What film did you watch last night?

Glaucus said:
Films are a form of entertainment and at the end point, the only thing you care about is enjoyment.
Click to expand...

lol, so much fail in one sentence I don't even know where to begin.

The box office figures might represent 'enjoyment' but ignorantly coming to the assumption that the ONLY thing ANYONE cares about in film is enjoyment?

As Tummy has said about 5 times...sigh. Film does so more an an emotional level than satisfy, it evokes every emotion you can think of in the human body to a certain extent.

RAH, IGNORANCE BREDBIN.

Kawolski said:
This.
Very powerful bit of film making.
Outstanding performance by the lead actress.
Click to expand...

Olivia Coleman, not even nominated for a BAFTA.

I'll be going to watch Shame and Underworld 4 this weekend. Whilst I know Shame is likely to be the vastly superior film in terms of acting, narrative, storyline, direction and cinematography...I'm sure I'll still really ENJOY Underworld.
 
Last edited:
Gustov said:
Film does so more an an emotional level than satisfy, it evokes every emotion you can think of in the human body to a certain extent.
Click to expand...

That's true.
I watched the first 2 Transformers movies and they were so bloody awful, I was incensed as to how bad they were. What shocked and made me even more irate was the fact that they made so much money. This in turn means that the movie studios will continue to churn out bad movies like Transformers as people are prepared to pay money for this.

Transformers definitely brought out a strong emotional response from me...but for the wrong reasons.
 
Gustov said:
assumption that the ONLY thing ANYONE cares about in film is enjoyment?
d.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it's the only way to rate or the only emotion I didn't.
I will say what I said to tummy, the ratings on imdb do not support your criteria for ratings the top films and the bottom films would be scored the same. The films with 6,7,8 would be scored drastically differently, if most people rated the way you do.
People like different things, films don't always need emotional responses. Sometimes people like to kick back, turn their brain off and watch some violent action movie.
 
Glaucus said:
films don't always need emotional responses. Sometimes people like to kick back, turn their brain off and watch some violent action movie.
Click to expand...


All violent action movies trigger emotional responses weather you 'kick back, turn brain off' or not. Give me one film that doesn't trigger an emotion, be it butterflies, anger, sad, happy or whatever other emotion?
 
Last edited:
Kawolski said:
This.
Very powerful bit of film making.
Outstanding performance by the lead actress.
Click to expand...

Damn right. She's unbelievably good in that role. Genuinely one of the best performances I've seen for a while.

Gustov said:
lol, so much fail in one sentence I don't even know where to begin.

The box office figures might represent 'enjoyment' but ignorantly coming to the assumption that the ONLY thing ANYONE cares about in film is enjoyment?

As Tummy has said about 5 times...sigh. Film does so more an an emotional level than satisfy, it evokes every emotion you can think of in the human body to a certain extent.

RAH, IGNORANCE BREDBIN.



Olivia Coleman, not even nominated for a BAFTA.

I'll be going to watch Shame and Underworld 4 this weekend. Whilst I know Shame is likely to be the vastly superior film in terms of acting, narrative, storyline, direction and cinematography...I'm sure I'll still really ENJOY Underworld.
Click to expand...

Ignore Acidhell Gustov, he's misguided.

People are entitled to their opinions no matter how wrong they are.

The emotional and enjoyment levels of a film are separate to how good the film is. Bad films can be enjoyable and can evoke an emotional response that is positive. Vise versa for Good films. AcidHell can't comprehend that they're two separate things.

I intend to watch both too. Shame looks good and Underworld, well Kate B in latex :o

Also; I think the best film of the year in terms of the Oscars should be down to a fight between British, Tinker Taylor V Dinosaur ah! Driver as good as it was (and it was good) was too much style over substance for me. Hmm. What else has there been this year? The Artist?

I've not seen the list of films up for awards / whats won actually.
 
Glaucus said:
Where did I say it's the only way to rate or the only emotion I didn't.
Click to expand...

Glaucus said:
Films are a form of entertainment and at the end point, the only thing you care about is enjoyment.
Click to expand...

No only are you ignorant, in using the word 'you' you're talking on behalf of other people. BOOM, there's arrogance too!

What grates me is the people who like to watch independent 'arsty' films have a full understanding of why some people fall in love with 'bad' films such as Transformers. However, those who like to watch these types of films just slate indy cinema as tosh. Oh society.

P.s Your grammar scares me.
 
Wizzfizz said:
Rubbish.

Most violent action movies trigger emotional responses weather you 'kick back, turn brain off' or not. Give me one film that doesn't trigger an emotion, be it butterflies, anger, sad, happy or whatever other emotion?
Click to expand...

In that sense your right, but many films have no strong emotional response like what I'm assuming they mean.
Most action films for a start have no strong emotional response. Yes you enjoy them and that's a happy emotion. But it's not like a similar response to say American history x or pay it forward.
 
Last edited:
Tummy said:
. AcidHell can't comprehend that they're two separate things.

.
Click to expand...

Really, you may want to go read back. I've acknowledged that. Tahts not what we were discusing. You where saying the majority rate films in that manner, I'm saying most rate it for enjoyment. Neither are right or wrong.
Again the ratings on imdb show it is based on enjoyment for most people and not the more analytical method.
 
Glaucus said:
Again the ratings on imdb show it is based on enjoyment for most people and not the more analytical method.
Click to expand...

Why are you talking about the ratings on IMDB as if they equivalent to the bible and christianity? Even so, you're wrong. The top 10 films on IMDB are as below. Aside from The Dark Knight and The Lord of the Rings, they are hardly 'blockbusters'

1. 9.2 The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 698,332
2. 9.2 The Godfather (1972) 523,879
3. 9.0 The Godfather: Part II (1974) 328,616
4. 8.9 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) 218,730
5. 8.9 Pulp Fiction (1994) 548,498
6. 8.9 12 Angry Men (1957) 169,967
7. 8.9 Schindler's List (1993) 365,986
8. 8.8 The Dark Knight (2008) 633,091
9. 8.8 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) 292,220
10. 8.8 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) 488,47

Glaucus said:
Wel it was in response to me and your getting annoyed at me.
Click to expand...

* You're

Your grammar is enough for me to get annoyed at you.
 
Glaucus said:
Really, you may want to go read back. I've acknowledged that. Tahts not what we were discusing. You where saying the majority rate films in that manner, I'm saying most rate it for enjoyment. Neither are right or wrong.
Again the ratings on imdb show it is based on enjoyment for most people and not the more analytical method.
Click to expand...

You were discussing this. You were.
 
Gustov said:
Why are you talking about the ratings on IMDB as if they equivalent to the bible and christianity? Even so, you're wrong. The top 10 films on IMDB are as below. Aside from The Dark Knight and The Lord of the Rings, they are hardly 'blockbusters'

.
Click to expand...

I'm not using it as a bible, if you joined it from the start, you would realise we are talking about what the majority do. So imdb is a good place as it has 10s of thousands of votes.

Also agin showing top 10 of 250 doesn't show anything. It isn't about blockbusters or not, so I don't know why you brought that up. It's enjoyment vs analytical ratings.
Surprisngly the top 250 and the bottom 250 will be rated the same for either method. It's the ones in the middle that needs to be looked out. With plenty of well known "rubbish" films getting resonably high scores. Now if most people rated analytically that just wouldn't happen, there scores would be far lower.
 
Glaucus said:
I'm not using it as a bible, if you joined it from the start, you would realise we are talking about what the majority do. So imdb is a good place as it has 10s of thousands of votes.

Also agin showing top 10 of 250 doesn't show anything. It isn't about blockbusters or not, so I don't know why you brought that up. It's enjoyment vs analytical ratings.
Surprisngly the top 250 and the bottom 250 will be rated the same for either method. It's the ones in the middle that needs to be looked out. With plenty of well known "rubbish" films getting resonably high scores. Now if most people rated analytically that just wouldn't happen, there scores would be far lower.
Click to expand...

THEIR SCORES. I give up. Go back to school ffs.
 
Ah! You used Con Air as an example of a 'rubbish' film. It's not rubbish, it's not amazing either. It's just somewhere in between, average.
 
Gustov said:
THEIR SCORES. I give up. Go back to school ffs.
Click to expand...

So you don't want to discussa, and no I'm not going to go back to school. Don't like it there's always the ignore button. Why not discuss rather than going on pointless tangents.


Tummy said:
Ah! You used Con Air as an example of a 'rubbish' film. It's not rubbish, it's not amazing either. It's just somewhere in between, average.
Click to expand...

If you analysis it, it is rubbish. If you take professional critics. It is indeed rubbish. The scores don't reflect the analytical method. As I said don't like that choose any other film.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom