|
|
Post by fartyfartsalot on Nov 21, 2018 5:48:49 GMT
I guess I'm in a mood to procrastinate but I decided to look at vits' history;
The Godfather: Part II - 3/10
Goodfellas - 6/10
Heat - 5/10
War of the Worlds (2005) - 10/10
North by Northwest - 6/10
The Thing - 4/10
All the President's Men - 6/10
The Big Short - Brad Pitt's worst film
There's bound to be some other good ones I missed.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Nov 21, 2018 7:46:12 GMT
I guess I'm in a mood to procrastinate but I decided to look at vits' history; Goodfellas - 6/10 Actually I have the same rating for Goodfellas. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 21, 2018 9:35:19 GMT
Just a wild guess but as long as you claim to be a "serious" film aficionado yet give high ratings to garbage made in the last few years while shitting on undisputed masterpieces. That's how long. I have never shitted on a movie. Claiming that I have is insulting. I've simply given out ratings, sometimes positive and sometimes negative, but always trying to balance the objective with the subjective. Many times I've given them because another user has asked us. If you're too close-minded to accept different opinions, you shouldn't be in a forum like this. The Godfather: Part II - 3/10 Goodfellas - 6/10 Heat - 5/10 War of the Worlds (2005) - 10/10 North by Northwest - 6/10 The Thing - 4/10 All the President's Men - 6/10 The Big Short - Brad Pitt's worst film I'm not in the mood to procrastinate, so I'll try my best to summarize my thoughts. THE GODFATHER PART II copied a lot of from the 1st installment, so it felt redundant to me; GOODFELLAS was unnecessarily over-long; HEAT was unnecessarily over-long too and its plot didn't have a lot we hadn't seen by 1995; WAR OF THE WORLDS was an emotional and thrilling ride from beginning to end; NORTH BY NORTHWEST revealed all the important information at the end of act 2 so there was no need for an act 3, which (unlike the rest of the movie) prioritized action so much over story; I didn't find THE THING to be that scary nor tense; ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN would've been better if it had focused more on the relationship between the 2 leads, who spent a good portion of the film working apart; THE BIG SHORT didn't make me laugh nor care about its characters, and it had an over-reliance in narration and headache-inducing camera work. Thank you for mentioning that last one. Now poelzig can see I don't automatically give high ratings to modern movies... something he should already know considering the very first thing I wrote on this thread. Even if I was in the mood to procrastinate, I wouldn't check your history in case you've given unpopular ratings to movies. I mean, what kind of person does that? |
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Nov 21, 2018 13:55:28 GMT
It didn't want to terrify like Jaws, it went the adventure route, like Jurassic Park, but It's still pretty entertaining. Can't help but wonder what the movie would have been like with all its gore scenes intact.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 22, 2018 16:32:59 GMT
I am not a mega fan of Goodfellas, but I would rate it higher than WOTW, which I didn't find especially emotional or that thrilling.
Half of Godfather Part II chronicled the Don's rise to power, whereas in the first he was already in power, so I don't get why this copied a lot from the first installment. It also chronicled the new Don who was following in his father's corrupt and crooked footsteps and detailed the personal conflicts he had going on within himself
The Thing I suppose, one had to be there to experience it at the time of release. It was unlike anything seen before in the horror genre. If what it portrays is no longer fresh, in the context of when it was made and the skill of its execution, it is a top notch sci\fi horror thriller, even it does appears a little dated.
