Best and Worst Movies

Discuss, argue, whine, talk but not about Elma.

Moderator: Moporators

DrPepper
Kuski
Posts: 37
Joined: 5 Feb 2003, 23:13

Post by DrPepper » 2 Dec 2003, 03:35

Wow, I'm frankly surprised! Is there noone here with a bit of taste? All that is ever mentioned (almost) is totally stupid Hollywood-style films of the capitalistic film industy of today. Predictable, boring, action-packed, full of graphic effects, popular music etc.
No offense to those of you who do not know better, but 99% of all those kind of movies are pure shit. Get some education dammnit! Watch quality films of great directors. Here's some good starters:

Stanley Kubrick: The man was a genious watch everything he ever directed exept "Eyes wide shut" (he died during the final stage of the film, thus leaving it unfinished).
Charlie Chaplin: Another genious, watch it all!
Alfred Hitchcock: "Rear Window" was a favourite during my entire childhood. "Psycho" is another totally must-see!
Orson Welles: If you haven't seen "Citizen Kane" you do not have the right to talk about films. Also: "Othello" - A masterpiece
Ingemar Bergman: "Sjunde Inseglet", "Vargtimmen" is excellent horror.
Robert Altman: "MASH" (Not the TVseries, though I enjoy them)
Milos Forman: "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" Jack Nicholson is one of my fav actors.
Francis Ford Coppola: "Godfather"-triology, "Apocalypse Now"
David Lynch: "Eraserhead" - Most horrifying film to date, I was a little disappointed at "Mulholland Drive" but it's actually OK.
Dario Argento: Lots of good (scary - not like todays "horror" films) horror movies.
Kinji Fukasaku: "Battle Royale", and lots of great Yakusa-movies.
Andrei Tarkovsky: "Solaris" (original ver.), "Andrei Rublev"
Akira Kurosawa: All of his movies! See them! If you haven't seen his samurai movies... well then do it!
SABU: "Postman Blues", "Unlucky Monkey" he's great!
Krysztof Kieslowski: "Three Colors Trilogy" (Red, White, Blue)
Luc Besson: "Le grand bleu", "Leon", "Nikita" (original ver.)
Tore Fredriksson: "A55-Fr065" 1&2, "Ninja", "Scientist", "The Blob 2 - Special edition" see all of his great films, you can probably expect lots from this promising young director... (promise)

And all those I forgot to mention of course....

As for films that aren't worth wiewing.... another time perhaps, the list would become too long. I hate stupid films.

User avatar
Ky.Jelly
Flood to teh MAX
Posts: 4009
Joined: 20 May 2002, 21:40
Location: Ramarama, Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Ky.Jelly » 2 Dec 2003, 04:24

Ky.Jelly wrote:Bad Taste
Once Where Warriors
LOTR
Matrix
The Shawshank redemption
Accidental Hero
only two hollywood boosted movies there, those being LOTR and The Matrix, but both are i am sure brilliant in almost everyone's eyes

Once Were Warriors is a local flick which most aussies have prolly seen and is a brilliant adaptation of what live can be like in NZ.

Anyone that has seen The Shawshank Redemption can not doubt that there is an abundance of education and lifes lesson in this movie,

Bad Taste well, i am yet to find anyone who has seen it and didnt enjoy it.

there are a few other movies which i would like to add

2001 A Space Odyssy
Blade Runner
Citezen Kane

these are more bloody excellent movies.

hollywood blockbusters have there use, they are good wen you just want to sit and watch a movie without having to think to much about it.

i do prefer english made movies over american ones as a rule. i also really enjoy the local ones, because they have to go for original story line as the cannot afford big fancy ones,

i suggest you see Whale Rider if you get the chance too
[10:51:18] <skint0r> i could SACh see KyJelly working at ICA ;D
[10:51:37] <skint0r> "vad kostar denna?" "wtf ch0b0"
Thursday, March 2nd 2005, 0942 i was 3333 [4.43% of total / 3.25 posts per day]

DrPepper
Kuski
Posts: 37
Joined: 5 Feb 2003, 23:13

Post by DrPepper » 2 Dec 2003, 04:51

Ky.Jelly wrote: only two hollywood boosted movies there, those being LOTR and The Matrix, but both are i am sure brilliant in almost everyone's eyes
No. The Matrix is seriously overrated. Some computer effects and a bit of philosophy-light. It will be forgotten in 10 years.
Ky.Jelly wrote: Bad Taste well, i am yet to find anyone who has seen it and didnt enjoy it.
Well, Peter Jackson in his youth. Interesting that it was made with a cheap, hand-driven camera. It's OK.
Ky.Jelly wrote: there are a few other movies which i would like to add

2001 A Space Odyssy
Blade Runner
Citezen Kane

these are more bloody excellent movies.
Yea, I forgot Blade Runner, I don't think that much of Ridley Scotts other films.
Ky.Jelly wrote: hollywood blockbusters have there use, they are good wen you just want to sit and watch a movie without having to think to much about it.
They fulfill their purpose, they're consumed by the mindless trend-following masses. But as art they're worthless. Thereof my detest.

