Rate the last film you watched out of 100 Page 3603

  • Bambot 3 Jan 2018 10:40:45 1,181 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Jyzzy-Z wrote:
    Was really disappointed in Interstellar. Had all the ingredients to be a classic but the plot holes were just too big. I don't think I've rewatched it since the cinema so maybe I should give it another spin.

    It's certainly well produced, directed and acted, but the plot didn't really hold together for me.
    I think if it had been positioning itself as a more serious movie than blockbuster movie that would bother me, but I watched it expecting a very well made blockbuster and you just have to paper over the stupidity and go along for the ride. 2001 it ain't. If he expected it to be, or was aspiring for it to be, well sorry but no(lan).
  • Bambot 3 Jan 2018 10:41:40 1,181 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    spindle9988 wrote:
    Bambot wrote:
    Interstellar: 8/10

    I had avoided this at the time because a) I just can't enjoy movies everyone's telling me is THE GREATEST MOVIE EVAH, and b) I was kind of done with Nolan's 'clever clever' movies after Inception which was a great little action flick but nowhere near as deep as everyone fancied it to be, and both Dark Knight movies which I found overlong and over-grandiose, and c) I'd heard it completely undermined the grand concept of saving humanity by having humanity's saviours squabble and fight with each other.

    Saw it the other day and fucking loved it.

    Full of plot holes of course (so many, so very very many) and it seemed obvious Matt Daaaaamon was a lying liar from the moment they woke him up (but then I already knew, so maybe it's that). But I can see why everyone did what they did in the situation they were in - even with the weight of the entire planet on your shoulders, you're still just a human being.

    And it made me cry like a fuckin baby at the end, I was so invested in Murph and Cooper's relationship. And I laughed a lot at his assumption the station was named after him, that was awesome.

    So yeah.
    Who on Earth told you it was the greatest movie ever?
    Well, nobody actually said those exact words. :D

    But people raved about it, did they not?
  • spindle9988 3 Jan 2018 10:54:35 4,724 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I think people thought it was ok. I liked it but some forumites had a lot of issues with it which I'm sure they would be willing to share.
  • Mola_Ram 3 Jan 2018 11:03:19 17,930 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The thing with Christopher Nolan (and this is going to sound a bit blonskiesque at times, so I apologise in advance) is that he makes smart movies for dumb people.

    I do not mean that people who love his movies are all idiots, or that there aren't actually really cool, intelligent ideas in his films.

    I mean that he makes many of his movies (Interstellar being a notable example, but there are elements of it in Inception and Dunkirk and other ones too) under the assumption that some members of his audience will be too dim to understand what they're all about. So, to combat this perceived problem, he has his characters

    Spell.
    Everything.
    Out.
    For.
    You.

    So you have scenes where trained astronauts are explaining to each other what black holes are as they are flying over a black hole, or dream heist people sitting down for 10 minutes to explain the mechanics and rules of how incepting works. Or the Joker sitting across from Batman to explain his philosophy to him. Or etc.

    Compare it with Kubrick, who probably didn't give a single shit about whether everyone understood what he was going on about, and made movies so smart that some people drove themselves crazy imagining that they were even smarter than they probably were in reality (see the documentary Room 237 for evidence of this).

    I guess you could point the finger at producers for encouraging Nolan to put this sort of thing into his movies. But I think he's such an amazingly successful director that he's probably not being pressured like that. I think it's mostly him.

    And hey, he's clearly doing something right, so maybe the expositions really are necessary. Maybe you can't make big, successful, intelligent sci-fi these days without ensuring that everyone is along for the ride. It's bloody expensive to make a movie, so maybe it's better to be overly cautious?
  • GarlVinland 3 Jan 2018 11:13:02 3,190 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @Mola_Ram Agree with every word. He's never learned how to make exposition interesting, the movie stops dead in it's tracks. Inception feels like 50% exposition. The Matrix had maybe as much but somehow felt far less cumbersome.

    The sad thing is, Blade Runner 2049 was far better and more interesting than Inception or Interstellar IMO, and bombed. You can't make intelligent and expensive sci-fi these days without compromise, apparently.
  • Tonka 3 Jan 2018 11:17:51 27,959 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    The Matrix takes the prize for dumbest exposition ever though.

    Neo and Morpheus talking to each other
    Morpheus "AI..."
    Neo "You mean, Artificial Intelligence?"

    I can see why at the time the masses didn't know what AI was, but it still cracks me up.
  • DUFFMAN5 3 Jan 2018 11:18:31 23,011 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    The Limehouse Golem

    Not bad but not anywhere near as compelling as I hoped it would be. The sets and atmosphere are spot on though, set in Victorian London. We follow Inspector Kildare trying to find out the identity of a serial killer. Think Jack the Ripper and you are along the right lines.

    65/100
  • Mola_Ram 3 Jan 2018 11:20:16 17,930 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Tonka wrote:
    The Matrix takes the prize for dumbest exposition ever though.

    Neo and Morpheus talking to each other
    Morpheus "AI..."
    Neo "You mean, Artificial Intelligence?"

    I can see why at the time the masses didn't know what AI was, but it still cracks me up.
    Oh, Nolan's totally not the only director who does it. Definitely the Wachowskis are also culprits, even when I love what they do (I loved and cringed at Sense8 in almost equal measure)
  • LittleSparra 3 Jan 2018 11:22:25 7,926 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    100% mola.
  • Jyzzy-Z 3 Jan 2018 12:00:53 3,272 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Bambot wrote:
    Jyzzy-Z wrote:
    Was really disappointed in Interstellar. Had all the ingredients to be a classic but the plot holes were just too big. I don't think I've rewatched it since the cinema so maybe I should give it another spin.

    It's certainly well produced, directed and acted, but the plot didn't really hold together for me.
    I think if it had been positioning itself as a more serious movie than blockbuster movie that would bother me, but I watched it expecting a very well made blockbuster and you just have to paper over the stupidity and go along for the ride. 2001 it ain't. If he expected it to be, or was aspiring for it to be, well sorry but no(lan).
    Well I certainly thought it was on the side of smart blockbuster and the marketing at the time appealed to me in that way. Perhaps I was wrong. I didn't expect it to be 2001 level either but definitely more towards that end of the scale.

    I don't really like the modern argument, particularly whenever the word blockbuster is mentioned, that films that have some questionable writing are perfectly justified and OK to do so. I think they can and should strive to be better. I want to have my cake and eat it.

    I'm not suggesting you're saying this by the way, just an observation and something that's been irking me for a while. The Star Wars film tipped the scale a bit, as anything anyone says critically about these types of releases is thrown out immediately as 'it's just a blockbuster innit'.

    I feel I have to caveat that I enjoyed both films I've mentioned but I do think they could have been even better with more attention to the scripts.

    /blonks

    Edited by Jyzzy-Z at 12:01:32 03-01-2018
  • Tonka 3 Jan 2018 12:16:18 27,959 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Interstellar had some stellar scenes. That whole wave planet still haunts me.

    Little Door Gods

    Chinese 3D animation about how gods and spirits are losing power due to not being worshipped. Alright film. Had a nice new years theme so my timing was excellent.

    For fans of the genre
  • Deleted user 3 January 2018 12:23:15
    Tonka wrote:
    Interstellar had some stellar scenes. That whole wave planet still haunts me.
    Sound like you were...inter it.
  • challenge_hanukkah 3 Jan 2018 12:24:19 6,572 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Whilst drinking Stella.

    Amidoingitrite?
  • Tonka 3 Jan 2018 12:27:43 27,959 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    (applauding hands emoji)
  • JoelStinty 3 Jan 2018 12:37:00 6,517 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    The thing with Christopher Nolan (and this is going to sound a bit blonskiesque at times, so I apologise in advance) is that he makes smart movies for dumb people.

    I do not mean that people who love his movies are all idiots, or that there aren't actually really cool, intelligent ideas in his films.

    I mean that he makes many of his movies (Interstellar being a notable example, but there are elements of it in Inception and Dunkirk and other ones too) under the assumption that some members of his audience will be too dim to understand what they're all about. So, to combat this perceived problem, he has his characters

    Spell.
    Everything.
    Out.
    For.
    You.

    So you have scenes where trained astronauts are explaining to each other what black holes are as they are flying over a black hole, or dream heist people sitting down for 10 minutes to explain the mechanics and rules of how incepting works. Or the Joker sitting across from Batman to explain his philosophy to him. Or etc.

    Compare it with Kubrick, who probably didn't give a single shit about whether everyone understood what he was going on about, and made movies so smart that some people drove themselves crazy imagining that they were even smarter than they probably were in reality (see the documentary Room 237 for evidence of this).

    I guess you could point the finger at producers for encouraging Nolan to put this sort of thing into his movies. But I think he's such an amazingly successful director that he's probably not being pressured like that. I think it's mostly him.

    And hey, he's clearly doing something right, so maybe the expositions really are necessary. Maybe you can't make big, successful, intelligent sci-fi these days without ensuring that everyone is along for the ride. It's bloody expensive to make a movie, so maybe it's better to be overly cautious?
    I didn't mind it in Inception - i think it works in its favour in that it is laying out the ground rules of the universe - in each act someone explains what can and can't happen and then the film expects you to remember that and keep up with the film when it introduces the mechanic later on in that act or in the film.

    I also think Dunkirk was maybe a partial answer to those criticisms - it's the most incidental 'blockbuster' i've seen for some time. All the dialogue is probably what people would say in real life - there isn't much of it and what there is, gives you scope to what is happening and why. It's very stripped back and allows the tension of the movie to be at the forefront.

    Edited by JoelStinty at 12:38:00 03-01-2018
  • anephric 3 Jan 2018 12:39:09 2,891 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Kubrick and 2001 are interesting, because Arthur C Clarke wanted exactly what Nolan does in Interstellar, to spell everything out and explain it, because that's the sort of author he was (an engineer). Kubrick wanted enigma, and certainly suffered for it critically at the time. Critics didn't want ambiguity.
  • ZuluHero 3 Jan 2018 12:59:40 6,417 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Talking about space films, I saw Passengers the other night and actually quite enjoyed it.
  • JoeBlade 3 Jan 2018 14:21:40 4,191 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    anephric wrote:
    Kubrick and 2001 are interesting, because Arthur C Clarke wanted exactly what Nolan does in Interstellar, to spell everything out and explain it, because that's the sort of author he was (an engineer). Kubrick wanted enigma, and certainly suffered for it critically at the time. Critics didn't want ambiguity.
    What I took away from the prologue of the book is that they were actually meant to be viewed/read alongside one another, that this was an integral part of the combined artistic vision of Kubrick and Clarke.

    If true, it's quite a refreshing take on the media since up to that point the only connection between print and film tended to be the latter being based on the former, if anything.
    Plus, as you say, those two people complement each other perfectly in that regard.
  • Khanivor 3 Jan 2018 14:22:36 43,823 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    I hate filmmakers who try to create works which are inclusive, even of people who arenít nerds.
  • thelzdking 3 Jan 2018 14:24:43 8,068 posts
    Seen 26 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I don't hate many films, but Interstellar was one of them. It was marketed as having a hard sci-fi edge and it turned out to end with Matthew McConnaughy floating around inside a 5D box and love saving the day. Plus the shitty exposition. It was like Knowing minus the fun. One of the stupidest films I've ever seen.

    The spaceflight scenes were absolutely spectacular though.
  • Blurp 3 Jan 2018 14:57:15 1,370 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Interstellar wasn't a space film, it was ABOUT LURVE MURPH, LUUUUUUURRRRVEEE.
  • Zerobob 3 Jan 2018 15:21:14 2,064 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    ZuluHero wrote:
    Talking about space films, I saw Passengers the other night and actually quite enjoyed it.
    Yeah I don't understand people's problem with that film. I thought the concept was tight enough and the character's motivations and responses were reasonable. The only massive shame was the derivative 'action movie' ending.
  • Bambot 3 Jan 2018 15:29:45 1,181 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    thelzdking wrote:
    I don't hate many films, but Interstellar was one of them. It was marketed as having a hard sci-fi edge and it turned out to end with Matthew McConnaughy floating around inside a 5D box and love saving the day. Plus the shitty exposition. It was like Knowing minus the fun. One of the stupidest films I've ever seen.

    The spaceflight scenes were absolutely spectacular though.
    I think this is why I was able to enjoy it the first time I saw it properly, because I'd waited long enough that there was no more buzz around it that built it up beyond what it is, and I had lowered my expectations to the point where I just wanted a well-made Nolan jaunt in outer space, and everything wrong with it, which is plenty, just filtered out leaving me to enjoy the stuff that is right with it :)
  • Derblington 3 Jan 2018 15:51:02 30,856 posts
    Seen 56 seconds ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    I'd quite like to see Interstellar a second time, to see if my opinion on it changes.
  • RyanDS 3 Jan 2018 15:57:57 11,831 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Interstellar literally had the fucking captain of the space ship have to be briefed on how black holes work mid mission.

    It really was the worst version of exposition i have seen.† There were so many ways to have it make sense.† Have a fucking video blog sent to earth to the brother explaining how it works out something.†
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2018 16:01:47 73,998 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I thought it was brilliant when Sam Neil did it in event horizon.
  • 2old4disshit 3 Jan 2018 16:15:31 550 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Can you stop using the word 'exposition' now?
  • SuperSoupy 3 Jan 2018 16:30:56 58 posts
    Seen 23 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Bright 7/10

    It's currently getting a lot of hate on the internet, but to be honest I quite enjoyed it.

    I did honestly found it very hard to get into at the start. I mean, if orcs are poor black gang-bangers and elves are rich white snobs, but they don't act like actual orcs or elves at all... then why can't they just be regular people!? What's the point of the whole fantasy character angle if they barely register as fantasy characters?? That's dumb!

    So, once I decided to leave my brain at the door and try to get used to Will Smith swapping his "woo-ha-ha"s for F-Bombs, I found it more accepting. And once they introduced magic wands as maguffins for the plot, it was much easier to get on board with the story.

    From then on I enjoyed it! Joel Edgerton's Orc cop stole the show, and it all looked very swish.

    A scene at the end really should've been left out (you know the one, it's the one you checked your watch on). But otherwise it set up a world for some potential interesting future stories should they do another one.
  • challenge_hanukkah 3 Jan 2018 16:32:50 6,572 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    2old4disshit wrote:
    Can you stop using the word 'exposition' now?
    Why? It describes in one word the thing people are talking about.
  • drhcnip 3 Jan 2018 16:39:02 6,007 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @DUFFMAN5

    ooh, didn't realise that was out - loved the book...
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.