Ginko Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) I can be accused of picking apart a movie, but I did study film at university so I think it's somewhat of an excuse. However, it forms part of my litmus test. If I watch a film and I notice a number of these kinds of things then the film isn't doing a very good job of keeping me in 'the flow' of the story. It's jarring and I generally won't enjoy it. If I watch a film and I don't notice the inconsistencies or errors then it's usually because I'm engrossed in the story, which means generally it's a pretty great film. I can understand that some people just enjoy films and get a bit fed up of others criticising, whereas others are a bit more passionate about the craft. I'm a wannabe screenwriter so I get a bit of a thrill seeing how it all comes together but likewise I also pick it apart and think of ways I might have improved it. You just have to know who you're speaking to when you get into this kind of thing, but this is a film thread after all so I think this is the perfect place for that sort of discussion. Edited July 28, 2016 by Ginko 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 That Dark Knight dissection is fair enough for the more discerning critic, but none of those elements came to mind when watching it. Perhaps I am a lazy watcher and generally don't pay full attention to action films like that, as I automatically just go "here's the chase bit of the film then" in my head, and have probably formed the expected narrative before it's begun or finished and don't 'need' accuracy of film grammar to follow it, whereas I would be more jarred by slower paced films where concentration and attention to detail are more important. Perhaps Nolan exploits fast pace and loud noise to hide slack editing/shooting occasionally but he's still in my good books for The Prestige and Memento. The more I'm thinking about that clip though the more it explains why I didn't like Rises much which just 'felt' a total mess. Although any film that overloads with action or characters tends to invite that response in me, and hence why I prefer Begins ( sorry Chindie, not a hipster ) Still, as I only saw Dark Knight once at the cinema it's oddly made me want to re-watch it now, in spite of those flaws. More generally on 'enjoyment' v 'art', I always remember a university module years ago, where we looked at different adaptations of a Dostoevsky short story - "White Nights". The Italian version (Il Notte Bianche I think ) softened the ambiguity and made it a more straightforward and 'macho' film, to it's discredit, but it was still a coherent if unimaginative drama. The French version (Four Nights of a Dreamer, by Bresson ) was excruciating turd to watch, yet when our lecturer picked it apart it was filled with theoretical / philosophical explorations. Great for an essay, but it remains high on the list of films I never wish to watch again. An extreme point, for sure, but shouldn't successful (interpret that how you choose ) films primarily 'make sense' on the first run? Not saying it shouldn't have hidden depths that can be enjoyed on later viewings as that's obviously fun and rewarding, but it should come together at least on an intuitive, emotional level, for me. If it does that, I'm generally satisfied / easy to please 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 rises suffers more from logic issues which i do tend to notice while watching films, the broken back stuff for a start...again BvS made a mess of that i think you could describe several ways of dissecting a film, the editing, the writing, the logic, even the **** soundtrack and i could tell you where BvS made a mess of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 17 hours ago, villa4europe said: I agree i feel sorry for people who can't switch that off when watching films for the first time though, got no real problem with people dissecting stuff, especially stuff that is in the best ever conversation Agreed. I used to go every week with a mate of mine to see the new big release of whatever. But after every film, when we were getting food, it just turned in to me being told "This film is shit, because:" and it's annoying. I personally never want to learn more about film. I grew up spending basically all of my free time watching film, football or playing video games. I look too much beyond the face value of football and video games now and it's completely ruined them for me. If I start watching videos of films being picked apart, I'll start to notice the little details myself and I'll find it harder to enjoy them. Like that one dead pixel on my TV that I absolutely can not miss whenever I watch anything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooligan Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 To Kill A Mockingbird (1962 ) Another film off my "To Watch List" A very good film i have to say,i really enjoyed watching it and can see why it is so highly regarded by a lot of people.Gregory Peck i thought was outstanding A 8/10 for me 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 That's a great film, one of those rare moments where both book and film are classics. Today's film for me was firmly in the 'I understood that' category. Network from 1976. Brilliant film, and prescient too, considering the subsequent history in the rise of telecomms power. Such a good script, William Holden's character has some great lines, particularly in his dialogue with Faye Dunaway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 23 hours ago, Chindie said: They've scaled Kong up in that to set up him as a viable opponent fit the new Godzilla in a later movie. So if you go see it you'll be responsible for another big budget blockbuster suffocating good movies in Hollywood. Movies that know how to shoot their scenes, and don't have big blockbuster endings with waves of identikit cannonfodder enemies and heroes that go all invincible at the end. So like almost every comic book movie ever made then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Jungle Book 2016. Really good watch. Thoughtbthe