0
2

[–] WeAllVoatDownHere 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I took a quick glance through http://www.imdb.com/chart/top and I managed to pull a couple out that I'm not particularly taken with;

Inception (2010) Visually stunning (I've only seen it at IMAX though) but I really don't think it's as deep and layered and "twisty" as everyone else seems to, for me it was a fairly easy to follow action film, enjoyed it but don't get the hype.

It's a Wonderful Life (1946) I think maybe it's just a film of its time, for me it's just so hoaky and cheesy, perhaps you have to have grown up with it? For a non-american born when the film was already 30+ years old it's just never done anything for me. Or maybe I'm just dead inside.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) Big fan of the Mad Max series and I did enjoy this but boy do people have a hard on for it... There are several huge flaws but it seems like no one wants to see them because there was a guy playing a fire spitting guitar. All style no substance IMO.

Singin' in the Rain (1952) I hate musicals. Nothing happens in song that couldn't be better portrayed with decent dialogue and acting. If all the film was destroyed in a studio fire nothing of value would be lost.

0
1

[–] contains_nutsndBOLTS 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I enjoyed Mad Max purely as an exhilarating non stop thrill ride, extremely entertaining in that regard. I don't think there's too much else to it. I think too many people have read into it on a sexual politics slant.

0
0

[–] WeAllVoatDownHere 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

non stop thrill ride

This was actually one of the bigger problems I had with it. For me, the pacing was all wrong. You need highs and lows, fast and slow. If it's just full speed ahead with no let up then after a while 200kph starts to feel like normal.
A 90 minute car chase is a spectacle to be sure but I wouldn't have minded a bit of plot, some exposition, a tiny bit of character development.

0
2

[–] necessaryDickhead 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Deliberately (some might even say slowly in places) paced, "The Shawshank Redemption" alternates between offering a grittily realistic portrayal of life in prison and flights of fancy that make the story too unbelievable to really be accepted. There is an interesting subplot (which doesn't take up much of the movie but which does make the viewer ponder) about the difficulties of adjusting to life in the real world after extended periods of incarceration.

The performances from the two leads are excellent. Morgan Freeman puts on his usual outstanding performance as "Red" - the wise old con through whose eyes the story is told, and Tim Robbins as Andy Dufresnce, a young banker wrongly convicted of murdering his wife and her lover who has to adjust to the nightmare of prison life. Among the supporting cast I was impressed with Bob Gunton as the Bible-spouting but corrupt Warden Norton, who uses Andy's financial expertise to enrich himself, and James Whitmore as Brooks, imprisoned for fifty years and terrified when he is finally granted parole and who, unable to adjust to life on the outside, yearns only to be back in the only home he ever knew - prison. It's an interesting twist - experience also by Red later on in the movie - that freedom can seem to be like a prison for those so accustomed to the regimentation of life in an institution.

While the movie is impressive and engrossing all the way through, though, there are some weaknesses to the story that bothered me a bit. (There are some spoilers ahead.)

I found it difficult to imagine prison guards from all over the State of Maine bringing their tax returns to Andy. It just didn't seem to me like something that would have happened. It also struck me as unlikely that a letter-writing campaign from one solitary prisoner (even one that lasted six years, one letter a week) would have convinced the State to fund the improvements Andy got for the prison library. I would rather expect that after a while the letters would simply start to be discarded. Andy's escape also bothered me. It was too "easy" - even though it took twenty years. And how did he keep that suit so spotless and unwrinkled while crawling through that dirty sewer? Mind you, the moments leading up to the discovery of his escape were among the most dramatic in the movie. The very end of the story was also clearly telegraphed some time before.

Frankly speaking, I think "The Shawshank Redemption" is a bit over-rated , being ranked constantly ranked as the best ever but this is still a very, very good movie, and an excellent portrayal (through Andy) of the survival of the human spirit in even the toughest times. Personally, I give it a 7/10.

0
0

[–] Stoic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Why wouldn't the guards use a free opportunity to get a lot of money? On the letter-writing campaign I believe that government officials are legally obligated to reply to requests for funding, so they couldn't just toss them or not reply. If they didn't reply, Andy could have sued them. He kept the suit in a plastic bag on his back. On the whole, even if right, these are details that shouldn't devaluate the movie so much.

0
1

[–] contains_nutsndBOLTS 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Most Tim Burton movies, with the exception of maybe Ed Wood. I take Roger Ebert's point about Burton's films as the most well informed. Burton uses his aesthetic and cooky weirdness, which is entertaining, and uses it to compensate for a lack of story telling abilities or character building, outside of "x is weird and therefore an outcast so please warm to him" or "y is plain and conservative and therefore boring, please disregard what he has to say". Visually there is no doubt his films have an illustrated flair, but he just seems to be rehashing everything time after time, he never really moved on from Edward Scissorhands in my view.

0
0

[–] 36yearsofporn 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Lars Von Trier.

I walked out of Dancer in the Dark. I was getting way too depressed. It was obvious things were not going to work out well.

The plotlines of his other movies haven't made me think I'd enjoy them any more than Dancer in the Dark. I can appreciate that he's a great filmmaker, and certainly puts interesting themes on the screen, but they're not for me.

0
0

[–] ownerer 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Rear Window. I've tried watching this film several times and have talked to some of the films staunch supporters yet it just seems dull and uninteresting to me. I think the cinematography is crude and boring, and the technicolor that it was shot in fake and hard to look at. I also found the ending predictable.

I've watched a decent amount of Hitchcock and want to like this film, yet every time I try I'm barely able to finish it.

0
0

[–] 36yearsofporn 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Well, it is a static set for the most part, so I could see how someone wouldn't like it.

One of the things that appeals to me is how Hitchcock twists the whole idea of the appeal of the voyeur in upon itself. Movies are the act of being a voyeur. So Hitchcock takes that appeal, and almost directly puts us in the eyes of a snoop. He explains it, to give us moral justification, by making Jimmy Stewart's character not able to walk...but we as an audience don't really have that excuse. We're just using Stewart's character as a blanket thumbs up.

And then Grace Kelly is so freakin' mesmerizing. I'm not sure I've seen anyone glow quite like that. She's impossible for me to look away from.

In any case, I can certainly understand why that movie would have a universal appeal.

Do you like other "stage-y" type movies, that happen on one set? A movie like Streetcar Named Desire, for example. Or My Dinner With Andre, where there's not a lot of movement from one set to another. If so, then it just seems the central conceit of this particular movie didn't catch your fancy. Otherwise, it may be that you need movies to have a little more going on in them. Nothing wrong with that, for sure.

0
0

[–] Stoic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

By far the Charlie Chaplin movies and especially the Great Dictator (1940), which are all roughly about an oblivious, silly and poor man trying to find happiness. His portrayal of Hitler and the Barber were extremely superficial to an almost propagandic extent. Yes the movie has value for it being a capsule of the zeitgeist back then, but most of the movie was meandering superficial comedy and I was bored most of the time watching it. The speech at the end is completely out of tune with the rest of the movie, breaking with the dumb character he had been throughout the movie.