User avatar
chux
Kuski
Posts: 2636
Joined: 27 Aug 2002, 22:59
Location: Elmaville, UK

Post by chux » 3 Dec 2003, 22:05

DrPepper wrote:
Ky.Jelly wrote: only two hollywood boosted movies there, those being LOTR and The Matrix, but both are i am sure brilliant in almost everyone's eyes
No. The Matrix is seriously overrated. Some computer effects and a bit of philosophy-light. It will be forgotten in 10 years.
Ahem...Star Wars...

Theres nothing to say Hollywood films cant be good...I agree that loaaads of them are bad, but there are still a whole load that are geat.

Another good film: Die Hard
I dream of a world where chickens can cross the road without their motives being questioned.
Image
Hi! I'm a signature virus. Copy me into your signature to help me spread.

Doddddy
Kuski
Posts: 266
Joined: 13 Dec 2002, 19:59
Location: Romania
Contact:

Post by Doddddy » 13 Dec 2003, 23:38

I have got it!!! LEON or THE PROFFESIONAL is the best movie ever, ever! ever! Warning it's a very very sad film (but realistic somehow) :cry: ...
Reliance upon others is weakness for the strong, but strength for the weak.

Guest

Post by Guest » 28 Jan 2004, 03:05

the last samurai, LOTR trio, welcome to the jungle and finding nemo :lol: are all sick movies... so hollywood movies can be good DrPepper.

Any really good new movies?? or even really bad?? I think "Torque" looks to be quite bad

aavv
Kuski
Posts: 123
Joined: 28 Sep 2003, 12:06

Re: yay

Post by aavv » 28 Jan 2004, 06:07

zworqy wrote:
HAYDNATOR wrote:
Worst: "Tillsammans" - Swedish movie from 1999 or something about the seventies... Some ugly people were living together and nothing ever happen(ed)... ZZZzzzzzzzzz...
I remember seeing a great Sweedish movie about a hippie community, is this the one? Over here it was published under the English translation "Together".

Nicest movie I've seen in a while was "lost in translation".

Don't know about bad ones.

aavv
Kuski
Posts: 123
Joined: 28 Sep 2003, 12:06

Post by aavv » 28 Jan 2004, 06:50

J-sim wrote:BEST: Mulholland drive
ToTaL wrote:The good, the bad and the ugly = coolest movie ever ( eventhough i don't like Clint Eastwood that much )
zworqy wrote:Cube
Nice choices here :)

Ky.Jelly wrote: have you guys ever seen citizen kane.
It's really worth it. One of the best I've seen so far. You need to have some predisposition to see it, though, not the average Hollywood movie. :)

DrPepper wrote: Wow, I'm frankly surprised! Is there noone here with a bit of taste? All that is ever mentioned (almost) is totally stupid Hollywood-style films of the capitalistic film industy of today. Predictable, boring, action-packed, full of graphic effects, popular music etc.
No offense to those of you who do not know better, but 99% of all those kind of movies are pure shit. Get some education dammnit! Watch quality films of great directors.
Come again? Talk about being an elitist. :wink: It can be fine, you know, but being on an 'alternative frenzy' can also lean you towards a full rejection of some great movies just because they are mentioned as blockbusters. Entertainment doesn't have to be art-minded. You can simply watch a movie for the fun of it. You can go and see "Lost in Translation" (I thought this one was great) and enjoy it either from the fun parts of it or for the whole conceptual details the 'directrice' (i'm guessing this is the feminin for director) included in it. Both are the same from a different angle, why does your taste have to be better? People want to be entertained: you get your entertainment from the artsy details and plot construction, others get it through the main ideas that are put in the film. Was "Kill Bill" any good? No laughs at all? Was "Braindead" any good? Is the Sweedish movie I mentioned before, "Together", any good? Aren't they whole round family entertainers, uneasy views on what extreme artsy attitudes can push you through?

You need to have some art to amuse people anyway.

Oh, those nice sundays with some fast food, beers and a blockbuster to spoil a whole evening with your girl... :)


My alltime favourite movie is Sweedish, btw. :) "Fanny och Alexander" ("Persona" was great too). I've seen it in a tranlated version, I got amazed by the great number of word roots Sweedish and English have in common. If you haven't, see it as soon as you can. That or "Amarcord", I guess. Or "Pixote: a lei do mais forte". Or "La Strategia dell Ragno". Or "NAtural Born Killers". Or "Apocalipse Now". Or "The Elephant Man".

Overall, movies are great. If I remember, there's like one waste of time/money for each ten movies people have seen. Right?
Last edited by aavv on 28 Jan 2004, 07:36, edited 1 time in total.

aavv
Kuski
Posts: 123
Joined: 28 Sep 2003, 12:06

Post by aavv » 28 Jan 2004, 06:52

fuck, I promise i'll stop with those huge posts

User avatar
zworqy
Kuski
Posts: 3706
Joined: 19 May 2002, 23:17
Location: Lilla Edet, Sweden
Contact:

Re: yay

Post by zworqy » 28 Jan 2004, 08:09

aavv wrote:
zworqy wrote:
Worst: "Tillsammans" - Swedish movie from 1999 or something about the seventies... Some ugly people were living together and nothing ever happen(ed)... ZZZzzzzzzzzz...
I remember seeing a great Sweedish movie about a hippie community, is this the one? Over here it was published under the English translation "Together".
Yup, that's the movie!
Too bad you like it :P
<Fihlvein> another case of zworqy-is-always-right closed i guess
<yoosef> zworqy doesnt suck at anything

Guest

Re: yay

Post by Guest » 28 Jan 2004, 08:50

aavv wrote:
HAYDNATOR wrote:
Worst: "Tillsammans" - Swedish movie from 1999 or something about the seventies... Some ugly people were living together and nothing ever happen(ed)... ZZZzzzzzzzzz...
bah... i don't remeber saying that :wink: i think u meant to quote zworqy...

and i also think tom green is the funniest actor... hahah

maybe i should add in actors/actresses in topic title... ??

EDIT: upz i forgot i cant... this topic is by HAYDNATOR not haydnat0r... :cry:

DrPepper
Kuski
Posts: 37
Joined: 5 Feb 2003, 23:13

Post by DrPepper » 29 Jan 2004, 03:16

Here we go again! :D
DrPepper wrote: Wow, I'm frankly surprised! Is there noone here with a bit of taste? All that is ever mentioned (almost) is totally stupid Hollywood-style films of the capitalistic film industy of today. Predictable, boring, action-packed, full of graphic effects, popular music etc.
No offense to those of you who do not know better, but 99% of all those kind of movies are pure shit. Get some education dammnit! Watch quality films of great directors.
Come again? Talk about being an elitist. :wink: It can be fine, you know, but being on an 'alternative frenzy' can also lean you towards a full rejection of some great movies just because they are mentioned as blockbusters.
It's true, but you have to keep elitism hush-hush :wink: , it is a very forbidden ideology these days, when we learn beautiful words like "democracy" and "freedom" in school. I see no wrong in elitism, but as I said, it is not something you should say that you like these days. Education is dangerous. :wink:
And, I must comment on you calling me an 'alternative frenzy' I'm very aware of what you speak of, but with calling me such (if you did that, electronic communication is hard to comprehend), I must say you speak without having the facts. I never judge a book by it's cover so to say. I speak out of experience, I've seen so much crap, most of it from the 70-80's and later. The earlier stuff, comes from a different era in filmmaking. The film-industry of today is a very harsh world, you have to make movies that appeal the masses. That makes it hard to include some deeper meanings, progressive artwork etc.
Entertainment doesn't have to be art-minded.
I do not see movies solely as entertainment. If a movie doesn't have a purpose or meaning, it is pretty much just a timekiller - and thus I will despise it. So much you can do, so little time. Why waste it?
People want to be entertained: you get your entertainment from the artsy details and plot construction,[...]
It is not about entertainment. It's about art and ideas, totally different.
[...]others get it through the main ideas that are put in the film. Was "Kill Bill" any good? No laughs at all? Was "Braindead" any good? Is the Sweedish movie I mentioned before, "Together", any good? Aren't they whole round family entertainers, uneasy views on what extreme artsy attitudes can push you through?(sic)
"Together"(Tillsammans) was great, a very excellent portrait of different 70's political movements and ideas. The characters evolving are fantastic.
"Braindead" is interesting, most of all from the film-making point of view. Yes, I am a movie-creator myself, and as I recall them, both "Bad taste" and "Braindead" were made with an extremely small budget. And Jacksons sense of directing and camera angles are indeed thrilling.
"Fanny och Alexander" [...] If you haven't, see it as soon as you can.
I can only agree.
"The Elephant Man".
One of my absolute favourites. Extremely good.
Overall, movies are great. If I remember, there's like one waste of time/money for each ten movies people have seen. Right?
I would say there's like nine wastes of money for each ten movies people have seen. But then again it depends upon how you look upon the whole.

Guest

Post by Guest » 29 Jan 2004, 07:08

omg wr post!!! wow... lots of txt... lots of quotes... i'll read it later

anyways i just saw van wilder, not another teen movie, and friday after next last night... they are listed in order of bestestness

aavv
Kuski
Posts: 123
Joined: 28 Sep 2003, 12:06

Post by aavv » 29 Jan 2004, 15:21

DrPepper wrote: Wow, I'm frankly surprised! Is there noone here with a bit of taste?
^^^, so...
aavv wrote:Come again? Talk about being an elitist. :wink: It can be fine, you know, but being on an 'alternative frenzy' can also lean you towards a full rejection of some great movies just because they are mentioned as blockbusters.
I wouldn't say something to you because you're an elitist to yourself, everybody is: you choose what you consider that is better. You criticed other people's taste, labeling it bad and complainting about it, that's different. ;)
And, I must comment on you calling me an 'alternative frenzy' I'm very aware of what you speak of, but with calling me such (if you did that, electronic communication is hard to comprehend), I must say you speak without having the facts.
I'm not5 calling you that, an alternative frenzy is a blind search for everything that isn't commercial. Likewise, an "insert word" frenzy is a frenetical, maquiavelic, etc search/aim for something. ;) So, it's not you, it's the way you choose the object you regard as 'acceptable'. But I admit I'm wrong on this one, cause I don't know you. I was referring to people that choose what they consume solelly based on other's evaluation.

I never judge a book by it's cover so to say. I speak out of experience, I've seen so much crap, most of it from the 70-80's and later. The earlier stuff, comes from a different era in filmmaking. The film-industry of today is a very harsh world, you have to make movies that appeal the masses. That makes it hard to include some deeper meanings, progressive artwork etc.
Aw, come on... I'm pretty sure you know there's as much masterpieces today as there were before the 70's. It can be true that there's much more crap percentage, but there's no less masterpieces, no way. What you might say is that entertainment has somehow ascended higher than art-oriented pictures in means of production quantity. Aged masterpieces are well known now, and that's the issue here. I mean, how many wack old movies have you seen? Not many, for sure. Wtf are deeper meanings anyway? Less tangible? If not, any average Disney picture has meanings as deep as you might (not) want to get, that's actually the problem I can see in them. :D
Entertainment doesn't have to be art-minded.
I do not see movies solely as entertainment. If a movie doesn't have a purpose or meaning, it is pretty much just a timekiller - and thus I will despise it. So much you can do, so little time. Why waste it?
Cause it feels fine. Spoiling the few time you have not thinking is one of the greatest pleasures you get. Taking a shit, for instance. :o
People want to be entertained: you get your entertainment from the artsy details and plot construction,[...]
It is not about entertainment. It's about art and ideas, totally different.
It's a thin red line between them. Not that different. Some of the crapiest movies ever seen were more art-oriented than many of the entertainment-based ones, which, i repeat, are many times rather interesting even if considered art-wise.

Overall, movies are great. If I remember, there's like one waste of time/money for each ten movies people have seen. Right?
I would say there's like nine wastes of money for each ten movies people have seen. But then again it depends upon how you look upon the whole.
I was talking about me. I waste money once for each 10 times I pay to see a movie. (EDIT: I don't often pay to see them anyway ;) Same with records, books, etc. I pay for a movie cause it's nice to see it on te big screen or because I can't find anywhere other than the videoclub or smthg) Who is anyone to judge on how others spoil their money? Geez, movies don't have to feed your metathought insights. If else, what would represent a movie whose sole purpose is making you laugh? A complete anti-movie?

There's definitely art in everything, if you want to see it that way. Check human history and things around you. Things are just not art-critic oriented or something, that's the point. :wink:
Last edited by aavv on 29 Jan 2004, 16:14, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
chux
Kuski
Posts: 2636
Joined: 27 Aug 2002, 22:59
Location: Elmaville, UK

Post by chux » 29 Jan 2004, 16:01

I dont 'waste' or spend money seeing films that often, I download them, watch them on TV or watch other peoples DVDs...this way I get a film, good or bad, at only the cost of a couple of hours (which id only have wasted anyway), weee!
I dream of a world where chickens can cross the road without their motives being questioned.
Image
Hi! I'm a signature virus. Copy me into your signature to help me spread.

teajay
Donator duck
Posts: 10041
Joined: 3 Apr 2003, 17:53

Post by teajay » 29 Jan 2004, 16:07

Hm, as I see this, I can only say that you're both right for yourself. As I see movies, I don't know if it's bad or good. The only thing that matters for me is the variation of which movies you see. So if you see a lot of Disney films, you can say that's a boring story, plot or graphics/artwork. But if you see one Disney film once a era, it can be superthrilling anyway.

DrPepper
Kuski
Posts: 37
Joined: 5 Feb 2003, 23:13

Post by DrPepper » 30 Jan 2004, 01:45


^^^, so...
sorry don't understand. Ehm... (?) :(
I wouldn't say something to you because you're an elitist to yourself, everybody is: you choose what you consider that is better. You criticed other people's taste, labeling it bad and complainting about it, that's different. ;)
I don't see it as complaining, not if you look at my message as an whole. It is simply "online rethorics" - My experience is that unless you exaggerate a thousand times :wink: you will be pretty much ignored when debating on the internet - What I'm really trying to do is encouraging people not just to see the new popular movies, but search a bit for themselves, and discover that there are truly amazing movies that is neither hyped nor commercial (anymore).

