BF2S Forums Rate the last movie you've seen

here you go jay. go nuts. your intelligence astounds me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Au … d_nominees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_En … nd_winners
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fr … d_nominees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_It … d_nominees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_La … d_nominees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Po … d_nominees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sc … d_nominees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sp … d_nominees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_As … d_nominees

this year ALONE, i.e. in the last few day's media coverage, there have been two putative 'furors' because a prominent latin american actress and that french chick from amour were not recognized. SUCH AN AMERICAN AFFAIR. it would almost be funny if your tone wasn't adamant and smartass. i had a point. you just derailed the conversation for 5 posts advertising nothing but your complete stupidity.

well then you don't have to post, do you? i post something you don't like, because it offends your prissy little american-intellectual-self-fancying image, and then you incessantly and idiotically 'argue' against me for 5 pages, about something you painfully, obviously know absolutely NOTHING about. why? to try and retain a whimsical impression you had of yourself? american film is shit. spielberg makes dirge. accusing the oscars of lacking 'integrity' because SPR didn't get best film is laughable. the oscars have perfect integrity - just they don't have any pretension beyond being a rotating wheel of celebrity hype and adoration. it's not serious about film. if it was, plenty of other films - films i listed in my first post - would have won. and they weren't excluded because they aren't "american". you are just a blithering idiot. stop interjecting with your bone-headed tone in discussions you clearly have zero business in.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

1998 saw movies released by ingmar bergman, ken loach, lars von trier, angelopoulous, and terry gilliam (non-filmies will know that one: fear and loathing in las vegas). to put spielberg on a cinematic pedestal with any of those directors is fucking funny.

well to be fair spielberg has made some pretty great films. He's not a bad or mediocre director by any stretch.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

You're great at attacking the straw man argument, but my point was that Saving Private Ryan was a better movie than Shakespeare in Love.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,273037,00.html

But was it really a better movie, and simply just wore out voters? Ask me what I'd rather watch, and it won't be Private Ryan. I've got to sit through Normandy invasions enough every other time a WW2 movie comes out without sitting through the same one twice.

Justifying the choice by saying Spielberg can't keep winning because it's Spielberg, just reinforces my point that the Oscars lack integrity.

Giving a second Newberry Medal to a children's author who re-releases the same book with a few changed names and plot points would seem disingenuous.

Equating a director / producer to a children's book writer.

Good one chief.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

the only oscar nominated film i've seen all the way through is django

Argo is a hunk of shit - totally unexemplary.

You walked out of the cinema, watched part of a download on your laptop, or are basing your opinion on other people's opinion?

the second.

You can't judge a film unless you've seen it in the cinema - IMO, there's enough difference between a cinema and a 60" plasma TV to change the character of a film, never mind a laptop.

Unless you're going solely on the wordiness of the script, in which case you're a dick.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-02-27 00:57:10)

So why do people still bother with cinema, and not just watch everything on their iPads? Or why do people bother with making films the hard way when all you need for youtube is a 1080p camera?
To say it makes no difference is absurd, they're made for the big screen and thats where they should be seen.

Your book analogy is lame, Ulysses would be the same in braille or via Kindle, cinema is quite different - the delivery is important, more so than the typeface the printer picked.

(I haven't dismissed dance music, I like dance music, just not your idea of dance music)

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-02-27 02:58:44)

does anyone use a site like mediahound to find movies? http://www.mediahound.com/discover/

Dilbert_X wrote:

You can't judge a film unless you've seen it in the cinema

I can and I do.

Unless you're going solely on the wordiness of the script, in which case you're a dick.

Isn't script like, you know, a significant part of any feature film? Enough that shitty dubs throw me off of foreign films if I try to watch them that way.

IMO, there's enough difference between a cinema and a 60" plasma TV to change the character of a film, never mind a laptop.

The cinema experience has nostalgic value, at least for me. I still go because one, I enjoy it and two, I want to support box office numbers of movies I want to see keep being made. That said, I'm perfectly capable of being absorbed in a film just as much on a 60" plasma TV, 30" CRT, 26" LCD or even 11" laptop. I've even sat through a couple UMD movies at a hotel on my PSP. Did the environment really diminish what I took away of the movies? No.

Theaters aren't all roses. If you don't go at the right time, enjoy squealing babies, little kids kicking the back of your seat and potheads who giggle at every sudden movement.

Pfft, you can't see the richness and detail of the cinematography, the nuances of the actors performance or even hear the depth of the speech - all of which are part of the craft of the film-maker - when you're looking at stick figures on a tiny screen and listening via a half-inch speaker.

If not then why didn't all the directors making films to satisfy their artistic urges use Super-8 or crayon flip-books?

Come on, you know this, its super-simple.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-02-28 02:27:09)

Depends, if the director intended you to see the pores on the actor's face and you're not because you're watching on your PSP then you're missing part of the effect aren't you?

And sometimes 'spectacle' is part of the intended effect and an integral part of a film, even if hipsters sneer at it for some reason.

I think I need to rewatch this in HD:

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-02-28 03:10:01)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Depends, if the director intended you to see the pores on the actor's face and you're not because you're watching on your PSP then you're missing part of the effect aren't you?

And sometimes 'spectacle' is part of the intended effect and an integral part of a film, even if hipsters sneer at it for some reason.

this is such an inane post. you can tell you are straining to make an argument, because all of your counter-points are tortured reductio ad absurdum's. yes, it is unfortunate if you have to watch a film on a "PSP", or "stick figures on a tiny screen with a half-inch speaker". but nobody is making arguments for watching feature-length films on PSP screens, are they? make a real fucking argument, for christ's sake. stop setting up straw men and then burning them for your own satisfaction, ahead of time. there is a whole scale of technology (especially nowdays) between the 1930's-esque monopoly of the cinema reel to the home environment. what exactly is missing from a person watching a film on a large HDTV with hi-fi speakers? and where do you draw the line, or the crucial distinction, on this inane argument? where do you arbitrarily distinguish between a 'valid' film watching experience and a not-technologically-capable one? do you need the large canvas? perhaps you need the cigarette blotches? perhaps you need a folding chair? in arguing for what is 'essential' about film as an artform, you should be able to make a convincing argument for all of the extra-artistic/contextual elements of the cinema - as both location and as a trip/experience/ritual. you can't do that, though. it's too vague, too nebulous. that's because nothing inherent in the cinema is essential to film. i can watch my favourite films in good-quality on a decently sized monitor with more-than-adequate sound hardware. today, in 2013, this is even easier than ever, what with the downsizing in size and affordability of televisual technology. you could have maybe made an argument along these lines in 1950... but not now. 'film' as an artform has been brought resoundingly out of the arthouse cinema elite and the franchise-cinema blockbuster crowd. and it's a good job, too. it frees the artform of all sorts of economic constraints (only a small and affluent minority can reasonably afford to go and see every film that appeals to them in a franchised cinema).

as for "hipsters" disliking the spectacle... yawn. this is you being you to a boring extreme. again. what do hipsters have to do with a critique of the spectacle? the concept of the spectacle goes back in aesthetics for almost 200 years. were they hipsters in ruskin's day? whenever you talk about a subject you evidently know little about, you resort to these idiotic hipster comments. ditto with john galt - so you're keeping good company there, in this mightily intellectual debate. there's nothing hipsterish about distrusting spectacle, especially films that are ALL spectacle: they mask a complete lack of content and aesthetic/artistic merit with the ephemeral trickery of technological invention. i.e. explosions, 3d effects, silly novelties like that. there's nothing artistic or of real value in this - they just overwhelm the senses and cause a temporary impression (in both senses of the word). you feel short-changed when you leave the cinema, though. because it's just that: a fucking spectacle.

Not sure if any of you have seen it, but Larry Crowne was quite good (I know it's a bit old, but it's been on my watchlist for a while now). A nice "feel good" flick (not sure if that's a good description at all, though) with plenty of light moments in there. Stars Tom Hanks, directed by Tom Hanks, written by Tom Hanks. Good movie and even Julia Roberts has a few good moments. Bryan Cranston's little bits were hilarious. If you like laughing at stereotypes, it's a fun movie.

skyfall 7/10 def a slow one... and it's all about 'the end' so it's depressing. Javier Bardem in this movie was a great bad guy, i can't stop thinking about how the yellow hair and brow look so bizarre on him. Spoiler (highlight to read):
the end of the movie as M and the caretaker slipped away from the burning mansion they used flashlights that gave them away. The fuck. Why did they use flashlights if they are on the run?  Also, it was never revealed HOW Bond lived after being shot off the top of a train above a deep canyon. Did anyone get that?

Last edited by Kimmmmmmmmmmmm (2013-02-28 10:36:46)