Rate The Last Movie You Saw - 2

[GLASSJAW]

Really like Kaufman's other films. Eternal Sunshine is in my top 10 favourite films of all time. I just hate SNY. We're all allowed to dislike things for reasons that are legitimate to us. And no, just because something is pretentious, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad. I just had a hard time appreciating SNY. The idea? Fascinating. Would have probably been better as a novel/short story, rather then watching a writer tell us how clever he is for 2 hours with his pretentious crap of a film.

If you like it, that's fine; and I understand why some people would like it. That said, it is just not for me.

i know, wasn't trying to take you to task for it, was just curious cuz 'pretentious' is kind of vague yet intense sounding

[Twilight Sparkle]

Godzilla - 8.5/10

It really couldn't have been much better. I wish I had gone in IMAX, though.

i agree. saw that last week after opening day. first off, i love the godzilla series, so i'll try not let my bias get in the way of my sucky little review here, which may contain a spoiler or two, depending how you look at it

i didn't pop much for cranston (although his role was played perfectly) but the big payoff was seeing what we paid for

the movie is like a classic godzilla movie-- the slow burn. the story's built around the traditional nuclear radiation theme, but they add a nice twist to the enemy, in which godzilla is awakened to fight.

the movie starts off slow with good detail in to the goings on in recent japan (even going in to more details of the first godzilla movie), with a quick flash back with an unknown creature discovered and then escaping, remaining dormant

within the first 15-20 minutes the movie already hits you with feels. cranston was just great in this film, and kept me in to the story. the guy who played his son wasn't so bad either

once godzilla finally makes his appearance, and that signature roar hits, all you can do is sit back and watch the carnage, and you get hit one more time with the feels

this movie was just what i expected walking in to the theatre-- i was not disappointed. really good mix of carnage and emotion, and you feel emotions towards the monsters

i would honestly give this movie a 9/10. the cgi was so well done, the acting-- even though it was questionable with some of the cast (ford's son, and his wife and serizawa's assistant i didn't much care for) and the fan service with godzilla's fight sequence would leave anyone satisfied. i really loved godzilla 2000 after the 1998 abortion with broderick, but this movie was much, much stronger than the 2000 reboot

after hearing rumblings of possible sequels, i have no problem with it

Edited May 24, 2014 by Twilight Sparkle

[kodos]

Watched Bronson the other night.

Meh. Hardy was good in it, but it just felt a little hollow to me, which is about par for the course for Refn movies, IMO.

Oh yeah, and Synecdoche, New York is incredibly pretentious and was quite frankly a chore to get through.

Edited May 24, 2014 by kodos

[GLASSJAW]

what did you think was pretentious about it? what makes a movie pretentious? what makes a movie not pretentious? etc

[Kryten]

what did you think was pretentious about it? what makes a movie pretentious? what makes a movie not pretentious? etc

I find movies where the director purposefully obfuscates scenes for the sake of appearances rather than using talent to actually convey their film's content in a way that fits their created context that is intelligently yet sufficiently parlayed to the observer, to be pretentious. I guess a simpler way of putting it is saying a movie is pretentious when it expects the audience to be stupid enough to buy the BS it's selling.

That being said, there is some high-grade BS that is totally worth buying but there is some that is downright insulting. Subjective of course but sometimes consensus can root out the worst offenders. I haven't seen the film you mentioned so I can't offer my two cents on it unfortunately. However, if I get the chance, I will watch it.

Anyone here watch Gaspar Noe's Enter the Void? I have been meaning to watch this flick, wondering what others thought of it.

[VICanucksfan5551]

For me, pretentiousness in a movie is where a director or writer adds an element that seems to be more in service of stroking their own ego than to benefit the quality of the movie. It's an attempted display of artistry that is lacking in subtlety or humility. An example of something I found pretentious was Black Swan. The gratuitous symbolism beating the audience over their heads by Aronofsky seemed to serve no purpose other than symbolism for the sake of symbolism.

I can't comment on whether or not this applies to the movie in question because I've never seen it.

[Apples]

X-Men: Day of Future Past - 9/10 Great story, thoroughly enjoyed the entire movie

[GLASSJAW]

I find movies where the director purposefully obfuscates scenes for the sake of appearances rather than using talent to actually convey their film's content in a way that fits their created context that is intelligently yet sufficiently parlayed to the observer, to be pretentious. I guess a simpler way of putting it is saying a movie is pretentious when it expects the audience to be stupid enough to buy the BS it's selling.

That being said, there is some high-grade BS that is totally worth buying but there is some that is downright insulting. Subjective of course but sometimes consensus can root out the worst offenders. I haven't seen the film you mentioned so I can't offer my two cents on it unfortunately. However, if I get the chance, I will watch it.

Anyone here watch Gaspar Noe's Enter the Void? I have been meaning to watch this flick, wondering what others thought of it.

can you give examples of this?

do you apply the same sort of judgment to, say, a novel? is a Pynchon novel pretentious? What about Joyce? can scenes not be obfuscated for both appearances and because of talent? if something is pretentious, does that make it bad?

(not necessarily disagreeing with you, i just don't know what you mean exactly)

Edited May 25, 2014 by GLASSJAW

[Kryten]

can you give examples of this?

do you apply the same sort of judgment to, say, a novel? is a Pynchon novel pretentious? What about Joyce? can scenes not be obfuscated for both appearances and because of talent? if something is pretentious, does that make it bad?

(not necessarily disagreeing with you, i just don't know what you mean exactly)

I've never read a Pynchon novel so I couldn't tell you yes or no (although I did a quick Google search and may have to remedy that). It has been some time since I read Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake. All I can say is that at the time, I didn't find them pretentious (although I was only a teenager). I am not a fan of the hype-machine or those that seek to take advantage of it, although whether or not a story falls into that category is subjective to my interpretation more than anything. Of course there are movies out there with references I just don't understand, naturally I will probably hate them. Goes with the territory.

As for what I meant, it touches on what VIC stated, obfuscation for the sake of obfuscation, especially when it appears at odds with a context the storyteller created themselves. What I find really cringeworthy, is when authors/directors disguise a non-existent artistic depth with plagiarism or complete obscurity (Tree of Life for example). Michael Bay isn't going to direct a movie about American slavery or Anne Frank because there wouldn't any explosions. Bay may not have an artistic bone in his body, but at least he knows it and sticks to what he does best (instead of insulting us with an attempt at it using cheap parlour tricks to hide his lack of depth).

Inception, Tree of Life, Prometheus and Beyond the Black Rainbow are examples of movies that I found to be pretentious as ****, they did a poor job justifying their underlying motifs (despite their advertisements). There are many others I'm sure that have brought about that feeling, and while I may not have hated them (Inception was entertaining and BTBR had some intense visuals for example), I certainly don't respect them like I do others.

[Blue90]

Wreck it Ralph 8.5/10

Exceeded my expectations and I was glad to hear they're making a second one

[Monty]

X-Men Days of Future Past - 6/10

Good acting, good action; but nothing I haven't seen in every single superhero film over the last 12 years.

[GLASSJAW]

I've never read a Pynchon novel so I couldn't tell you yes or no (although I did a quick Google search and may have to remedy that). It has been some time since I read Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake. All I can say is that at the time, I didn't find them pretentious (although I was only a teenager). I am not a fan of the hype-machine or those that seek to take advantage of it, although whether or not a story falls into that category is subjective to my interpretation more than anything. Of course there are movies out there with references I just don't understand, naturally I will probably hate them. Goes with the territory.

As for what I meant, it touches on what VIC stated, obfuscation for the sake of obfuscation, especially when it appears at odds with a context the storyteller created themselves. What I find really cringeworthy, is when authors/directors disguise a non-existent artistic depth with plagiarism or complete obscurity (Tree of Life for example). Michael Bay isn't going to direct a movie about American slavery or Anne Frank because there wouldn't any explosions. Bay may not have an artistic bone in his body, but at least he knows it and sticks to what he does best (instead of insulting us with an attempt at it using cheap parlour tricks to hide his lack of depth).

Inception, Tree of Life, Prometheus and Beyond the Black Rainbow are examples of movies that I found to be pretentious as ****, they did a poor job justifying their underlying motifs (despite their advertisements). There are many others I'm sure that have brought about that feeling, and while I may not have hated them (Inception was entertaining and BTBR had some intense visuals for example), I certainly don't respect them like I do others.

fair enough. i still don't really think i get where you're coming from, because "art for art's sake" or "symbolism for symbolism's" sake, to me, is verging on being prescriptive, and obviously very subjective. when is a symbol not for symbolism's sake? how do we know? does "artsy" stuff have to be presented in a certain way in order for it to be appreciated as art, and anything more is "excessive artsiness" and therefore not artful?

saying something is 'pretentious' is a conversation killer to me, especially when it's generally reserved for movies, books, shows, etc. that could generate some pretty good discussion. (i don't think Tree of Life is pretentious at all!)

and i think if people were to honestly have a criteria for 'pretentiousness' then you'd probably dismiss an entire world of cinema (and i mean that almost literally), since international and classic cinema doesn't really fall in line with traditional Hollywood structure, it would be easy for a Michael Bay fan to dismiss Fellini movies, for example, as 'pretentious' when, really, they are just different

[Monty]

^^

I can understand why people would want a "list" of what makes something pretentious. And I could go into detail on why I feel SNY is pretentious. However, that is something that is best left to an actual conversation, not over the interweb. It's also a convenient way for me to say, "I don't want to discuss something that I loathe."

[Kryten]

fair enough. i still don't really think i get where you're coming from, because "art for art's sake" or "symbolism for symbolism's" sake, to me, is verging on being prescriptive, and obviously very subjective. when is a symbol not for symbolism's sake? how do we know? does "artsy" stuff have to be presented in a certain way in order for it to be appreciated as art, and anything more is "excessive artsiness" and therefore not artful?

saying something is 'pretentious' is a conversation killer to me, especially when it's generally reserved for movies, books, shows, etc. that could generate some pretty good discussion. (i don't think Tree of Life is pretentious at all!)

and i think if people were to honestly have a criteria for 'pretentiousness' then you'd probably dismiss an entire world of cinema (and i mean that almost literally), since international and classic cinema doesn't really fall in line with traditional Hollywood structure, it would be easy for a Michael Bay fan to dismiss Fellini movies, for example, as 'pretentious' when, really, they are just different

IMO, there are entire worlds of cinema that should be dismissed Seriously though, I am capable of discerning the differences you mention, I don't like Michael Bay but I don't dismiss the fact that he is very good at what he does. There are others in his genre that can't do what he does, I may not like him but I respect his capabilities (although this will be the only time I will ever admit such a thing).

I personally find it distasteful when the story gets trumped by artistic expression. There are clever ways to improve and expand a story using such expression and I despise those that spite the story in favour of showing something that may have profound meaning to the director but ultimately means nothing to the created context (and thus, the audience). That is my subjective view on the matter and is why I thought TOL was an abomination (I tried watching it several different times and I had to pull the chute every time). I find the prospect of watching it from start to finish an impossible task. I would rather just watch Cosmos with Carl Sagan or Neil De Grasse Tyson.

I don't think it is prescriptive to ask a director to use symbols and motifs that actually apply to or improve the story, characters etc, they created. I don't often use the word "pretentious" when applying a negative connotation to a movie, especially since single scenes may give me that feeling without ruining the whole experience (unlike TOL). If I do it's often for a remake or a sequel where pretentiousness would be far more prevalent due to a work having a pre-existing reputation. And yes I agree it is all completely subjective.

FTR, I thought that Team America was bloody fantastic. I am hardly a puppet aficianado but Trey Parker and Matt Stone are genuises that were able to tie together many artistic expressions I may not originally be open to, and made them entertaining (I am also no fan of musicals but they did a brilliant job with South Park BLU). I am always willing to watch and enjoy something different (I liked Valhalla Rising and Existenz), but I am not willing to look at a kaleidoscope of meaningless images and call it a story. If it calls itself a story, I may disagree.

[GLASSJAW]

I personally find it distasteful when the story gets trumped by artistic expression. There are clever ways to improve and expand a story using such expression and I despise those that spite the story in favour of showing something that may have profound meaning to the director but ultimately means nothing to the created context (and thus, the audience). That is my subjective view on the matter and is why I thought TOL was an abomination (I tried watching it several different times and I had to pull the chute every time). I find the prospect of watching it from start to finish an impossible task. I would rather just watch Cosmos with Carl Sagan or Neil De Grasse Tyson.

I don't think it is prescriptive to ask a director to use symbols and motifs that actually apply to or improve the story, characters etc, they created. I don't often use the word "pretentious" when applying a negative connotation to a movie, especially since single scenes may give me that feeling without ruining the whole experience (unlike TOL). If I do it's often for a remake or a sequel where pretentiousness would be far more prevalent due to a work having a pre-existing reputation. And yes I agree it is all completely subjective.

its times like these that i wish we had a CDC movie club, so we could be far more specific. because i haven't seen TOL in a while, and i don't really know where you're coming from if you can be so critical of it (especially in regards to 'context') if you haven't even finished the movie(!). but anyway, totally fair enough. others obviously agree with you, but i do not, especially with TOL.

i don't believe it was obscurity for its own sake, don't believe it lacked artistic depth. i have no idea how those claims can even be made, tbh. i just think a lot of people didn't "get it" and didn't want to try to "get it" so they just tuned out, or weren't open to it. i have no idea if i enjoyed it, no idea if i understood it, but i thought it was an enjoyable effort anyway. it was thought provoking, even if it was annoying at times. to me, that is enjoyable. guiding my hand through 'why stars are neat' using child-friendly metaphors, a la Tyson, isn't. different strokes.

[Toni Zamboni]

Searching for Sugar Man - 10/10....documentary.

great story, amazing music....my kind of film.

[Kryten]

its times like these that i wish we had a CDC movie club, so we could be far more specific. because i haven't seen TOL in a while, and i don't really know where you're coming from if you can be so critical of it (especially in regards to 'context') if you haven't even finished the movie(!). but anyway, totally fair enough. others obviously agree with you, but i do not, especially with TOL.

i don't believe it was obscurity for its own sake, don't believe it lacked artistic depth. i have no idea how those claims can even be made, tbh. i just think a lot of people didn't "get it" and didn't want to try to "get it" so they just tuned out, or weren't open to it. i have no idea if i enjoyed it, no idea if i understood it, but i thought it was an enjoyable effort anyway. it was thought provoking, even if it was annoying at times. to me, that is enjoyable. guiding my hand through 'why stars are neat' using child-friendly metaphors, a la Tyson, isn't. different strokes.

Completely fair. I know that it is a polarizing film and I really tried to get into it, I just couldn't. I will probably wait a year or two and give it another try with a new perspective.

[babych]

Just watched "World's Greatest Dad" on netflix.

Frickin brilliant - 8/10

[Tangelos]

Non Stop 8/10

Good suspense, but

who killed the pilot? Julianne Moore was the last person to use the washroom but apparently she was a good guy. Also the bad guy with the glasses had Liam at gun point when he was duct taped but gave the gun back to him after his heartfelt speech only to hold him at gun point 10 minutes later? Wtf?

[GLASSJAW]

manhattan 10/10