but so seriously flawed.First of all, we know that the "dark side of the moon" is just a phrase popularized by Pink Floyd. When the moon rotates away from the Earth during the new moon phase, it's all dark. "Dark of the moon" could be a double entendre because of the conspiracy involved.The side of the moon that we see is the only side visible from Earth. The "far side" of the moon never faces Earth and has only been seen by about 30 men via Apollo spacecraft. The lit side never rotates away from Earth.To suggest that Armstrong and Aldrin were ever out of radio contact from Earth while on the lunar surface is stupid. Michael Collins up in the command module, yes, he would be when he orbited onto the far side each time.They also never went more than a few dozen meters from the LEM because they did not know how well their spacesuits would protect them from the extreme heat and cold of lunar vacuum, so making a 21 minute trek into the "dark of the moon" is also ludicrous.Then again, there is nothing cinematically romantic about using one of the later, lesser known Apollo missions that landed closer to the edge, and could have used the lunar rover to make the trek to the crashed robot spaceship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Woj, it's Michael Bay. You put more thought in that post than he has for the entire Transformers series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 JC, don't give the director more credit than he's due for writing the script or coming up with the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,225 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Harsh, guys. If there were no Bay, where would we get our popcorn movies from? Don't you ever want to just watch a mindless explosion-fest?No. With Bay's movies the lack of mind goes to such extremes, I feel insulted watching them.I believe it's perfectly possible to make a fun "popcorn movie" without making it dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 "Porpcorn movie" doen's have to mean that it's a bad movie. It's just that they make a whole load of "popcorn" crap today that it ends up being insulting, instead of making B and Z movies and let the money go to good and desirable "popcorn" stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,027 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Harsh, guys. If there were no Bay, where would we get our popcorn movies from? Don't you ever want to just watch a mindless explosion-fest?No. With Bay's movies the lack of mind goes to such extremes, I feel insulted watching them.I believe it's perfectly possible to make a fun "popcorn movie" without making it dumb.Yeah, Christopher Nolan's movies are essentially popcorn movies. Well, almost all of them. And he always says his primary goal is to entertain the audience. But in his own way.Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Entertain the audience for a few hours while they forget about their problems is one of the most noble goals of storytelling. Go Nolan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,027 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 But he does. Look at the Box Office. None of his movies was a financial flop. But at the same time he doesn't want to do it the easy way. These are not the festival movies, you know.Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I remember getting up midway through Schindler's List to get more popcorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,027 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I'm not quite sure I understand this connection.Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I don't usually eat popcorn but movies that good deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts