Meatwadsprite's Slow Review Thread

Just look at the director

__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.

What is your problem meatwad?

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

This synopsis proves you didn't understand what you were watching. Clayton is a "fixer," of course, but...



What was not straight-forward about it? Were you thrown because the chronology of events was altered? Because characters didn't look into the camera and explain to you what was happening? Did you ignore the dialogue? Don't worry about answering, I know you'll just give me some one-sentence response of little content, and that won't do either of us any good.

A quick word about "original" themes: it's tricky trying to define what's original. If you're only entertained by movies of true originality, then I don't envy you. You'll be disappointed time and again, because true originality is rare these days. I can't say I find the themes of Michael Clayton truly original, but they are quite engaging and true, and Tony Gilroy and company have done a fine job articulating them within the framework of a believable story, believable performances by genuine actors, and a satisfying, logical outcome. And you say it's hilarious that it was nominated for Best Picture.

How were the characters and themes hard to see? Which characters did you not understand? What movie were you really watching?

Maybe it's not that they were hard to understand, it's just that he's incredibly stupid.

__________________

I can see how some people who are used to watching certain kinds of films might have trouble with "other" kinds of films, but yeah, I don't understand how this film is that difficult to begin with. Things move pretty quickly and clearly, and I don't think the filmmakers attempted to cause any intentional confusion at any point in the plot. He has Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind listed in his Top 10, and I would argue that that film is much more complex in construction and hidden motivations than Michael Clayton.

He hasn't at any stage said that he doesn't enjoy/watch suspenseful films. I haven't seen Michael Clayton in full, but do you think it was hard to understand? Or do you think it was just hard to understand for meatwad?

It's his thread. Ask him instead of speaking about him in the third person (just a friendly suggestion). I'll chime in after I watch it this weekend.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I actually did ask him specific questions, although I'm unimpressed with his usual responses to the questions/comments of others. I know everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but I'm just kinda bothered when people take such strong stances on films, but refuse to qualify their statements adequately when pressed.

As to whether or not I thought it was hard for him, I can't say. I don't know him well enough. I know people who generally don't like their films any more complex than Con Air, but that's in no way an assumption that he is of a similar sentimentality (and judging by his listed "Favorite Films," I'd say not). Even still, I can't see how Michael Clayton is difficult in the ways meatwadsprite criticized.

Meaty usually lives on the extremes of his ratings. I believe, Beaty, that as you watch more films that you'll find them more in the middle than on the extreme ends. I know from experience that you (that's Big to your friends) have a hard time explaining your opinions initially, but eventually, if Bouncy sees a film again, he is (you are) open to changing your opinion. One thing is for sure though; the author of this thread was so bored stiff by Michael Clayton that he can hardly discuss it.

As for me, I'm about to put it on right now.

yep

I didn't ignore the dialouge , i just hate how the film unfolds it's events.

__________________

And that's all you're going to say? It's fine if you hate it, but to say that it's a convulted, unoriginal mess without really illustrating how... well, that's just irresponsible. Don't you have anything more to say? I would think that you'd like to elaborate, rather than just document your hatred for movies here without discussion.

I don't feel like watching this movie again so I can point out specifically why it sucks.

Please do

You ought to be able to do that the first time, I think. Someone who hates a movie and can't explain why either a) hates it for silly reasons, or b) wasn't paying enough attention, and therefore isn't in a position to grade it in the first place.

Look, people are going to like some of the movies that you don't. So, when they hear you tearing into it, they're going to want reasons. It all boils down to one principle that, if followed, will severely reduce these little scuffles: always assume that people will want specifics about why you hate or love something.

Trust me on this.

Overnight (1 viewing)



Plot : A documentary that attempts to capture Boondock Saints director Troy Duffy's instant rise to fame and his change of personality that follows.

Story : Mostly out to capture how much an ass Troy is once he gets famous , but really fails to capture anything but. The only footage you really see if Troy talking about how he earned his way and him yelling at people - really making you feel like your missing another 75% of what's really going on. Troy Duffy's script for The Boondock Saints is bought by Miramax and slated to be directed by Duffy as well - with his new found money , his friends and band go to him for support : and you see him become the leader of the band with all the power. Somehow in the end he gets in trouble with the Hollywood system and is supposedly not able to make any more films with any of those studios - but if your going solely on the information in the film : you can't really know a whole lot about the situation.

Now this same thing happens in a way in my favorite documentary "The King of Kong" : but that film uses it's unrealistic view to craft a story - unlike this film which seems like a very messy collection of footage.

Visuals : The footage based on a solely technical standpoint is very well done , but it's great sound editing and few great clips cant help this movie out very much.

Synopsis : Though it seems like a great idea for a documentary , it doesn't capture as much as I would like and feels very loosely based on anything. Not to say it's a totall disapointment , it is better than most documentarys I've seen - but nowhere near as good as my favorite.

So you don't like ANY documentary? Cause every single one leaves stuff out to get their point across. Even if they try to be objective, what they choose to tell and not to tell is significant.

Into the Wild (1 viewing)



Plot : Chris McCandless (Emile Hirsch) has just graduated from college , but does not go on to pursue his career - instead he burns the money he had and abandons his car to go live his life on the road - from scratch.

Story : As Chris voyages toward his goal of living in Alaska , he meets many other people along the way. Though he will live with them for small periods of time he always leaves in the end to go somewhere new. The more he travels the more you learn about his past , but as it seems to be revealing more : it just stops and the true motive of the main character is never revealed. This is my problem with the whole movie - all the characters have very hidden agendas , and I can't ever connect with any of them.

Visuals : Looks great for the most part , this is defintly one of the stronger points of the movie : throughout there are many attempts to capture the beauty of the landscapes and nature , which works out some times and not others.

Synopsis : I'm emotionally disconnected with the characters at all times throughout this movie - but it does keep me watching untill the end and guessing about what could make the events in the movie happen.

Thanks meatface

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Movies I gave up on
----------------------
Here are some movies I probably shouldn't review because I haven't seen the entire thing , but I don't recommend them to anyone.

Braveheart - I was pretty drawn in this movie for awhile , but after the first epic battle : I was done with this. Characters weren't very developed at all and once I lost interest in the main character I turned it off.

Blue Spring - Started off great , but just really started to fall apart with it's visual style failing to look good past the first couple minutes. The whole movie felt like i was watching random scenes than a continuing story.

Chungking Express - I only got about 10 minutes into this and turned it off , nothing here interested me at all : especially the dumb looking slow frame rate thing at the beginning (looked like really bad version of slow motion).

Shoot Em Up - Another movie that failed to interest me at all within the first 15 minutes , action scenes that conquered the parts I saw : were just horribly shot and incredibly boring.

That's to bad you couldn't get into Braveheart, I love it (obviously), maybe some other time. I also got a kick out of Shoot 'em Up, its a nothing movie with lots of action. Pretty enjoyable to me.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...