What film did you watch last night?
- Thread starter Richeh
- Start date
I watched The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2. It was OK. It's got the same narrative problems as the book, in that the battle sort of fizzles out, and then it takes forever to get around to actually finishing. There's some rather dark bits, so it did actually make me think a bit, which was a bit of a surprise.
The score was rubbish.
The score was rubbish.
Careful, you're going to trigger easyrider.
I loved it though, DV has made my two favourite movies of the last two years (2015/16), Sicario and Arrival.
You Fail at a comeback
Yeah I had nothing.
I watched the remake of The Wicker Man last night and then Leaving Las Vegas immediately after. Certainly highlighted just how great an actor Nic Cage can be, but also just how utterly bad he's been as well.
I'm going to take one massive guess and say the original wicker is better? Well, can't really be worse... I'll never get bored of LLV though, such a great, emotional film.
It amazes me how many people say they like it...
But they never seem to highlight why
See...No explanation why
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 16,133
- Location
- London
Maybe they just enjoyed it and didn't feel the need to justify it to you?
It amazes me how many people say they like it...
But they never seem to highlight why
See...No explanation why
It's just a very well put together Sci Fi with a solid script, good pacing and a rather beautiful ending. Don't know why it's so important for people to justify why to you. Some people just like things because they like em
Usually its helpful
When people tell me why they like something...sometimes it triggers me to search out the film and view it myself.
Its a discussion thread about watching films.
Its usually helpful to state a reason for your comment or the thread would be pretty pointless.
It would just be a thread of listed films without any context.
I fail to understand what's not to get?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 8,617
A brilliant lead performance from Amy Adams is one thing, as well as a wonderful score, but I think it does what typical sci-fi does, which is make you feel complete awe once the 'twist' (if you want to call it that) is coming into the audiences minds. They manage to make you feel like you've figured it out on your own, even though it was the entire purpose throughout. I also think it was well paced, the cinematography was pretty good and the direction superb. I agree that it's not a 10/10 film, but I do think it's worthy of an eight or a seven.It amazes me how many people say they like it...
But they never seem to highlight why
See...No explanation why
Agreed with everything you said. It's a bit of a house of cards under heavy scrutiny but hey ho.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Arrival did and didn't do it for me. It was watchable but the story for me was way too daft. Hard to say without spoilers but so many of the story was so forced and poorly done. The twist did nothing at all for me, because it just didn't mean an awful lot for the film. The film basically became about the twist... with everything else so grand but ultimately entirely meaningless.
I basically felt the same about Sicario, great cinematography, great score, it had a compelling feeling... but the story was basically meaningless in the end, some guys go after drug dealers, they kill some drug dealers... there are going to be more guys and more drug dealers so it's all completely pointless. Compelling but empty, that is how I found both films. The compelling nature, the score and how they looked made both very watchable but I feel absolutely zero need to watch again because the story was so pointless in both.
Where something like Interstellar looks just as good, amazing score and is just as compelling, I felt like the story went somewhere, it had a point, it completed the film experience. I guess mavity is closer to Sicario/Arrival in that it was again, compelling viewing, but story wise... meh, no urge to ever watch it again.
For me a great film, even a good film, needs the story to be just as compelling as everything else and Arrival failed on that side big time for me.
I mean, she can see the future.... and despite seeing a kid she never had throughout the movie... never once realising it somehow?
But then after the reveal, the movie became about how the aliens came, and she could speak to them because she viewed time differently, then they left. That is what it summed up to. There was no, zomg, you have the answer, now you can translate this and save the world from that asteroid coming, or view this 3000 years into the future thing. It was all just so... pointless. It was basically, we came to slap you in the face so you finally realised you could see the future, even though seeing a kid who wasn't born yet should really have given you a good hint you could see the damn future already.
For me the story needed a real reason for the aliens to be there, then her seeing the future/talk/understanding enabled them to communicate which led to.... the thing the aliens came for. But the thing is, 3000 years in the future and completely meaningless to this script which just left me feeling empty.
But then after the reveal, the movie became about how the aliens came, and she could speak to them because she viewed time differently, then they left. That is what it summed up to. There was no, zomg, you have the answer, now you can translate this and save the world from that asteroid coming, or view this 3000 years into the future thing. It was all just so... pointless. It was basically, we came to slap you in the face so you finally realised you could see the future, even though seeing a kid who wasn't born yet should really have given you a good hint you could see the damn future already.
For me the story needed a real reason for the aliens to be there, then her seeing the future/talk/understanding enabled them to communicate which led to.... the thing the aliens came for. But the thing is, 3000 years in the future and completely meaningless to this script which just left me feeling empty.
I basically felt the same about Sicario, great cinematography, great score, it had a compelling feeling... but the story was basically meaningless in the end, some guys go after drug dealers, they kill some drug dealers... there are going to be more guys and more drug dealers so it's all completely pointless. Compelling but empty, that is how I found both films. The compelling nature, the score and how they looked made both very watchable but I feel absolutely zero need to watch again because the story was so pointless in both.
Where something like Interstellar looks just as good, amazing score and is just as compelling, I felt like the story went somewhere, it had a point, it completed the film experience. I guess mavity is closer to Sicario/Arrival in that it was again, compelling viewing, but story wise... meh, no urge to ever watch it again.
For me a great film, even a good film, needs the story to be just as compelling as everything else and Arrival failed on that side big time for me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 8,617
As Kermode said the other week, it's not about the story, but how it's told. And I think Arrival succeeded in telling the story well.
The film is about the Aliens coming to ask Humans for help for a problem in 3000 years time which to them is an instant. They come to establish communications and teach humanity the universal language needed for when this help is needed...
The book explains it better tbh the film as always missed a few bits out
The book explains it better tbh the film as always missed a few bits out
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 8,617
I've been meaning to buy the book for a while as all of the short stories sound really interesting. Would you recommend it?
This.
But not just to easyrider, to anybody. I stopped trying to justify my taste in movies years ago. Movie taste is a very personal thing and if someone doesn't like something, it doesn't matter what you say, you're not going to change their mind.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 16,133
- Location
- London
There's simply saying "I watched Arrival last night" and saying no more, and there's saying "Arrival. Really good film although not quite as good as the book.... 8.5/10".
There's a difference. Your argument is using an extreme example that was never the case here.
(FWIW, I also wonder why some people simply type the name of a film and press the post button, but as said, that's not what happened in this case).
People shouldn't have to give a detailed review. Someone watched a film and said whether they liked or disliked it. There's no obligation to give a full list of justifications either way.
The only reason - the same old reason - you have a problem with it is because their opinion on the given film doesn't coincide with yours and your ego requires a justification for not seeing things the same way as you. Because your view is the correct one, right?
If they'd posted that they'd seen Arrival and that they thought it was crap, without giving a justification, I seriously doubt that you'd be picking them up on it.
Last edited:
On the contrary I would be interested in what they disliked just as much...
People just get defensive in here...and somehow are insecure about film discourse
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 16,133
- Location
- London
Yeah, ok.