casting was superb and no one seemed not to fit. The cgi wasn't too over the top either which helped. Although geographically correct the Gigantopithecus (yes I had to look it up) was a bit too much and an orangutan would have been acceptable even if not geographically correct. I'd also think a whole pack of wolves working together could take down a tiger 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Bourne is a bit disappointing, while not bad to watch its practically the same plot as every other Bourne movie Spoiler probably not a spoiler but in a neat twist 90% of the trailer is actually just the 1st 20 minutes of the movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 the honest trailer guys got it spot on for me yesterday, something like him not knowing who he is / why he is / who made him what he is, car chase, people behind computers, shady old man...rinse and repeat... it was a huge shot in the arm for the genre following the lowest point of bond but IMO its not a particularly brilliant series, i can honestly say im more looking forward to the new jack reacher film 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 I thought the first Bourne was excellent. I've said it before on here, but it had one of the best car chases committed to celluloid, and several of the scenes were remarkable, like the one where he and the sniper guy are tracking each other in the field. Unfortunately, the series made a terrible decision getting in Paul Greengrass who made the action scenes much bigger but much harder to follow, and removed the stately simplicity of Liman's film. I say 'a terrible decision', but obviously Greengrass's films made more money. But I didn't like them. So there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 29, 2016 Moderator Share Posted July 29, 2016 1 hour ago, villa4europe said: the honest trailer guys got it spot on for me yesterday, something like him not knowing who he is / why he is / who made him what he is, car chase, people behind computers, shady old man...rinse and repeat... it was a huge shot in the arm for the genre following the lowest point of bond but IMO its not a particularly brilliant series, i can honestly say im more looking forward to the new jack reacher film Spot on in both points. I think the Bourne thing could become very old very quickly. I will go to this new film, but I'm not expecting to be thinking about it an hour after I leave. And I really enjoyed the first Jack Reacher which is credit to the film considering it starred Tom bloody Cruise. I didn't read the books so I'm not one of these people who thinks he's badly cast as Reacher, but I can understand given the things he got up to in the first film that book fans might have had a more impressive specimen in their minds when thinking about casting the film Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Bourne worked because it captured an uneasy feeling that we were all being watched by the powers that be... and as it turned out we are. Now that we know that we are being watched, the mood has changed to 'what can we do about it, if anything at all' (or more troubling 'oh well, it's for the best') and perhaps we aren't looking for more films to show us that people at computers are monitoring our phone calls. So yes, Bourne was the right movie at the right time, but like Bond it has a problem of remaining relevant in a world that is moving at quite a pace toward some unknown and most likely unpleasant destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCDAN Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Never seen a Bourne film personally. I think the last film I watched of that ilk was Enemy of the State, I really enjoyed that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 29, 2016 Moderator Share Posted July 29, 2016 2 hours ago, CarewsEyebrowDesigner said: Bourne worked because it captured an uneasy feeling that we were all being watched by the powers that be... and as it turned out we are. Now that we know that we are being watched, the mood has changed to 'what can we do about it, if anything at all' (or more troubling 'oh well, it's for the best') and perhaps we aren't looking for more films to show us that people at computers are monitoring our phone calls. So yes, Bourne was the right movie at the right time, but like Bond it has a problem of remaining relevant in a world that is moving at quite a pace toward some unknown and most likely unpleasant destination. The next one involves him travelling the world collecting Pokemon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 1 hour ago, AVFCDAN said: Never seen a Bourne film personally. I think the last film I watched of that ilk was Enemy of the State, I really enjoyed that. Very underrated movie. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 It's a decent sequel 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 I love the Bourne trilogy. Watched them multiple times and can't wait to see the new movie. I guess i'm easily pleased! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 12 hours ago, BOF said: Spot on in both points. I think the Bourne thing could become very old very quickly. I will go to this new film, but I'm not expecting to be thinking about it an hour after I leave. And I really enjoyed the first Jack Reacher which is credit to the film considering it starred Tom bloody Cruise. I didn't read the books so I'm not one of these people who thinks he's badly cast as Reacher, but I can understand given the things he got up to in the first film that book fans might have had a more impressive specimen in their minds when thinking about casting the film Jack Reacher was ruined by the acting poison that is Jai Courtney which says it all when it stars Tom Cruise. he makes Channing Tatum look talented and charismatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 29, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted July 29, 2016 Curiously, Jai Courtney looks like he might be one of the best things about Suicide Squad. Completely against type for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts