Rooney1987
Full Member
Just got Pan's labyrinth but its in Spanish anyone know how I can get English subtitles.
Lives of Others - Brilliant. And that actress was fecking hot.
mehro, did you watch Taboo yet?
Don't tell me you liked the IJ series, especially with your dislike towards deus ex machine and all...or does that not count with action flicks?
No Doc, will rent it on my next trip.
How's work?
Busy, but it's ok. How's life in Texas?
Busy, but it's ok.
Peace out, Doctor.
And word to the motherland.
What? Who?
Raiders is brilliant. I didn't like the other two as much, but they're great fun. And what deus ex machina's in the IJ series? I've not seen them for years. The thing with the Saw was that it was full of cheap tricks, deus ex machina. . .and a contrived plot. Hence it was awful. It was aimed at those whom liked Cabin Fever and others of the same ilk.
The thing with classics is that very rarely are they timeless ones.
Is this you spoony?fo'sure man.
gangsta, big style. I've got a muthafecking gun right next to me and all.
That's not true at all. I just think you're too young to really appreciate films. The fact that you thought Saw was very good, proves my point.
That's not true at all. I just think you're too young to really appreciate films. The fact that you thought Saw was very good, proves my point.
The thing with classics is that very rarely are they timeless ones. I can understand why they were so brilliant for that era.
So where would you stand on the likes of The Godfather (1 and 2) which are classic and seemingly timeless? Maybe they are an exception?
Does a film have to be made, say, at least two decades ago, to be considered 'classic', in the usual sense? Just a thought...(sorry, had a very long and ardous trip back from Italy and feeling extremely tired and probably not making much sense!)
Just because some one likes Saw doesn't mean he has a shit taste. .
I have a feeling me liking Saw will be an achilles heel for the rest of my Caf days
And I can appreciate classics obviously. If I had to draw a list of my favourite movies then the likes of Apocalypse Now, Strangelove, Godfathers, Casablanca, Cuckoo's Nest, Where Eagles Dare amongst a shitload of others would make the list easily
Probably nothing to do with age. I think taste is something you're born with (no silly jokes please).
Is this you spoony?
So where would you stand on the likes of The Godfather (1 and 2) which are classic and seemingly timeless? Maybe they are an exception?
Does a film have to be made, say, at least two decades ago, to be considered 'classic', in the usual sense? Just a thought...(sorry, had a very long and ardous trip back from Italy and feeling extremely tired and probably not making much sense!)
I think he means old films.(although the ones he likes, I wouldn't even regard as old). But it's an interesting point. I don't think classics have to be older than a certain age. Some films become instant classics.
No. That's like saying if a person thinks the Rihanna's Umbrella song is very good, it doesn't mean they have bad taste. Sorry, but they do. I'm not going to sit on the fence and say, well we've all got different tastes. . . and the Umbrella song is very good. But I'm not having really having pop at Salv, I just think his taste is down to his age. I do actually think Hollywood and the cinema experience should take a large portion of the blame.
The films you've mentioned are all very accessible, though. I think kids these days expect a twist and all sorts in films thesedays. If a film is not fast paced, it's regarded as boring.
When it comes to suspense movies like Vertigo or Conversation, it could well be me wanting the movie to surprise me a lot. And some, like Taxi Driver fizzled into me expecting too much out of it. Talking of Hitchcock, the one movie that I liked of his a lot was North by Northwest which no one really raved about much
Pretty vague, but a lot of factors contribute a good movie and some of those are dependent on the state of mind I'm in
The main problem I hear people complain about is the pacing. People aren't willing to sit down through a film and take it in properly. It has to be fast moving, which really annoys me when people dismiss something completely because they stopped watching after half an hour, citing the pace as the reason.
The main problem I hear people complain about is the pacing. People aren't willing to sit down through a film and take it in properly. It has to be fast moving, which really annoys me when people dismiss something completely because they stopped watching after half an hour, citing the pace as the reason.
Anything can be good as long as it's appealing. But most important aspects remain the storyline and the plot and each movie has something in it, like that one long scene in War of the worlds where Cruise finds the tripods and runs through the streets and into the tube (subway?). That's why maybe I'm not a fan of Indiana Jones movies cos it focuses mainly on the action and the plot takes a back step even at times being sacrificed for an action scene
Timeless classics for me are ones which can by accessed at any age. Apocalypse Now is the best movie that I've ever watched and I can access it at any time of my life. Probably 'cos it speaks about a general subject i.e war and has a anti-war message which as Spoony said is accessible. Or something like Strangelove for its humour, screenplay and execution
When it comes to suspense movies like Vertigo or Conversation, it could well be me wanting the movie to surprise me a lot. And some, like Taxi Driver fizzled into me expecting too much out of it. Talking of Hitchcock, the one movie that I liked of his a lot was North by Northwest which no one really raved about much
Pretty vague, but a lot of factors contribute a good movie and some of those are dependent on the state of mind I'm in