Dizzy_Bull, I see now that you were the dude that could have made the essence of Star Wars come to life. You should have directed that shit. I was hoping for the death of JarJarBinks too
I want to see 'Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge Of The Sith' again so I am "minus the hype", but I must say I thought it was excellent, better than 'Star Wars: Episode VI - Return Of The Jedi' (Special Edition) not as good as 'Star Wars: Episode VI - Return Of The Jedi' (Original) lol
Worst movie I saw in 2005 at ye olde cinema was 'Be Cool' easily the least funny so called "comedy" film I have ever seen in my life. Probably the worst film I have seen at the cinema too. No one in the cinema laughed once (Ouch!) Thank God for Christina Milian's cute little face (And rest) though that kept me from killing myself.
Worst movie I saw in 2005 at ye olde cinema was 'Be Cool' easily the least funny so called "comedy" film I have ever seen in my life. Probably the worst film I have seen at the cinema too. No one in the cinema laughed once (Ouch!) Thank God for Christina Milian's cute little face (And rest) though that kept me from killing myself.
that movie was prob the worst shit i have seen yeah you know its bad when the rock is the best actor in a movie
dizzy that was right on.. jar jar really needed to get KILLED i nthe most heinous way to redeem the crap lucas has passed off for Star WArs
additionally flying r2d2, lightsaber yoda, that dumbass kid from episode one, flying slave dealer bug, hayden, and Lucas himself all should have been killed in a horrible green screen accident.
i don't think i've ever seen worse movies than epidoses one and two so i've been holdign off on episode 3, but i am tempted if only to provide closure to the traumatic raping of my beloved childhood memories.
them im gonna get a tear tatooed on my cheek and pour a 40 on the sidewalk.
Why hasn't "The Watchmen" been made into a movie yet despite decades of interest? Because THAT SHIT DOESN'T TRANSLATE OFF THE PAGE. And there's nothing wrong with that. Somethings are better left in their original form and there's not a need to cannibalize everything into a movie. "Sin City" was a great idea for a film but in the end, I just don't think it pulled it off. Not remotely.
I agree with what you are saying here, and I've said this to many people. However, Sin City was a comic that was written and drawn to look, sound, and feel like a noir film. In this manner it translated very well to the screen. All the feelings I had reading the comic were brought back when watching the movie.
Sorry, but I can't even pull off one of those, "I respect those who disagree" but I don't. The movie was wack and people who defend it need to get off the pipe. But hey, people on this board seem to think "Sin City" was a cinematic marvel too so clearly, there's no accounting for taste.
Anyone that's read the graphic novels (read comics) would be able to appreciate Sin City. Besides that, I think Sin City stands alone as far as cinematics go.
I read graphic novels/comics. I partake in what works...WITH THE FORM. That doesn't mean that shit translate to the screen. Hard boiled scripting works fine on the page but it's another thing entirely when you have actors delivering lines that sound like a parody of Hammett prose. The one thing Sin City was able to get was a sense of visual style down but if I wanted that, I'd just go back and look at the original Frank Miller.
Why hasn't "The Watchmen" been made into a movie yet despite decades of interest? Because THAT SHIT DOESN'T TRANSLATE OFF THE PAGE. And there's nothing wrong with that. Somethings are better left in their original form and there's not a need to cannibalize everything into a movie. "Sin City" was a great idea for a film but in the end, I just don't think it pulled it off. Not remotely.
Note the difference between translate and transliterate. Sin City was not a translation of the novels, more like a transliteration onto the screen.
the Death Of Jar Jar Binks should have been in that movie to make it better. I wanted to see him catch a bad one in the worst way. LIke he'd be all "jibba jabba yousa people gonna d--- POW! POW! POW![/b]"
But hey, people on this board seem to think "Sin City" was a cinematic marvel too so clearly, there's no accounting for taste.
Batches, plaese.
Oliver, how to put it politely? People who actually make movies tended to be impressed with Sin City as a "cinematic marvel." That movie cost 45 million to make and was shot on a single stage in nine weeks. (Hopefully I don't need to explain to you how and why that's an incredible achievement.) Motherfucking Elijah Wood and Mickey Rourke never even met each other during shooting! This is straight from Rodriguez at a screening I saw the other night. Dude glows like a 50,000 watt bulb. He's helping to define a new form of filmless filmmaking and it's exciting. You don't know fuck about shit if you're throwing around the word cinema and dissing this movie like that. Cheesy dialogue, you felt unengaged? Fine, me too. But your comments on movies... Makes you sound like there's nothing you don't feel qualified to pass supreme judgement on.