Their friendship was secondary and even irrelevant due to the deadlines given and uncovering of the truth from within the dynamic of their profession. 1) I wouldn't compare a gangster drama based on real life to an alien invasion sci-fi movie. 2) Exactly. The 2 roles were reversed and the same 2 stories were told. There were differences of course (if it had been an actual copy-and-paste work I probably would've given it a 0), but not big enough. 3) What do you mean? The movie was a critical and financial failure at the time. Anyway, I always take the context into consideration. That doesn't mean I automatically must have the same opinion as everyone else. And I didn't say it was dated. Its issues arose from the writing and directing, not the more technical aspects. In fact, I really liked the creature effects. 4) Fictional movies based on true events must find a balance between telling the story accurately and make sure it works as any other movie. Their friendship was the heart of the movie, so of course something like this would almsot ruin it for me. 5) You're brave to admit that you agree with me on some movies, since you've seen what happens when you have a different opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 23, 2018 10:48:12 GMT
Toasted CheeseWhile you say that opinions are subjective, you seem to support the idea that some things about movies are just facts. If that was the case, film criticism would be useless. At least as an art form that different people practise. It would only take 1 expert or 1 small group of experts to declare whether a movie is good or bad and the rest of the world would just have to agree. A movie doesn't become a classic for being flawless, because that doesn't exist. A movie becomes a classic when most people feel that the good aspects are good enough to make people say "They outweigh the bad ones" or to make people not even notice the bad ones. Therefore, it's not wrong to dislike a classic if a person does notice the bad aspects and thinks they outweigh the good ones. Taking the context into consideration refers to whether a movie did something no other movie had done before, plot-wise or technical-wise. I'm not saying the reviews/box office results/cultural impact don't matter, but those are more external factors. They say less about the movie's quality and more about society's mentality and standards. Not to mention that, as discussed in another thread, a movie can become dated. If that happens, do those external factors still matter? Speaking of, it shocked me that someone with your knowledge would claim that critics aren't the voice of reason. That cult status (supposedly by non-critics) is more important. THE THING and BLADE RUNNER developed that cult status because small circles loved them, but those circles were made of non-critics and critics. Eventually, they became true classics. With the evolution of communications and media, it's easier to make people aware of underseen movies. Therefore, if a movie remains stuck in cult status years later, it's because it still isn't considered good.
|
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Nov 23, 2018 18:40:52 GMT
It is a fact that The Godfather 2 is a better film than War of the Worlds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 23, 2018 19:55:44 GMT
It is a fact that The Godfather 2 is a better film than War of the Worlds. I take it that you have read all the posts so far. Did you happen to miss this part? I wouldn't compare a gangster drama based on real life to an alien invasion sci-fi movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 24, 2018 17:36:19 GMT
You are claiming here that they are not greater than the sum of their parts, because you can see what others don't, therefore they are not really classics. I find that approach a tad pretentious and arrogant. These films to your opinion, are not classic. 1) That's not what I meant. I wasn't speaking only about me. It can happen to anyone. There have been many times where I haven't seen a flaw another person has. 2) I never said that. I said I don't like them because I felt the negative aspects outweighed the positive ones. Whether a movie has achieved classic status isn't up for debate; it's a fact. I also didn't say that the movies don't deserve to be classics. On the contrary, I'm happy that the positive aspects struck a chord with most people enough for them to not notice or to notice but dismiss the negative aspects. They had a better time watching and analyzing the movies than me. By the way, I've already expressed my thoughts on those movies. Do you want me to do a scene-by-scene breakdown? |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Nov 24, 2018 19:18:49 GMT
4.5 at most. I like the exploration and discovery part at the beginning, but the rest is so bland, so uninspired....despite the budget feels like a Chinese bootleg ripoff.
|
|
bhali333
New Member
Come check out our YouTube movie review channel
@bhali333
Posts: 31
Likes: 27
|
Post by bhali333 on Nov 24, 2018 23:25:51 GMT
Hey Guy's, We rented it for 5.99, it was no "Jaws" but it wasn't a bomb either. We did our YouTube video review on "The Meg" this week it will be available to watch on our YouTube channel tomorrow if you want to check it out and see what two Brooklyn Italians thought of it and how we rate, review and talk about it. Here's the link www.youtube.com/channel/UCCGWUH9yNCESBnZ8f3LY9Ig |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2018 23:41:19 GMT
I think you need to have an affection for sharks films to appreciate films like this. I go for the shark. I thought The Meg was great fun. I wasn't looking for art though. I usually go into these films expecting to hope everyone dies, but Statham' s character surprised me.
|
|
