It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
orcishgamer: The Chronicles of Riddick. I am so tired of The Heroes Journey it's nice to see a film that ignores major portions of that whole formula entirely.

Plus, the movie is just weirdly awesome.
Great movie. I must be one of the few people who liked it better than Pitch Black.

avatar
Leroux: I haven't watched Antichrist, but from your description I have trouble figuring out what exactly it is that was bothering you. Were you turned on or did you feel uneasy? And in case it's the latter (because obviously you found it "weird"), what makes you think the director's intention was for you to be turned on and not to feel uneasy? Like I said, I haven't watched the movie and chances are that I wouldn't like it either, but I always imagined it as some kind of "horror" movie in a grotesque way, and if that's true, an explicit sex scene that alienates you from sex instead of entertaining you or turning you on would make perfect sense.

Anyway, the only Lars von Trier movie that I liked so far was "The Boss of it All", although (or because?) that's a rather unspectacular one without outrageous provocations for their own sake.
I wasn't turned on, because I wasn't in a frame of mind to be turned on.

I was watching the movie and trying to take it all in.

Can't really do that if my mind is fixated on mating now can I?

Uneasy might not have been the right description for it either.

More like: "It that really William Dafoe's privates? No way... in the U.S, that would be the death of his career" and after that "This feels gratuitous. Great, I'm watching the director's sexual fantasy. Hope he wasn't jerking off while filming this."

I suppose the last thought might have been somewhat arousing had the director been a woman.
Post edited November 19, 2012 by Magnitus
avatar
Magnitus: ~snip~
Well, to me it sounds like he was aiming for either grotesque or provocative but failed at both. In any case, I don't think it's likely that I will find out one day by watching it myself. ;)
Rocky V is a horrible rehash of the original movie with actors lacking any skill at all. Story and all is fine, just as it was when I saw it as the original Rocky. The rest is atrocious. You could of course argue all the Rockys are the same after 2, and I sure wouldnt try and stop you.

Personally, I think Fifth Element gets a bad name. If you can get past the costume design, its one of my favorite action flicks.

I also think its important to draw the line between "enjoyable" and "good" with any of these kinds of argument. Many people might define Citizen Kane as good but not particualry enjoyable while Fifth Element could be the exact inverse.
avatar
muttly13: Personally, I think Fifth Element gets a bad name. If you can get past the costume design, its one of my favorite action flicks.
There's Milla Jovovich in three stripes of duct tape in that movie, how can you not love the costume design?
avatar
muttly13: I also think its important to draw the line between "enjoyable" and "good" with any of these kinds of argument. Many people might define Citizen Kane as good but not particualry enjoyable while Fifth Element could be the exact inverse.
In my opinion, saying "I enjoyed the movie, but it wasn't good" doesn't make a lick of sense. Kind of implies a certain insecurity about one's taste, or at least a highly unusual definition of "good". Don't wanna be rude, just don't get the sentiment at all.
avatar
muttly13: Personally, I think Fifth Element gets a bad name.
It does? It seems to me it's often overlooked or not particularly well known, but it's a great movie. But I haven't really seen many people giving it a bad name/maligning it.

I also agree with some of the movies previously suggested: Alien 3 (the restored version), The Postman (I believe it's based on David Brin's novel of the same name, which is a fairly decent read, actually), Sucker Punch, the Chronicles of Riddick (no, Magnitus, you're not the only one that liked it better than Pitch Black).

Other movies I like that are either considered 'bad' or are often overlooked: Solaris, Fletch, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, 2010, War of the Worlds (yeah, the Speilberg remake), Reign of Fire, Let Me In, John Carpenter's Vampires.
avatar
Ivory&Gold: ...
It just means something can be enjoyable despite being flawed, predictable, cheaply made, badly acted, whatever. Lots of people enjoy cheap b-movies, which have cheesy acting, bad special effects, sometimes bad pacing, and so on, but have a certain appeal. It's like enjoying a Big Mac despite knowing it's terrible food.

As for the Citizen Kane and gamers thing, would it not just be because your sample is people you've spoken to online, and they'll usually be gamers? It can be pretty misleading, just like how I may say "Americans tend to..." or "Americans say..." when I'm mainly going of Americans I've spoken to online, and are therefore typically male, 18-30 and probably pretty geeky.
I enjoyed Troy a lot, despite many bad reviews it received.
avatar
SimonG: I also rather have a fun, entertaining simple movie than to watch some pretentious crap for three hours
Yep. I don't mind films that make you think, but the implication that pretentious crap is more worthwhile than watching explosions and gun fights for two hours, just because it's 'cerebral', really smegs me off.

avatar
muttly13: Personally, I think Fifth Element gets a bad name.
To be fair, I don't think it's so much the film that gets a bad name, as it is Chris Tucker, who... doesn't exactly ruin it, but wouldn't be missed if he wasn't there. Despite that, it's easily one of my favourite films.
avatar
Export: It just means something can be enjoyable despite being flawed, predictable, cheaply made, badly acted, whatever.
I understand, but that neatly circumvents my whole point. I can enjoy something despite it being flawed, predictable, cheaply made and badly acted, but that simply means I think it's good despite being flawed, predictable, cheaply made and badly acted. I am self-confident enough to believe that every movie I enjoy is good. Not necessarily intellectual, or technically brilliant, or innovative... but good.

Example. One of the few blockbuster movies of recent times I really enjoyed is Jackass Number Two. It's certainly intellectually pretty much bankrupt and as low-brow as it gets, but it's also very funny, bold, unpredictable, clever in the way it plays with its medium and often successfully Dada in a way many Dadaists never would have dreamed of. In short, it's a very good movie. And I would argue that it is better than the technically brilliant Tokyo Story, widely regarded as one of the best films ever made.

Divorcing enjoyable from good in a strict way means belittling oneself.

avatar
Export: As for the Citizen Kane and gamers thing, would it not just be because your sample is people you've spoken to online, and they'll usually be gamers? It can be pretty misleading, just like how I may say "Americans tend to..." or "Americans say..." when I'm mainly going of Americans I've spoken to online, and are therefore typically male, 18-30 and probably pretty geeky.
Nope, the Citizen Kane thing comes up far too unproportionally often to be easily dismissed. I suspect that it has to do with gamers wanting the medium of their choice to be more widely accepted and appreciated, that it is a reaction to the "games are for kids" mindset that's still prevalent. They want their Citizen Kane moment, to transform the public opinion in a way that they think the movie did. Only that, of course, movies were regarded as an important art form almost from the very beginning, even by institutions such as the Vatican, the American President or Salvador Dali. Meaning by pretty much everyone, from the most conservative to the most avant-garde. And Kane is just a part of the evolution of the medium of film, not some giant leap forward.

While I appreciate the intention behind it all, it's still based on false assumptions and besides feeds into the whole "Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever made" bullshit absolutist mindset which I dislike. And it's dismissive towards my very favourite film, which is 13 years older than Kane. Which isn't to say that I didn't very much enjoy Citizen Kane (meaning, yep, I think its' very good)!
avatar
granny: Yep. I don't mind films that make you think, but the implication that pretentious crap is more worthwhile than watching explosions and gun fights for two hours, just because it's 'cerebral', really smegs me off.
People watching "pretentious crap" rather than explosions and gun fights is indeed more worthwhile... to me. People who have been exposed to high levels of "pretentious crap" tend to be more interesting in my opinion, and since the only things I care about in other people are their looks and how interesting they are to me, and there isn't so much you can do about the looks, I'm all for more "pretentious crap"!
Post edited November 19, 2012 by Ivory&Gold
'Dune' - the David Lynch film.

So many things are wrong with it. The dialogue is stilted and awkward, and it's far too short. On the other hand, its atmosphere does a great job of absorbing you. The score is great, and it's got Sting! And Patrick Stewart!

I've yet to see the more recently made TV series, btw.
avatar
monoloomer: 'Dune' - the David Lynch film.
Speaking of Lynch, I think the much hated "Fire Walk with Me" is quite nice. Ridiculous and misogynist in places, it also has its moments of beauty and spellbinding strangeness.
avatar
monoloomer: 'Dune' - the David Lynch film.
avatar
Ivory&Gold: Speaking of Lynch, I think the much hated "Fire Walk with Me" is quite nice. Ridiculous and misogynist in places, it also has its moments of beauty and spellbinding strangeness.
My my, it's been at least a decade since I watched Fire Walk with Me. I do remember being puzzled by its negative critical reception though.
avatar
Export: It just means something can be enjoyable despite being flawed, predictable, cheaply made, badly acted, whatever.
avatar
Ivory&Gold: I understand, but that neatly circumvents my whole point. I can enjoy something despite it being flawed, predictable, cheaply made and badly acted, but that simply means I think it's good despite being flawed, predictable, cheaply made and badly acted. I am self-confident enough to believe that every movie I enjoy is good. Not necessarily intellectual, or technically brilliant, or innovative... but good. ...
Thats not self-confidence, thats assuming your subjective opinion should be used in place of another. While seeing something you do not enjoy... The English Patient for example, I can recognize that many of the people involved were at the top of their craft when making it, I just didnt enjoy it. Killer Clowns from Outer Space I can assume was mailed in by any number of people involved in its creation who got lucky that some people actually enjoyed it.
avatar
muttly13: Thats not self-confidence, thats assuming your subjective opinion should be used in place of another.
Surely if you enjoyed a movie then it is your subjective opinion that it is good? What's the point in making such a strict distinction between enjoyable (in your opinion) and good (in your opinion)? That we're talking about opinions goes without saying anyway. "I enjoyed the flick, but it sucked" is such a glaring contradiction that I can't help but wonder what causes people to accept it.