(Off the subject: More on this rethoric technique. It is slow, and actually takes someone like you, someone that opposes my very subjective and extreme views, to get the issue to the point: I used in the "language & convention"-discussion also. One problem is that not many people read the whole - long - posts. It is a pity.)
I'm not5 calling you that, an alternative frenzy is a blind search for everything that isn't commercial. [...] So, it's not you, it's the way you choose the object you regard as 'acceptable'. But I admit I'm wrong on this one, cause I don't know you.
Oh, I thought of it as an implication of 'alternative frenzy person', well nevermind. And on the latter: What I regard as 'acceptable'.
I think this is one of the most important abilities that makes a person 'mature': The ability to accept people for who they are and what they like, you can imply things (like I did in my first post) because you may think that some aspects in their character has to do with them not being enlighted. But if they still hold on to their first point of view, then fine. I fully accept that. (Oh, I really should improve my english, I cannot express myself good enough, this is like it's done for misinterpretations.)
Aw, come on... I'm pretty sure you know there's as much masterpieces today as there were before the 70's. It can be true that there's much more crap percentage, but there's no less masterpieces, no way. What you might say is that entertainment has somehow ascended higher than art-oriented pictures in means of production quantity. Aged masterpieces are well known now, and that's the issue here. I mean, how many wack old movies have you seen?
I cannot agree fully. The process of making a movie today is so different from how it was, especially economically. Compare to the music business and especially the game business. That about the percentage is indeed correct (again compare to games :wink: ).
But, about movies, I would say that masterpieces are not as common now as they once were. Today so much is up to the producer, the earlier 'era' i speak about was one with more freedom for the people actually interested in doing the movie, not just the income it might bring. There is very good new movies, but they do not often hit the big screen, because they're considered to 'difficult' for the 'masses' to appreciate.

Wtf are deeper meanings anyway?
I talk about less shallow movies, where the mood, the storyline, the concept, the whole purpose or idea is more important than how 'sexy' or popular the female leads are, wich bands is on the soundtrack and most of all how much money it will render.
Cause it feels fine. Spoiling the few time you have not thinking is one of the greatest pleasures you get. Taking a shit, for instance. :o
WHAT!! YOu don't think when you're using the toilet!?!? Taking a shit and taking a shower, those are the moments when I find the most inspiration!! :D Well, not really, but they're pretty high on my 'inspiration-location'-list. :)
It's a thin red line between them (note: Art & Entertainment). Not that different.
I think there's a obvious gap between them.
When I think about an aestethic experience, it is something that fills me with awe, and leaves me with a feeling of contemplation or fulfilment, inspiration. Like seeing an astounding view from a mountain-top, or a drawing that is so fascinating it makes you gasp for air, or hearing a song that fills your whole body etc.
While entertainment is more like something that makes me laugh for the moment, or keeps me from thinking for a while, or makes me forget some of my worries for the moment.
Overall, movies are great. If I remember, there's like one waste of time/money for each ten movies people have seen. Right?
I would say there's like nine wastes of money for each ten movies people have seen. But then again it depends upon how you look upon the whole.
I was talking about me. I waste money once for each 10 times I pay to see a movie.
So was I.
Who is anyone to judge on how others spoil their money? Geez, movies don't have to feed your metathought insights. If else, what would represent a movie whose sole purpose is making you laugh? A complete anti-movie?
Again, I don't judge, I question peoples standing-points, but in this hard-to-comprehend-online-language-rethorics-kind-of-way. :wink:
And sorry I don't understand exactly those last lines, from 'If else...' :( please explain, I want to know. :)
There's definitely art in everything, if you want to see it that way.
Check human history and things around you. Things are just not art-critic oriented or something, that's the point. :wink:
Yes indeed. There is art in murder, violence, war, everything. It is right. I am aware of that, but the reason I criticise 'modern' filmmaking is because of it's non-artistic, profit-based point of view.

(Whew, I really should learn proper english so I could express my thoughts in a more direct way, instead of walking around them in circles. Sorry for the long messages, everyone, but I'm incapable of better English :( )

Guest

Post by Guest » 30 Jan 2004, 06:09

wow... u guys all have really good points...

meh i think ur both right in different ways... :wink:

but yeh it just goes to show how complex movies are... and how fekn harrd it would be to direct one :?

J-sim
39mins club
Posts: 834
Joined: 1 Sep 2002, 16:48

Post by J-sim » 1 Feb 2004, 22:45

Hey DrPepper! You do have a really good taste in movies and so on. And you talk about artistic integrity, and that you are an artist yourself in many ways. So I'm wondering, what music do you like?

Juzam
38mins club
Posts: 242
Joined: 9 Dec 2002, 09:40
Location: Kokkola

Post by Juzam » 2 Feb 2004, 09:48

Teh besterestest movies : Braveheart, Lotr 1,2,3 ,The ring
Suck0rs : Jeepers Creeperes1 , Jason X, Kung pow
Image
---Juzam---

Dyrox
Kuski
Posts: 602
Joined: 4 Dec 2002, 15:26
Location: Gotland, Sweden

Post by Dyrox » 2 Feb 2004, 10:05

Best Movie: Double Team and The Crow
Team ELGH | www.teamelgh.info.se | Totaltime: 40:58:45

Guest

Post by Guest » 2 Feb 2004, 12:13

Juzam wrote:Teh besterestest movies : Braveheart, Lotr 1,2,3 ,The ring
wow... they're ALL nice choices :wink:

id say most of my favs would fit into the espionage/crime (ocean's eleven, shaft, the italian job, maybe a few 007s), action (braveheart, mission impossible, the last samurai, along with many others), and stupid comedy (freddy got fingered, road trip, not another teen movie, van wilder, scar movies, american pies... etc) genres

heh well anyway i like a lot of movies... :roll:

teajay
Donator duck
Posts: 10041
Joined: 3 Apr 2003, 17:53

Post by teajay » 2 Feb 2004, 13:04

just say you like all commercial shit ;)

User avatar
insane guy
Kuski
Posts: 1656
Joined: 22 May 2002, 20:53
Contact:

Post by insane guy » 2 Feb 2004, 14:16

hae i said TETSUO yet?
"Every night, me go to sleep, me have wet dream..."