And I love how many of you guys talk about director this director that... Like the director is a dude who comes on a set, waves a magic wand and creates a movie. A lot of people are involved. David Cronenberg is a hack who's underperformed on cool material all his career. Most folks don't see that A History of Violence works so well because the screenplay is almost completely foolproof. People are surprised Terry Gilliam wasn't able to pull off Brothers Grimm? Christ.
I get upset when people shit on impressive but ultimately retarded movies (for some of you Star Wars, for me the humorless, pointless Batman Begins Forever Again). Dissing a movie wholesale is rarely a good look but hey, taking a nuanced view takes some effort.
OK Here's my worst movie of the year cause it nearly made me seasick and me and my buddy agreed to leave after 15 minutes -- Domino. Incredible waste of talent and money, an incoherent career low for all involved. I'm holding off on my best of list until I've actually seen them all, which should be soon since I got screeners...
I guess I haven't really seen this, but whenever the preview came on I couldn't decide whether to walk out of the theatre or just shoot myself in the head right there.
OK Here's my worst movie of the year cause it nearly made me seasick and me and my buddy agreed to leave after 15 minutes -- Domino[/b]. Incredible waste of talent and money, an incoherent career low for all involved. I'm holding off on my best of list until I've actually seen them all, which should be soon since I got screeners...
Holy shit!!! You're absolutely right (about sin city too) but Domino WAS the worst movie that I saw this year hands fucking down!!! Rourke was the only reason I went to see this peice of shit. I'm glad I had free passes.
Don't be polite if you don't want to. I teach college classes on film, ok? But NOTABLY, not filmmaking (in other words, I don't teach production).
I am more than willing to grant that something like "Sin City" has merits from a filmaking point of view, including Rodriguez' consistent ability to come in with the half the budget of other directors yet with all the visual bells and whistles. I think dude could make better choices on what films he makes, but whatever: I'm not really knocking his hustle. He's paid out the ass on "Spy Kids" and I respect that shit.
But my critique is that "Sin City," for all its "achivements" on the production level...is still not a very good film in terms of basics like acting, script, narrative development, etc. So what if Rourke and Wood never met each other on set? These days, you don't even need physical actors - the two could have recorded their dialogue in a studio and they oculd have CGI-ed the rest in its entireity. I'm not really blown away by "filmless filmmaking." Call me old fashioned, I kind of like cinema that is successful is 1) telling a story and 2) taking advantage of the visual medium but not sacrificing 1) just to dabble in 2).
So I'm cool if you want to knock me on dis-appreciating the notion of "cinema". After all, I'm not exactly what'd you call a fan of "Birth of a Nation" but I can understand why its important cinematically in terms of Griffith's innovations. To me though, the most satisfying films have to do with satisfying stories and even just an emotional palette (see sloowwwwww ass Japanese or Taiwanese film for examples). "Sin City" was none of that. I don't really get what the point is in lauding its cinematic qualities are if it fails otherwise.
I'm sure we can all think of examples of musical albums that were innovative from a production stand-point but we'd never want to listen to. Is it still a "good" album?
But hey, people on this board seem to think "Sin City" was a cinematic marvel too so clearly, there's no accounting for taste.
Batches, plaese.
Oliver, how to put it politely? People who actually make movies tended to be impressed with Sin City as a "cinematic marvel." That movie cost 45 million to make and was shot on a single stage in nine weeks. (Hopefully I don't need to explain to you how and why that's an incredible achievement.) Motherfucking Elijah Wood and Mickey Rourke never even met each other during shooting! This is straight from Rodriguez at a screening I saw the other night. Dude glows like a 50,000 watt bulb. He's helping to define a new form of filmless filmmaking and it's exciting. You don't know fuck about shit if you're throwing around the word cinema and dissing this movie like that. Cheesy dialogue, you felt unengaged? Fine, me too. But your comments on movies... Makes you sound like there's nothing you don't feel qualified to pass supreme judgement on.
