I don't think that qualifies, a lot of people think it's meh.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 Me neither, and I have very little interest in doing so.
Comment has been collapsed.
You dont have kids right?
Ive seen it so many times....
Comment has been collapsed.
This. I dont ever want to watch it because of the huge hype. WEEEE MAD MAX MAD MAX BLABLA
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a poor reason to not enjoy a good action movie. You're not watching it out of spite, but spiting who? The Universe? Keep in mind I do think it was overpraised but it's indeed a fun visual spectacle.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would agree if we're talking Fury Road. In the car chases and explosion scenes, CGI was not used, but the movie had real cars and 'splosions. That's the best part. CGI ruins a lot of movies for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Which Mad Max?
Including the latest one there are 4 Movies ...from which only the first one (the one from 1979) has only Mad Max in the title
Comment has been collapsed.
Fight Club. I already know the ending so there's no point in watching it anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not a reason. I keep re-watching good movies and series.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice try.
Fight Club is the movie critics savaged upon release but has grown in prestige precisely because it is good.
Also, Fincher is gold.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice try to do what?
I find it rather boring and meaningless. And that lousy retrospection with ending in the beginning. It's like the cheapest trick ever. I dindn't enjoy it at all.
I don't know about other Fincher's movies. Or I know and I'm not aware he directed them. :D But maybe I'll give it a shot.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fincher is amazing.
Fight Club isn't the 10th best movie of all time, but it's pretty good.
I think Se7en and Gone Girl are better Fincher films, at minimum.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I've done my research and apparently Fincher is a director of whole bunch of movies that are in my backlog. :D I still won't agree with you about Fight Club but I want to see Se7en, The Game (well, I've just lost it), Zodiac and Asylum. So maybe it's Palahniuk's fault, not Fincher's. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
A few people I've heard criticize Fight Club miss the point of it. A few that love Fight Club miss the point. Many people miss the point of Se7en too, for that matter.
Se7en is a masterpiece, by the way.
Fight Club ultimately is a rejection of The Narrator's juvenile response to the condition of contemporary man--not an endorsement thereof. Lots of people miss that though. Chuck Palahniuk--the author of the original book--still to this day has people coming up to him asking him where they can find a fight club. Not the point, people.
Still, it's an imperfect film and I'm not saying you have to like it or anything. I will always think is it good/great, but I don't love it like I did when I was younger, in part because I just really appreciate when the entire film is tight start to finish, and Fincher has several films that are much better as a whole.
Still, I don't think he has any bad films. Except maybe Alien 3. And that was his first film, and the studio fiddled with it the entire time. They kept doing rewrites during shooting, amongst other bullshit. Fincher almost decided not to do feature filmmaking after his Alien 3 experience. Thank goodness he changed his mind.
I just wish Fincher had done the Dragon Tattoo series all at once like the original Swedish films. Now the sequels will never get done.
Comment has been collapsed.
I watched Fight Club about 2 years ago so I don't really remember it well. Maybe if I watched it again I would see your point. Altough I believe I recall the irony of whole thing. I just think Fight Club was trying too hard to send some message. I expected something a bit thought provoking, I got it on a sliver plate. Or maybe I was so disappointed with all that obvious endorsement you mentioned, it didn't come to my head that there might be something else. Something completely opposite in fact. :D Yet still we're talking about movie based on the novel of man who wrote Guts. 2postmodern4me
Comment has been collapsed.
Fincher is one of those directors where you can miss a lot the first time around. I have.
He's one of those filmmakers that the more he does, the more I appreciate his works, although again in the case of Fight Club I'm not as enamored of it as I used to be because in the end it's the sort of film that young adult males often respond to quite positively because of all the cool fisticuffs and superficial anarchic mayhem.
Fincher is like the opposite of George Lucas. Lucas did a few things, including America Graffiti and THX 1138 before he did Star Wars. Then he completely handled the prequel trilogy and my goodness. We learned that Lucas' genius was limited to making beautiful effects come to life. Plot, dialogue, character development... not his strengths.
Anyway, Fight Club used to be one of my favorites for a long time but I don't even think it's one of my top three favorite Fincher films. I really liked what he did with Gone Girl. I don't know the author of the adapted novel Gillian Flynn too well--haven't read her--but considering she was the source I was excited to see the adaptation of her other work--Dark Places with Charlize Theron. Meh.
Meh. Maybe with Fincher at the helm the film could have been something.
Comment has been collapsed.
I did not find Se7en to be "that" good. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie, but it did not really leave a lasting impression on me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some of the ways they found the victims managed to feel a bit too convenient and some of the ways the victims were "punished" felt too contrived. Basically, things did not feel very believable, but the way things were presented, the setting, the police work and all that, made it seem like it should not be as "out there" as it was in the movie.
I've not seen it in quite a while, so I don't remember many of the details, but I do remember not being impressed by it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, the sin being turned against the sinner was Doe's entire point. And as for finding the victims, okay, I'll give you that it's a stretch for Somerset to go discover the little pieces of linoleum scratched out of the floor by the moving of the fridge and then fed to the Gluttony victim to find the first card, or the need for the wife to recognize that the painting is upside down to find the fingerprints, but these are movie conventions.
My praise of the film is the great cast, strong dialogue, the strong development of the core characters--especially their feelings about the things that happen in their city, the complete and utter absence of wasted scenes, and the mirroring of nihilists in Somerset and Doe--that both Somerset and Doe are the antagonists, while Mills is the protagonist.
Fincher said that when he first read the script he was drawn to the film and that one of the early rewrites mucked up the film, with the typical car chase to save the victim trope common to crime thrillers. He refused to make that film. The police don't get their man. The plot is not wrapped up in a marketable and pleasing bow as it typical of films where police try to stop their man.
It's a bleak look at a troubled man's disgust and apathy channeled into reflecting an ugly city's hatred and sin back at itself.
If it had the requisite car chase that it fortunately does not, if someone--anyone--can managed to be saved then it would just be another crime film. But it isn't those things, and it's as much what they didn't do as much as what they did that make me think it's a masterpiece.
Comment has been collapsed.
its good...I hate violent movies but this one is good
Comment has been collapsed.
I just can't re-watch movies or TV-series, nor can I re-read books, until a lot of time has passed (10+ years). Nor can I watch a movie or TV-series or watch a book that has been heavily spoiled.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same here with most of stuff. There are few titles I like to go back though, usually does more "artsy" ones, where you can see more and more details the more you watch it.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 and i can't see a movie based on a book or read a book after i saw the movie
Comment has been collapsed.
I watched Despicible Me because of Minion hype, do not understand it...
Comment has been collapsed.
I just wanted tu say it's friggin awesome avatar. And that you should give Inception a shot. I'd say it's really fun movie.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks got the avatar from a guy on tf2r years ago he made all the tf2 chars the same way. Yeah have to watch it at some point even if just to hear the BWAAAAAA.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty much every movie in existence. I have friends to go to the movies with and don't care enough to go by myself.
Comment has been collapsed.
Heyyyy, same. I didn't even go see Deadpool for exactly the same reason. Going alone is shitty.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm formally inviting you to do it. Well not to go see it alone, but try to get company :3
I'll also have to show you my new Dark Souls III t-shirt ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, getting company won't happen, so I guess I'll just have to wait for the DVD to come out or something.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think I watched parts of the Rocky movies as a kid.
But in my defense, I can never ever get into boxing movies.
And I don't plan on watching any of the Rocky movies anyways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've never seen any of the Lord of the Rings movies, simply because we only got the second movie on DVD and I never cared enough to buy the first DVD, ha.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wanted to like LOTR. The genre appeals to me but I just found it painful to get through them after a while. The Hobbit is awesome though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I haven't seen that one either, haha. Maybe I'd like the movies, I don't know, I'm not much of a movie person anymore anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Where am I? Is Obama white? Is Trump a wonderful human being? Did Batman & Robin win an Oscar? Because clearly I'm in opposite land since in the regular world no one has ever said they liked The Hobbit more than the infinitely superior LotR :).
Comment has been collapsed.
I do not love them, but they are no bad, too long though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Didn't see them in theaters. Saw them via Channel BT a few years later, all Extended Editions.
Like 11 hours of LoTR.
Mostly good. Will probably never watch it again.
Zero interest in The Hobbit. Read the book. It shouldn't be three movies. You already got me once, Peter Jackson.
Comment has been collapsed.
That was a mistake, watch the theatrical versions, the extended are too long, makes it seem like they drag on and have poor pacing.
Comment has been collapsed.
One of them won an Oscar, it's not hard to argue that you're crazy. Jk, jk. But it did. And they're great.
Comment has been collapsed.
More specifically I mean it isn't good enough to me to overcome the fact that there is just so damn much of it (even not counting the EE, but definitely if counting the EE).
It's just not something I want to see again.
Similarly, I mostly punt on watching anything in the Matrix series other than the animated shorts or the original film. The latter two live-action films have good action, have their moments... but the pacing is just too slow.
The Matrix shoulda been left alone except for graphic novels and animated films or shorts (like the Animatrix) and then 15 years later when technology caught up to produce it more cheaply it should have been launched as a series.
In the right hands, it would be awesome, and it would make TWD look like college baseball in the ratings.
Oh well...
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought M2 had plenty of action, only had one longer chunk of Zion stuff but other than that it was pretty action packed, not much of a pacing issue besides that chunk. The third definitely disappointed everyone, too much Zion, too little Neo, unsatisfying ending, weird Agent Smith stuff. I adore the first though, and the animated shorts were interesting experiments of various animation/storytelling types.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem with The Matrix is that it is often boring when cool action stuff isn't happening.
The first film had less of that problem just because it has the tension of the reveal, decent if barely adequate development of character, the realization of Neo as the one, and so on.
The latter two films are are overwrought excercises in increasing the complexity of the plot and the roster of characters, while not increasing the depth. The latter film is actually strongest in Zion, since finally you can identify with the people. And on the other side you have the Christ-like ascension of Neo outside The Matrix. Bleh.
The Wachowskis are just very hit or miss, to me. V for Vendetta is their best writing, The Matrix is another hit, and most everything else is meh.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I fear their best work is behind them. Why can't we get more Tarantinos that make just one movie every few years but it's always generally good or even great.
Comment has been collapsed.
The overrating of the Dark Knight trilogy notwithstanding, Nolan has had a good run. Someone else might say P.T. Anderson, or Wes Anderson.
Personally, Fincher is my guy. I like Soderbergh's less high concept works as well, like the film Bubble.
Unless Tarantino is just your guy and everyone else just isn't on his level, there's lots of directors out there who usually demonstrate time and again that they are craftsmen.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess Tarantino never really disappointed me so that was the first name to pop in my head. I have trouble remembering who did what, I probably unknowingly love more directors than I think.
Comment has been collapsed.
I tried to watch the first one twice, but fell asleep both times.
Comment has been collapsed.
So basically no geeky stuff. That's a shame, but I guess that's just not your thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Serendipity. Many my friends so much talk about this film so many years, but I still don't watch this film.)
Comment has been collapsed.
pulp fiction
the godfather
the unusual suspects
(I'm a huge movie buff but those three are some I just won't dedicate the time to for some reason o.o)
Comment has been collapsed.
any specific one I should make time for or just all of them? lol
Comment has been collapsed.
All three.
You should already know if you like Tarantino films.
I can see why Godfather is considered to be maybe the best movie of all time, although I wouldn't rank it first by a long shot.
As for The Usual Suspects, people love it, but I don't. It's okay... but I figured out the most important part of the plot before the movie revealed it. That kinda takes the shine off a thriller.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's shocking you haven't seen those 3 as a movie buff. You need to fix that, I just hope you don't remember many spoilers from other people.
Comment has been collapsed.
all of those are great films that deserve a watch sometime
Comment has been collapsed.
I think I may have seen The usual suspects, but not sure. The Godfather and Pulp Fiction I've only seen clips from, and know it's just not for me. I'm a bit of a cinephile as well. Seen 15 of the top 20 on IMDB's list, but the Godfather movies, Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly just doesn't interest me. Mob/Gangster movies just never did it for me, nor western.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece. I personally love it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Too many to name, but let's put it like that... I checked IMDB top 250 page, and from top 10, I have not seen 5 movies, and from top 20 I have not seen 10, so it's 50:50 with those "good movies".
Comment has been collapsed.
I've only watched 3 out of the top 20 (at least that I can remember)... Should I feel bad?
The ones I have watched: The Dark Knight, Inception, The Matrix
Comment has been collapsed.
A little. The Dark Knight is so overrated.
The Godfather reigned supreme on the IMDb charts for
years. Shawshank finally passed it some time back.
See Shawshank at least.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I was surprised to see it so high up in the list, but I did enjoy the Joker's portrayal - it's too bad the actor died because I would have been interested to see more of that.
I may eventually watch most of these movies, as long as someone watches it with me. I guess I always find something better to do when I decide to watch anything alone.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fight Club (I do need to watch eventually.)
Forrest Gump (Don't really have any interest whatsoever but feel like I should bc everyone under the sun has watched it.)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think the list would fit here :P in "size" means
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you hate everything I love? Who hired you? Tell me! Haha.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't hate Star Wars.
But it is very overrated. Granted, the first films in the series were cinematically important, and great for their time, but the story was executed like garbage in the prequel trilogy.
I'm one of those kids, I had Star Wars sheets, I had action figures before it was really popular to buy shit just to keep it in the box for its value.
I'm not little anymore. Star Wars just isn't good enough to get me excited. It's just bad enough for me to be disturbed and put off by everyone else's excitement.
But I don't hate it. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well nobody likes the prequels, you had me worried for a second.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be fair, the books were so much better than the movies, I only watched up to the 4th movie, then stopped.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was a YA when the YA novels first started to get mainstream popularity, and I resisted ever reading them. At a certain point the popularity of something turns you off. Was never much interested in the films as well.
If some ladyfriend wanted me to watch them or something, I guess. But I'm not gonna go all in on an eight-film fantasy teen hero series. Nah.
Comment has been collapsed.
They're not that, not even remotely, if you're thinking Hunger Games/Divergent/whatever YA bs, that's not it. It started as a kids book and then grew along with its readers, kept getting increasingly darker and more serious in tone as it went on. It's nothing like freakin Twilight or some girly hormonal preteen garbage like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have too, it's bs, YA is in no way, shape or form aimed at actual young adults, it's for preteen /teen girls. On rare occasion they actually target boys too. HP is in a different league, wasn't aimed at that crowd to begin with, and it never was some love story focused post apocalyptic bs.
Comment has been collapsed.
- Harry Potter is credited with the popularization of the genre.
- Other popular works in the genre that operate narrowly within it vis-a-vis their target audience do not necessarily define the genre. It's still YA, not YG/YW.
- HP is YA. That characterization bothers you because of how you feel about the YA label, and what you think/have seen others indicate about that particular genre label. But that doesn't change that HP is.
I've been a fan of Deftones since about their second or third album. The term nümetal was coined for them and bands like Limp Bizkit and Korn and so on. I didn't like that because Deftones are on a completely different level from LB and Korn (even if those were the sorts of bands they toured with), but that was me wanting to ensure that my bias regarding lesser nümetal bands, and the bias of the nümetal label weren't applied to one of my favorite bands. But that doesn't change that nümetal is how their early work is described and it's fairly accurate.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've seen my share of those YA movies and they're all more or less the same, HP has nothing in common with them except that they do actually become young adults by the end of it. Maybe it is credited to unintentionally start the genre with its last books, but it sure doesn't feel like any of those. As a result of that I don't categorize it YA, it has little in common with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The themes common to YA are found in Harry Potter I'm pretty sure. You're trying to discredit the label because of two or three film series. That's not the way it works. If you want to refute HP's inclusion in the YA genre, you need to demonstrate why it doesn't fit the genre, not how it is dissimilar to other YA works.
By that logic, because it is dissimilar to classic horror works, It Follows isn't a horror film, it's... why, it's anything I want to call it, because I just don't like to associate it with those other works.
...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I've seen more than 2 or 3 and they really are the damn same :) (why I watch anymore, I don't even know, guilty pleasure I guess, simple to follow turn of your brain adventure, I even gave Twilight a shot to see what the fuss was about and oh dear God, the "horror" :/). The only way to see if I'm right is to actually watch all these movies, especially HP, until then you can't really discredit my conclusion since you have no actual experience in the matter. But it feels good to properly talk about movies, I don't get to do that with people in my life, which is a buzzkill for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can discredit your continued insistence that Harry Potter isn't YA because it isn't like The Hunger Games or Divergent.. Whether those movies you've seen are similar has nothing to do with if the definition of YA is met for another work.
The Hunger Games and Divergent are YA. They are also dystopian. Twilight is YA. It is supernatural. Harry Potter is YA. It is fantasy. These works also sometimes fall into other categories, like romance, or war.
You keep trying to insist that Harry Potter isn't properly categorized when it is categorized with works that you feel are different (and inferior). You cannot use examples of YA literature and their film adaptions as proof that HP is not YA any more than someone can point out that Sprite isn't really a soda because the most popular sodas (Coke and Pepsi) are dark colas and Sprite isn't.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sprite has everything in common with other sodas besides flavor or color. HP has diddly squat in common with Hunger Games, Divergent, Mortal Instruments, Beautiful Creatures, The Maze Runner or Vampire Academy (except some fantasy elements in some cases). Unless every movie that has a teenager in them now qualifies as YA (and they were kids to begin with and targeted kids not "YA") I'm gonna go ahead and say it's not.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can't see the forest for the trees. You keep missing the point. The soda analogy wasn't meant for you to attempt to somehow draw a comparison between the similarity of Sprite to the colas and contrast that with HP to other popular YA works. The point is to understand that soda is not defined merely by its most popular examples; neither is YA defined by The Hunger Games or Divergent.
If you want to argue that HP isn't YA you need to first at least loosely define what YA is so you can then refute that claim, not merely point out that you think HP is nothing like Divergent, Hunger Games, et al.
Since you seem to want an analogy you can't refute, here's one:
Let's say that instead of literary works and adapted films, we are talking about shapes. And let's say that instead of YA, we say parallelogram. Divergent is a rhomboid, The Hunger Games is a rectangle, Twilight is a rhombus, and Harry Potter is a square.
Now, there are qualities that the square has that none of the other shapes have. Nonetheless it is still a parallelogram and trying to say it isn't because of qualities that other parallelograms have that it does not isn't going to work.
Stop trying to refute that HP is YA because it is not like Divergent. You wouldn't try to prove that a square isn't a parallelogram by pointing out that it isn't a rhomboid.
Comment has been collapsed.
You insist on trying to claim otherwise even though you haven't seen any of them. 0. Nada. Not one single one. You're the blind trying to tell me what something looks like even though you haven't even touched it. Do you see the problem with that?
Now I do get your point, I really do, but I don't have to list out all the reasons why it isn't, I have no time for it. You say it isn't based on what, some schmuck deciding one day that all books staring teens are YA? (once again in this case ignoring that in half of the HP books they're kids and for kids).
Until you get the power of sight (callback cough cough) you can't really tell me what it is when I can see just fine. Sure, Divergent is a rhomboid, and HG is a rectangle and so on (Twilight is just a 1 year old's squiggle) but ultimately only one of us can see that Harry Potter is a damn circle :).
Hek, it's a bona fide sphere.
I gotta call it a day for now, I need some sleep. Have a good one mate, genuinely nice talking to you.
PS. Checked out your profile, nice choice for favorite game, I have it on Steam looking to replay it some day but can't seem to find the right time/mood for it, played it years ago when I got it DRM free during some promotion of sorts.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have to have seen Harry Potter to know how it is categorized any more than I have to have seen Pluto with my naked eye to know that it fits the definition of a dwarf planet.
Harry Potter is already classified as YA. Not just by me. By general consensus. If you want to dispute that, then you need to do a lot better than, "but it's not like Divergent or The Hunger Games!"
And yes, you do have to list out why it isn't YA if you want to insist that it is not because it is already categorized as such.
Let's take the site goodreads. A site where readers catalog and review their read works.
While the first book's most common tag is Children's thereafter in the series the two most popular tags are Fantasy and Young Adult. The Children's tag lags. This is because this is what people who have read the books think of the series, and that primarily users of the site aren't children.
YA is one of the categories Wikipedia uses to classify the series.
Barnes & Noble doesn't seem to use the "YA" label. But it does use a label called "teen books" that seems to be pretty much the same thing.
Amazon, on the other hand, sticks all of the books in the grade 4-7 and 9-12 age range categories, even though many claim--as you do, and as I heard many moons ago when the series first became popular--that the later books are not really for 10-year-olds.
Nevertheless, Amazon also classifies it as a teen book series regardless of the younger age range it puts each book in.
Now if you want to claim that not all of the books in the series target even young teens, but their younger brothers and sisters, I'd agree with you. But that doesn't mean that (part) of the series isn't considered YA.
And I'm not going to use any more analogies with you. You seem to either lack a basic understanding of how analogies work or you're being obtuse to feed your fanboyism.
It's fine that you don't think Harry Potter is YA. You just have to prove by means other than, "it's not like this other YA thing."
I don't need to prove HP is YA. It's already considered such by educational and commercial sources.
Comment has been collapsed.
Interstellar
Star Wars series i'll never watch this
And many others which I can't remember atm...
Comment has been collapsed.
Gone with the Wind and the Back to the Future movies
Comment has been collapsed.
Avatar and the Twilight movies. Never seen those O.o
Comment has been collapsed.
So LemonDrop's threads this one and this one as well as fact that I rarely watch movies at all, inspired me to creating this little monster. I'm sure lots of you know some movies hyped to the point where you really don't even want to watch it. What are those and why?
I'll just leave it here and blend in. Even though my posts will be stigmatized as OP's. But shush, maybe no-one will notice.
Comment has been collapsed.