Probably Suicide Squad tbh.

Napoleon Dynamite,

Napoleon Dynamite,

It's a movie about stupid and awkward people, so of course you wouldn't get it.

Deadpool.

Bridge of Spies made me want to neck myself.

It genuinely is Pure Kino. Kubrick was able to perfectly replicate the book while at the same time not butchering the shots or dialogue in the movie. When you make a movie, you want every shot to have a purpose, you can have a scene make sense but have it feel forced because you couldn't tell the audience what was going on in an easy way.

The beginning where the ape "learns" how to use tools is a prime example. If you kept cutting away to the monolith we'd understand it was the monolith's presence that helped spur human growth. Except we didn't need that, we only needed to see it once for a few seconds to get it. The ape is just fumbling around like a primitive animal as usual, then after the monolith appears, he immediately picks up the bones and starts smashing things. This is all we need to understand what was going on, and as such the entire scene was done flawlessly because the whole film uses the same process of "less is more".



I know it sounds really pretentious, but when you watch more and more shitty movies, and then watch a good one, what makes the good ones good tend to stick out.

2001: A Space Odyssey.

It's alright, definitely good for the time, but I don't get why it's so hyped as being an amazing film now.

Quote from: Ser(cation needed) Duncan on March 12, 2017, 10:13:37 AM

Napoleon Dynamite,

It's a movie about stupid and awkward people, so of course you wouldn't get it.

So it's a documentary guide to Sep7agon

Zombieland. I guess I can understand why people like it, but it is vastly overrated imo

Speaking of that, Cabin in the Woods.

That shit was fucking horrible.

Quote from: Zizzy on March 12, 2017, 01:20:24 PM

Zombieland. I guess I can understand why people like it, but it is vastly overrated imo

Speaking of that, Cabin in the Woods.

That shit was fucking horrible.

As a horror movie, yes.

Pulp Fiction

As a horror movie, yes.

No, I thought it failed as a comedy too. See, it's very difficult to criticize a movie that's hackneyed on purpose, because then people will just tell you, "That's the point! It's making fun of those cliches!" and I get that. It's a really convenient out for hack film directors like Joss to make any film they want and use the parody card as a shield for all criticism.

I think it's possible to make fun of something poorly, and in a way that doesn't offer any insight or further commentary on the subject that's being parodied. That's what Cabin felt like to me. All the gags fell flat for me because they've already been made a million times before by other more talented directors. Making fun of horror cliches has become a cliche in and of itself--just watch Scream, Evil Dead, or Army of Darkness. Or even Shaun of the Dead.

You could say it works as a fun little tribute/love letter, in the same way that a small child's drawing of a giraffe is a tribute to his interest and passion for biology--which is all well and good, but you know deep down it's not a very good drawing.

For me, the best part was the credits for the excellent song choice.

It genuinely is Pure Kino. Kubrick was able to perfectly replicate the book while at the same time not butchering the shots or dialogue in the movie. When you make a movie, you want every shot to have a purpose, you can have a scene make sense but have it feel forced because you couldn't tell the audience what was going on in an easy way.

The beginning where the ape "learns" how to use tools is a prime example. If you kept cutting away to the monolith we'd understand it was the monolith's presence that helped spur human growth. Except we didn't need that, we only needed to see it once for a few seconds to get it. The ape is just fumbling around like a primitive animal as usual, then after the monolith appears, he immediately picks up the bones and starts smashing things. This is all we need to understand what was going on, and as such the entire scene was done flawlessly because the whole film uses the same process of "less is more".

YouTube

I know it sounds really pretentious, but when you watch more and more shitty movies, and then watch a good one, what makes the good ones good tend to stick out.

Quote from: Môr-ladron on March 12, 2017, 10:55:22 AM

2001: A Space Odyssey.

It's alright, definitely good for the time, but I don't get why it's so hyped as being an amazing film now.

Oh I get the whole "Monolith = Advancement" thing, and it was easy enough to follow the start of the story. But suddenly it's on the moon, and then there's another one off Jupiter and the astronauts just have to go there, and then the survivor of the trip goes into a wormhole that takes him to another dimension(?) and that's where I lose it.

I guess I'm disadvantaged that I haven't read the book which would fill in the blanks here, but then that in itself wouldn't make it a good movie.

i haven't read 2001 and i can confirm that the kubrick film is pure kinography

best sci-fi film there is and ever could be