And I love how many of you guys talk about director this director that... Like the director is a dude who comes on a set, waves a magic wand and creates a movie. A lot of people are involved. David Cronenberg is a hack who's underperformed on cool material all his career. Most folks don't see that A History of Violence works so well because the screenplay is almost completely foolproof. People are surprised Terry Gilliam wasn't able to pull off Brothers Grimm? Christ.
I get upset when people shit on impressive but ultimately retarded movies (for some of you Star Wars, for me the humorless, pointless Batman Begins Forever Again). Dissing a movie wholesale is rarely a good look but hey, taking a nuanced view takes some effort.
OK Here's my worst movie of the year cause it nearly made me seasick and me and my buddy agreed to leave after 15 minutes -- Domino. Incredible waste of talent and money, an incoherent career low for all involved. I'm holding off on my best of list until I've actually seen them all, which should be soon since I got screeners...
Just to add, I'm pretty sure that most of the people lauding "Sin City" weren't talking about what went into making the film, rather, they're speaking on their enjoyment of what they got out of it.
Whatup for YOUR fav movie pics for 2005? Plaese to post in the Best Movies thread. You're blowing up the "worst" thread, but I'm interested to know what you liked over the course of the year.
One rule: Just to make it interesting, no Asian releases!
well as i stated before im no fan of Robert Rodriguez.. i think he's been overrated since the OG desperado came out.
im also no fan of frank miller, graphic novels et al, or even much film noir for that matter.
but sin city still got the job done.
i laude it for being entertaining, no holds bared, un compormising, accurate to the source material (if not better) and visually stunning.
its not comparable to a complete and utter mind melting masterpeace like Nobody Knows, that hits you on so many more levels, all of with go much deeper than this. But as a comic book adaptation i'd be hard pressed to think of anything that has ever come close.. other than maybe hellboy, in translating the graphic panel into the moving image.
mickey rourke alone is reason enough to give the movie props.. though seeing elijah wood get eaten alive was worth it as well.
But hey, people on this board seem to think "Sin City" was a cinematic marvel too so clearly, there's no accounting for taste.
Batches, plaese.
Oliver, how to put it politely? People who actually make movies tended to be impressed with Sin City as a "cinematic marvel."
Yeah, Oliver, you have to actually be a filmmaker to appreciate the genius that is Sin City. Kind of like how you have to make beats yourself to appreciate the genius of JayDee's production.
O That was the longest arguement for the "liked it / didn't like it" approach to film studies I've read in quite a while. The thought that you're being paid to teach film is... astonishing.
I don't really get what the point is in lauding its cinematic qualities are if it fails otherwise.
Anything that breaks new ground is "good" in my book. Innovations lead the way to better movies made cheaper. Sin City does a hell of a lot more to democratize & open up filmmaking than any theory class I know about. And people do respond to these things. The speed and efficiency with which this movie was made shows in how it plays. The physical dislocation of greenscreen moviemaking is a huge factor in the movie's undeniable surrealism, which is something I think a lot of simple, non-professor types responded to. It isn't a question of good or bad; if you're in the biz of "film studies" you ought to at least -pretend- to be interested in this stuff if you don't want to get totally found out.
Could SWIII be even more divisive than the MTA strike? Hmmm....
Sorry, but I can't even pull off one of those, "I respect those who disagree" but I don't. The movie was wack and people who defend it need to get off the pipe. But hey, people on this board seem to think "Sin City" was a cinematic marvel too so clearly, there's no accounting for taste.
It's amazing how much style gets over instead of substance these days; all you need to do is throw enough eye candy with a thin layer of "darkness" slathered on top and people are like, "WOW, that was amazing!"
You could call SWIII awesome if A) you really, really, really like lightsaber battles - and I freely admit, the movie overfloweth with some good fight choreography, B) you can overlook a complete absence of even half-assed dialogue, acting, cinematography and narrative arc, and C) you are so desparate to relive your youth that you let the last three minutes (foreshadows of EPs IV-VI) brainwash you in forgetting EPs I-III. I admit, the ending was emotionally powerful but only because it tapped into my nostalgia.
Speaking of which, please to explain: how exactly was this film better than "Return"? Sure, the Ewoks were a mind-blowingly stupid idea but stupider than say...Hayden Christensen's acting? Or saddling the great James Earl Jones with a phrase like, "Where is Padme?" Or having Obi Wan ride a giant, yelping lizard? Or [add in a gazillion more examples here]
Batches, plaese.
Cannonball run 2 and short circuit 2 were better than any of the new star wars...but then again I liked Sin City.
But as a comic book adaptation i'd be hard pressed to think of anything that has ever come close.. other than maybe hellboy, in translating the graphic panel into the moving image.
But as a comic book adaptation i'd be hard pressed to think of anything that has ever come close.. other than maybe hellboy, in translating the graphic panel into the moving image.
Here's one: American Splendor.
did you actualy read american splendour before you saw the movie?
it was alright.. pretty forgettable if you ask me.
ditto for ghost world
and incidently these are usually refered to as
Comix
not graphic novels
that term usually means shit like sandman .. ie over priced "sophisticated" shit for dorks who still sleep in spiderman pj's.
But as a comic book adaptation i'd be hard pressed to think of anything that has ever come close.. other than maybe hellboy, in translating the graphic panel into the moving image.
Here's one: American Splendor.
man, this is a serious cop out. American splendor was not a comic translation, foll. It was about Harvey Pekar's life being turned into a comic.
But as a comic book adaptation i'd be hard pressed to think of anything that has ever come close.. other than maybe hellboy, in translating the graphic panel into the moving image.
Here's one: American Splendor.
man, this is a serious cop out. American splendor was not a comic translation, foll. It was about Harvey Pekar's life being turned into a comic.
HUGE difference. Note it.
exactly
also trying to compare the comix work of pekar / crumb et al to things like batman, watchmen, sin city, fantastic four is akin to comparing harry potter to one of the best movies of the year.
I don't teach film studies or theory. I teach a survey class which deals in film from a sociological perspective. Just so we're clear about this. In any case, I'm not responding to you as a professor - you merely were trying to come at me on some credential card-pulling level so I responded in kind. I'm offering an opinion as an individual who likes movies
And seriously: I am not knocking your perspective on what you're saying here but I truly think it's open to debate whether the average viewer cares about the things you're talking about in terms of the point of view from the consumer. ANd yeah, sure, some consumers are fine with taking spectacle over actual substance. But the folks I know who are filmmakers - most of them lucky enough to have a budget in the six digits, let alone seven or eight, would likely agree with that sentiment even if they respect what Rodriguez is doing.
But this idea that "anything that breaks new ground is 'good'" is problematic on many levels, as well as the idea that "innovations lead the way to better movies made cheaper." I'm not saying you're wrong in the absolute but certainly, that claim is open to much debate.
I've been on an int'l film festival committee now for five years running now so I see A LOT of films by first-time filmmakers come through. And in recent years, the number of submissions has taken off exponentially, and it's very clear why: peole are taking advantage of the affordability of digital shooting and editing.
But improved means of access does not mean that any of these folks are learning the craft of filmmaking better. Any more than the greater ease of access to making hip-hop records has improved hip-hop. Every year, I see DOZENS of examples of simply terrible filmmaking by people who've learned the basics of shooting and editing but can't tell a basic story to save their life.
So what if filmmaking has been more democratized: has that made for qualitatively better films?
I'm not throwing that down as a challenge, I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say here.
How has hip-hop, for example, benefitted from a lower co
O That was the longest arguement for the "liked it / didn't like it" approach to film studies I've read in quite a while. The thought that you're being paid to teach film is... astonishing.
I don't really get what the point is in lauding its cinematic qualities are if it fails otherwise.
Anything that breaks new ground is "good" in my book. Innovations lead the way to better movies made cheaper. Sin City does a hell of a lot more to democratize & open up filmmaking than any theory class I know about. And people do respond to these things. The speed and efficiency with which this movie was made shows in how it plays. The physical dislocation of greenscreen moviemaking is a huge factor in the movie's undeniable surrealism, which is something I think a lot of simple, non-professor types responded to. It isn't a question of good or bad; if you're in the biz of "film studies" you ought to at least -pretend- to be interested in this stuff if you don't want to get totally found out.
But this idea that "anything that breaks new ground is 'good'" is problematic on many levels, as well as the idea that "innovations lead the way to better movies made cheaper." I'm not saying you're wrong in the absolute but certainly, that claim is open to much debate.
cosign that's a majorly slippery slope
at the same time though im not particulalry romantic about "film" as a medium... and the film distro system has long been outdated and overpriced.
Comments
Worst movie I saw in 2005 at ye olde cinema was 'Be Cool' easily the least funny so called "comedy" film I have ever seen in my life. Probably the worst film I have seen at the cinema too. No one in the cinema laughed once (Ouch!) Thank God for Christina Milian's cute little face (And rest) though that kept me from killing myself.
that movie was prob the worst shit i have seen
yeah you know its bad when the rock is the best actor in a movie
additionally flying r2d2, lightsaber yoda, that dumbass kid from episode one, flying slave dealer bug, hayden, and Lucas himself all should have been killed in a horrible green screen accident.
i don't think i've ever seen worse movies than epidoses one and two so i've been holdign off on episode 3, but i am tempted if only to provide closure to the traumatic raping of my beloved childhood memories.
them im gonna get a tear tatooed on my cheek and pour a 40 on the sidewalk.
Sith was better than I and II but that's like saying genital warts is better than syphillis and the clap.
Note the difference between translate and transliterate. Sin City was not a translation of the novels, more like a transliteration onto the screen.
Oliver, how to put it politely? People who actually make movies tended to be impressed with Sin City as a "cinematic marvel." That movie cost 45 million to make and was shot on a single stage in nine weeks. (Hopefully I don't need to explain to you how and why that's an incredible achievement.) Motherfucking Elijah Wood and Mickey Rourke never even met each other during shooting! This is straight from Rodriguez at a screening I saw the other night. Dude glows like a 50,000 watt bulb. He's helping to define a new form of filmless filmmaking and it's exciting. You don't know fuck about shit if you're throwing around the word cinema and dissing this movie like that. Cheesy dialogue, you felt unengaged? Fine, me too. But your comments on movies... Makes you sound like there's nothing you don't feel qualified to pass supreme judgement on.
And I love how many of you guys talk about director this director that... Like the director is a dude who comes on a set, waves a magic wand and creates a movie. A lot of people are involved. David Cronenberg is a hack who's underperformed on cool material all his career. Most folks don't see that A History of Violence works so well because the screenplay is almost completely foolproof. People are surprised Terry Gilliam wasn't able to pull off Brothers Grimm? Christ.
I get upset when people shit on impressive but ultimately retarded movies (for some of you Star Wars, for me the humorless, pointless Batman Begins Forever Again). Dissing a movie wholesale is rarely a good look but hey, taking a nuanced view takes some effort.
OK Here's my worst movie of the year cause it nearly made me seasick and me and my buddy agreed to leave after 15 minutes -- Domino. Incredible waste of talent and money, an incoherent career low for all involved. I'm holding off on my best of list until I've actually seen them all, which should be soon since I got screeners...
UBER TRUTH[/b]
I guess I haven't really seen this, but whenever the preview came on I couldn't decide whether to walk out of the theatre or just shoot myself in the head right there.
Holy shit!!! You're absolutely right (about sin city too) but Domino WAS the worst movie that I saw this year hands fucking down!!! Rourke was the only reason I went to see this peice of shit. I'm glad I had free passes.
^^^what of waste of rosario
best movie of 2002 flashback:
I am more than willing to grant that something like "Sin City" has merits from a filmaking point of view, including Rodriguez' consistent ability to come in with the half the budget of other directors yet with all the visual bells and whistles. I think dude could make better choices on what films he makes, but whatever: I'm not really knocking his hustle. He's paid out the ass on "Spy Kids" and I respect that shit.
But my critique is that "Sin City," for all its "achivements" on the production level...is still not a very good film in terms of basics like acting, script, narrative development, etc. So what if Rourke and Wood never met each other on set? These days, you don't even need physical actors - the two could have recorded their dialogue in a studio and they oculd have CGI-ed the rest in its entireity. I'm not really blown away by "filmless filmmaking." Call me old fashioned, I kind of like cinema that is successful is 1) telling a story and 2) taking advantage of the visual medium but not sacrificing 1) just to dabble in 2).
So I'm cool if you want to knock me on dis-appreciating the notion of "cinema". After all, I'm not exactly what'd you call a fan of "Birth of a Nation" but I can understand why its important cinematically in terms of Griffith's innovations. To me though, the most satisfying films have to do with satisfying stories and even just an emotional palette (see sloowwwwww ass Japanese or Taiwanese film for examples). "Sin City" was none of that. I don't really get what the point is in lauding its cinematic qualities are if it fails otherwise.
I'm sure we can all think of examples of musical albums that were innovative from a production stand-point but we'd never want to listen to. Is it still a "good" album?
Whatup for YOUR fav movie pics for 2005? Plaese to post in the Best Movies thread. You're blowing up the "worst" thread, but I'm interested to know what you liked over the course of the year.
One rule: Just to make it interesting, no Asian releases!
im also no fan of frank miller, graphic novels et al, or even much film noir for that matter.
but sin city still got the job done.
i laude it for being entertaining, no holds bared, un compormising, accurate to the source material (if not better) and visually stunning.
its not comparable to a complete and utter mind melting masterpeace like Nobody Knows, that hits you on so many more levels, all of with go much deeper than this. But as a comic book adaptation i'd be hard pressed to think of anything that has ever come close.. other than maybe hellboy, in translating the graphic panel into the moving image.
mickey rourke alone is reason enough to give the movie props.. though seeing elijah wood get eaten alive was worth it as well.
Yeah, Oliver, you have to actually be a filmmaker to appreciate the genius that is Sin City. Kind of like how you have to make beats yourself to appreciate the genius of JayDee's production.
Are you talking about the Japanese film aka Daremo Shiranai? If so, then yeah, exceptional peice of storytelling.
yes
Anything that breaks new ground is "good" in my book. Innovations lead the way to better movies made cheaper. Sin City does a hell of a lot more to democratize & open up filmmaking than any theory class I know about. And people do respond to these things. The speed and efficiency with which this movie was made shows in how it plays. The physical dislocation of greenscreen moviemaking is a huge factor in the movie's undeniable surrealism, which is something I think a lot of simple, non-professor types responded to. It isn't a question of good or bad; if you're in the biz of "film studies" you ought to at least -pretend- to be interested in this stuff if you don't want to get totally found out.
Faux you twist words like a true lawyer.
Cannonball run 2 and short circuit 2 were better than any of the new star wars...but then again I liked Sin City.
Here's one: American Splendor.
did you actualy read american splendour before you saw the movie?
it was alright.. pretty forgettable if you ask me.
ditto for ghost world
and incidently these are usually refered to as
Comix
not graphic novels
that term usually means shit like sandman .. ie over priced "sophisticated" shit for dorks who still sleep in spiderman pj's.
man, this is a serious cop out. American splendor was not a comic translation, foll. It was about Harvey Pekar's life being turned into a comic.
HUGE difference. Note it.
exactly
also trying to compare the comix work of pekar / crumb et al to things like batman, watchmen, sin city, fantastic four is akin to comparing harry potter to one of the best movies of the year.
And seriously: I am not knocking your perspective on what you're saying here but I truly think it's open to debate whether the average viewer cares about the things you're talking about in terms of the point of view from the consumer. ANd yeah, sure, some consumers are fine with taking spectacle over actual substance. But the folks I know who are filmmakers - most of them lucky enough to have a budget in the six digits, let alone seven or eight, would likely agree with that sentiment even if they respect what Rodriguez is doing.
But this idea that "anything that breaks new ground is 'good'" is problematic on many levels, as well as the idea that "innovations lead the way to better movies made cheaper." I'm not saying you're wrong in the absolute but certainly, that claim is open to much debate.
I've been on an int'l film festival committee now for five years running now so I see A LOT of films by first-time filmmakers come through. And in recent years, the number of submissions has taken off exponentially, and it's very clear why: peole are taking advantage of the affordability of digital shooting and editing.
But improved means of access does not mean that any of these folks are learning the craft of filmmaking better. Any more than the greater ease of access to making hip-hop records has improved hip-hop. Every year, I see DOZENS of examples of simply terrible filmmaking by people who've learned the basics of shooting and editing but can't tell a basic story to save their life.
So what if filmmaking has been more democratized: has that made for qualitatively better films?
I'm not throwing that down as a challenge, I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say here.
How has hip-hop, for example, benefitted from a lower co
cosign that's a majorly slippery slope
at the same time though im not particulalry romantic about "film" as a medium... and the film distro system has long been outdated and overpriced.