DrPepper
Kuski
Posts: 37
Joined: 5 Feb 2003, 23:13

Post by DrPepper » 3 Feb 2004, 01:58

J-sim wrote:Hey DrPepper! You do have a really good taste in movies and so on. And you talk about artistic integrity, and that you are an artist yourself in many ways. So I'm wondering, what music do you like?
Hah! Good question!
I like "interesting" music, anything that doesn't bore me.
That means everything from softest classical serenades,through jazz, prog, video-game music, to the most brutal deathmetal! :wink:
I cannot specify any genre. Anything that has an interesting structure, skilled musicians, artistic ambitions, passion etc.

Guest

Post by Guest » 3 Feb 2004, 09:35

hehe u may have good taste in medias but wheres your taste in cool drink??

Dr Pepper = *vomit*

maybe a vomiting smily might have been good there... just imagin that theres a vomiting smily next to "Dr Pepper = "...

anyways: COKE ALL THE WAY!! :D

Guest

Post by Guest » 4 Feb 2004, 13:37

well i saw LOTR3 and its SO GOOD! the effects are amazing and the plot is so good... the only bit i didn't like was how it ended 3 times...

aavv
Kuski
Posts: 123
Joined: 28 Sep 2003, 12:06

Post by aavv » 4 Feb 2004, 17:07

DrPepper wrote: I don't see it as complaining, not if you look at my message as an whole. It is simply "online rethorics" - My experience is that unless you exaggerate a thousand times :wink: you will be pretty much ignored when debating on the internet - What I'm really trying to do is encouraging people not just to see the new popular movies, but search a bit for themselves, and discover that there are truly amazing movies that is neither hyped nor commercial (anymore).
Right on. :) I fully agree, and that's just why I sometimes might seem so angry on my answers: to further provoque you and generate a discussion with two different points. Feels nice to be devil's advocate, too. :twisted:
I cannot agree fully. The process of making a movie today is so different from how it was, especially economically. Compare to the music business and especially the game business. That about the percentage is indeed correct (again compare to games :wink: ).
Actually back in the days it was harder to make a movie that included state-of-the-art engineering. Lots of top movies made back then where great and used little or no budget (Tod Browning pictures are a great example, the man was a genious, and also homemade-like movies such as The Trip in the 60's/70's), but most of them where highly costfull: Metropolis, Kane, The Third Man, etc. Nowadays you still have rather great movies being done with virtually no budget from producers, such as the Dogma 95 ones, but you have others that are done inside the high production values standard of Hollywood that are as mentionworthy as those, such as Magnolia.
But, about movies, I would say that masterpieces are not as common now as they once were. Today so much is up to the producer, the earlier 'era' i speak about was one with more freedom for the people actually interested in doing the movie, not just the income it might bring. There is very good new movies, but they do not often hit the big screen, because they're considered to 'difficult' for the 'masses' to appreciate.
Hey, you keep hearing of stories regarding this every two weeks or so. Mullholland Drive was refused by CBS due to low revenue prespectives, being shortened due to this fact. I think you're not taking into account an important thing: 'elder' masterpieces where not fully known at they time many of the times. Infact, history is full of examples of ignored masterpieces that have had a recent hype and thus only have been fully known by the public a few decades ago. Try to recall or make an estimative of the number of masterpieces you know of made prior to the 60's/70's. Do you notice there's only like one or two movies at best to have been made each year? Now look at recent times. How many great movies (possibly regarded as masterpieces some time from now) have you seen per year in the last five years or so? ;) There's more masterpieces being put on the screen every year now, they're just not acquainted for that as soon as they come out. It takes time for people to realize they're masterpieces.

I talk about less shallow movies, where the mood, the storyline, the concept, the whole purpose or idea is more important than how 'sexy' or popular the female leads are, wich bands is on the soundtrack and most of all how much money it will render.
It has always been this way. Look at almost any (!) picture made before the 70's. The broad has always been there. There's nearly any 'classic' movie without 'the girl'. It has always been this way, and I guess only in recent years it has somehow starting to change. Just look at most of your favourite movies made before the 60's and go to imdb or allmovie to remember the feminine presence there. Same with the music, it's a well studied fact and there are old movies still seen at a great extent because of the OST. About the money, I guess I explained my point above already, but you might want to read a movie history book and see how wrong you are. Many or most of your favourite movies, I bet, have had high production values and revenue concerns. It's the way it works in the movie industry: a high investment must have high revenues, and it could hardly be the other way around.

In Portugal, the great filmmaker João César Monteiro (recently dead, btw...) has received a funding of 1 500 000 € to complete on of his last movies back in 1999. When the movie came out, there was an enourmous hype, because it was public money, after all. The movie he made came out with no image: the guy completelly erased the image, leaving nothing but the sound, and thus making it seem like a radio soap opera. It was a national scandall, of course, for people didn't appreciated the choices he had made with the contributors money. It'll remain this way: the public pays to be pleased. That's just the way it is. Movies will have to keep on satisfying the basic need for entertainment if they want to be widely known. If they don't, they won't be able to recieve such amounts of money to be made. Both of them exist, as I exemplified above, so where's the problem?
It's a thin red line between them (note: Art & Entertainment). Not that different.
I think there's a obvious gap between them.
When I think about an aestethic experience, it is something that fills me with awe, and leaves me with a feeling of contemplation or fulfilment, inspiration. Like seeing an astounding view from a mountain-top, or a drawing that is so fascinating it makes you gasp for air, or hearing a song that fills your whole body etc.
While entertainment is more like something that makes me laugh for the moment, or keeps me from thinking for a while, or makes me forget some of my worries for the moment.
How would you rate Magnolia, then? Or "Thin Red Line", btw. ;)
There's definitely art in everything, if you want to see it that way.
Check human history and things around you. Things are just not art-critic oriented or something, that's the point. :wink:
Yes indeed. There is art in murder, violence, war, everything. It is right. I am aware of that, but the reason I criticise 'modern' filmmaking is because of it's non-artistic, profit-based point of view.

It's always been that way, go read a movie industry history book. :)

You might really like a movie named "Être et Avoir", btw. It's just been released here, but it's a 2002'er. Seen it a few days ago and thought it was great. (it's a low budget one, for sure... harder to make something cheaper than this one). Hope it's available in Sweden.

Guest

Post by Guest » 4 Mar 2004, 09:15

ok new all time low for movies is "the master of disguise"

i laughed twice and it was SOOOOOOOOOO boring.... the guy is such a bad actor it really pisses me off :evil:


biggest waste of $3.30 ive ever seen

User avatar
insane guy
Kuski
Posts: 1656
Joined: 22 May 2002, 20:53
Contact:

Post by insane guy » 4 Mar 2004, 10:19

ok these good movies i saw lately:
"when the wind blows" its actually quite good and also shocking...
"the isle" is very bizarre - i love movies where you can fall into some kind of trance (?) or something...
takashi miike - dead or alive i always wanted a end like this in a serious movie
...also some (old) jackie chan movies are quite amusing....

edit: one of the worst i ever saw was "second name" a hoped all the time that it should end... over an hour of fuckin bullshi...
"Every night, me go to sleep, me have wet dream..."

User avatar
chux
Kuski
Posts: 2636
Joined: 27 Aug 2002, 22:59
Location: Elmaville, UK

Post by chux » 5 Mar 2004, 20:06

All old Jackie Chan films are amusing! Get them all
I dream of a world where chickens can cross the road without their motives being questioned.
Image
Hi! I'm a signature virus. Copy me into your signature to help me spread.

User avatar
Xhomaz
Kuski
Posts: 590
Joined: 30 Nov 2002, 17:38
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Post by Xhomaz » 8 Mar 2004, 12:20

Best movies:

Minority report
Bone collector
The shining

Worst movie:

Vertical Limit
Team LOS website
I'll stop stabbing when you stop screaming

User avatar
Napoleon
Kuski
Posts: 1333
Joined: 10 Sep 2002, 18:26
Location: õ,õ

Post by Napoleon » 15 Mar 2004, 23:01

best movies:

LOTR's
Matrix's

worst movies:

the van damme movies
and the steven seagal movies

User avatar
8-ball
39mins club
Posts: 4481
Joined: 9 May 2003, 13:30
Team: MiE
Location: Riga, Latvia

Post by 8-ball » 16 Mar 2004, 10:55

I would like to change topic a bit -> Best and Worst Horror Movies

My opinion:
--Best--
1) Ghost Ship - Must be one of the greatest movies ever, real scary feeling when watching at midnight or later, must admit that I bought it on DVD too just to watch again.

2) Poltergeist (all parts)- Almost the same feelings as above, for some reason this gets 2nd place.

3) Candyman (all parts) - These were one of the first horror movies I've ever seen and I still like them.

--Worst--
Nat that many, but a few like Scream - Dunno why it is always marked as "horror movie", cuz it is leik meat meat meat teen movie... Horrible, not horror movie. I also don' t like those meat horror movies where there is only kill kill kill, those are a bit more leik thrillers.
39:37,91

User avatar
Crazy
The Höylä
Posts: 1057
Joined: 20 Aug 2002, 14:38
Location: Uppsala, Sweden Hoyling: Retired

Post by Crazy » 16 Mar 2004, 12:57

Best: LOTR, Star Wars

Worst: Troll 2, Rymdinvasion i Lappland
ARTISTRY is in the eye of the Beholder -||- TT Höylä Mission: 10.48.43 -||- Best Times: Tutorial1 -||- höylä
Image

User avatar
Kopaka
39mins club
Posts: 6509
Joined: 23 May 2002, 13:59
Team: LAME
Location: In a northern danish city beating YOUR record.
Contact:

Post by Kopaka » 16 Mar 2004, 13:10

Best: LOTR, Star Wars, Road Trip, Jurassic Park

teajay
Donator duck
Posts: 10041
Joined: 3 Apr 2003, 17:53

Post by teajay » 16 Mar 2004, 17:50

I pretty enjoyed Exorcist during 2 AM all lights turnt off.

User avatar
SveinR
Moporator
Posts: 5408
Joined: 21 May 2002, 08:05
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Post by SveinR » 16 Mar 2004, 21:00

8-ball wrote:--Worst--
Nat that many, but a few like Scream - Dunno why it is always marked as "horror movie", cuz it is leik meat meat meat teen movie... Horrible, not horror movie.
Scream is not, nor is it supposed to be, a horror movie. It's supposed to be a parody on the horror movie genre.
Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil?
Or for the vultures who thirst for blood and oil?
Rules | FAQ

teajay
Donator duck
Posts: 10041
Joined: 3 Apr 2003, 17:53

Post by teajay » 16 Mar 2004, 21:33

But some bad movie is Hellraiser: Hellseeker, and also Jason-X.
Totally waste of time. :?

J-sim
39mins club
Posts: 834
Joined: 1 Sep 2002, 16:48

Post by J-sim » 17 Mar 2004, 00:05

SveinR wrote:
8-ball wrote:--Worst--
Nat that many, but a few like Scream - Dunno why it is always marked as "horror movie", cuz it is leik meat meat meat teen movie... Horrible, not horror movie.
Scream is not, nor is it supposed to be, a horror movie. It's supposed to be a parody on the horror movie genre.
That must be Scary-movie you are thinking of :?:

User avatar
Crazy
The Höylä
Posts: 1057
Joined: 20 Aug 2002, 14:38
Location: Uppsala, Sweden Hoyling: Retired

Post by Crazy » 17 Mar 2004, 08:10

no, Scary movie says it's a humourous horror movie! Watched it like 5 days ago and it was said so in the newspaper.
Though, of course, u cannot trust the news :?
ARTISTRY is in the eye of the Beholder -||- TT Höylä Mission: 10.48.43 -||- Best Times: Tutorial1 -||- höylä
Image

User avatar
zworqy
Kuski
Posts: 3706
Joined: 19 May 2002, 23:17
Location: Lilla Edet, Sweden
Contact:

Post by zworqy » 17 Mar 2004, 11:34

Scream: Parody of horror
Scary Movie: Parody of Scream

// teh scary movie fan
<Fihlvein> another case of zworqy-is-always-right closed i guess
<yoosef> zworqy doesnt suck at anything

User avatar
SveinR
Moporator
Posts: 5408
Joined: 21 May 2002, 08:05
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Post by SveinR » 17 Mar 2004, 15:48

Yeah, Zworqy's got it right.
Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil?
Or for the vultures who thirst for blood and oil?
Rules | FAQ

J-sim
39mins club
Posts: 834
Joined: 1 Sep 2002, 16:48

Post by J-sim » 17 Mar 2004, 15:56

damn I thought Scream was deadserious (just very sucky then)... guess there is another dimension to it

Juzam
38mins club
Posts: 242
Joined: 9 Dec 2002, 09:40
Location: Kokkola

Post by Juzam » 18 Mar 2004, 10:39

Juzam wrote:Teh besterestest movies : Braveheart, Lotr 1,2,3 ,The ring
Suck0rs : Jeepers Creeperes1 , Jason X, Kung pow
Saw jeepers creepers2. Sucked as much as 1.
Saw ghostship too. It was ok
Image
---Juzam---

User avatar
Crazy
The Höylä
Posts: 1057
Joined: 20 Aug 2002, 14:38
Location: Uppsala, Sweden Hoyling: Retired

Post by Crazy » 18 Mar 2004, 11:22

Crazy wrote:Best: LOTR, Star Wars

Worst: Troll 2, Rymdinvasion i Lappland
I also watched Kung Pow. Was leik worst movie I've ever seen. Freind of mine recommended. gotta klLL him :?
Yesterday I watch dinnerrush. Not recommended when u'r hungry but very nice film! Though not a favourite
ARTISTRY is in the eye of the Beholder -||- TT Höylä Mission: 10.48.43 -||- Best Times: Tutorial1 -||- höylä
Image

teajay
Donator duck
Posts: 10041
Joined: 3 Apr 2003, 17:53

Post by teajay » 18 Mar 2004, 16:44

Juzam wrote: Saw ghostship too. It was ok
I saw Ghostship and 13 Ghosts too, but these were just like the same movie, only difference was the place where the story happened.
I think those movies really suck.

J-sim
39mins club
Posts: 834
Joined: 1 Sep 2002, 16:48

Post by J-sim » 18 Mar 2004, 16:53

Crazy wrote:
Crazy wrote:Best: LOTR, Star Wars

Worst: Troll 2, Rymdinvasion i Lappland
I also watched Kung Pow. Was leik worst movie I've ever seen. Freind of mine recommended. gotta klLL him :?
Yesterday I watch dinnerrush. Not recommended when u'r hungry but very nice film! Though not a favourite
Kung Pow is SOOOOO funny, they take that genre to the absolute limit of goofyness :D

Post Reply