Film Trash Review (Review A Day, Video Review A Week)

Never Let Me Go - 8/10
This Film Became #93 On My All-Time List
http://www.imdb.com/list/Q9VNpfdHQYM/



A simple love story. Still films like Atonement and this one bring new elements, twists and turns to the table. Making for a more enjoyable experience as we continue to think about the human condition. There is no need for a screenplay on this one, the director of this film took it page by page through the story. Refreshing and new, this film will please all fans of the award winning novel.

The Next Film: Transformers 3 (2011)

i don't get what "it's time is up and it's time to move on" means. are you saying you think future generations should just stop watching 2001? should people instead only focus on watching newer movies, is that what this means? should movies that are from a before certain time period no longer be allowed to stay on "best movies of all time" lists?

then isn't that a good reason to not watch all the lame copycat versions and stick with the film that did it right to begin with?

no, "practice makes perfect" is not an applicable phrase when you describe movie making. films become less relevant because times change and people change. circumstances, what people care about, what people want to see and discuss turns into something else. films always reflect the time period which they were made in. this isn't the same thing as being better - just more relevant and less relevant.

but this is all subjective, anyway. a lot of people - people on this forum for example - treasure "classic" movies or find them more relevant for lots of different reasons - nostalgia, history, culture, art, perception. it's smart to view forms of art through all ages of time. it gives one a well-rounded perspective.

and besides, flashy CGI or loud explosions isn't everything.

I went in loving the premise and hating the film. It was utterly boring and not anywhere near as clever as it should have been.

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

Suspect's Reviews

I am not saying that future generations should stop watching 2001 because it is old. It is always important to know where things came from in order to create better films in the future. Your opinion is that practice doesn't make perfect with films. Basically you are saying anything that is new is taking from the old so it cannot possibly be better then the old. Films reflex the time that they were made so wouldn't that mean that films created to day are my relevant to our lifestyle of today?

BTW why, because I like new films do you consider me a michael bay fan. I hate michael.

Video Review Coming Tomorrow

‎Transformers : Dark Of The Moon - 8/10
This Film Became #100 On My All-Time List
http://www.imdb.com/list/Q9VNpfdHQYM/



A dull plot, yes but we already knew that coming in. Transformers 3 is visual eye candy that will allow all that see it to enjoy it if they want to. The first one straight up action film that I have ever truly enjoyed. Far better then Transformers 2. Still if you are looking for a story line you are going to the film for all the wrong reasons.

Next Film: Horrible Bosses (2011)

no, that isn't what i said at all. read it again.

yes. that was my whole point in saying that.

i already stated why people should watch old movies and new movies, so i advise you to read my post again.

Saying that old movies are "practice" is a pretty dumb generalization. I'm not a huge fan of old films like some of my friends and family but still, my god, you can't dismiss all films as irrelevant or mere practice because of their age.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Hey, one day modern filmmakers will reach perfection with this practice and on that day the cinema will die. Then, we won't have to read reviews by people with opinions that are absurd. Oh wait, I don't have to read it anyway. Bye thread.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Wait, don't go! Stay here with us, forever. And ever.

And ever.

Certain things are timeless. We get better at some things, sure, but they are almost invariably technical things. We get better at special effects, or large-scale action sequences, or other things of the sort. I don't think we get better at acting or storytelling, however.

The idea of modern films getting the benefit of "practice" only applies in a few areas, and they're not the areas that can, all by themselves, make for good films. The acting in Casablanca does not help any modern director make his movie better. He will benefit from many things by being born more recently, but not the things that most determine the quality of a movie.

Take for instance, Strangers on a Train. It has one of the most intense special fx sequences put to film, the merry-go-round finale.

I am not saying they are practice at all. I am just saying that don't dismiss new films saying that they can't possibly be better because the original did it first. There will always be a new film old films that are good. My only argument is that something is NEVER good just because it's old or because it's new; because it did it first or revamped an original story. They are great because they are great interesting films. They both have there advantages, Old films have stood the test of time making them even more impressive but new films relate to the culture that we live on in a more personal manner.

It's pretty much all about what you enjoy.

Bye then.

i don't think anyone here is dismissing new films.

__________________
letterboxd

Haha. #82 on my list but I only like new movies.

http://www.imdb.com/list/Q9VNpfdHQYM/

AGREED!

That brings up another argument though. I have trouble re-watching older films that pride themselves on special effects and CGI I just cringe when I see it...Such as Jurassic Park. Then other films such as The Shining do it to a such a miniscule level that it's hardly ever noticed.

Films like Jurassic Park, Spiderman, X-Men, Matrix and even Avatar have a harder time down the line because the prided themselves on technology instead of using it when needed. They wanted to woo the crowd and now will suffer later. Just my opinion.

Well then there is no argument haha.

I'm sorry, what? Jurassic Park has far better special effects than most films that come out today, for the sheer purpose that they used robotics instead of CGI. I can still go back and watch the original Jurassic Park today and those dinosaurs look pretty real.

Well, that sounds more sensible, anyway.

Yeah, that's a shade more reasonable.

That said, I have a very complicated relationship with remakes. On one hand, it does feel like a film should be docked a few points for being less original, not conceiving of something itself, etc. On the other hand, it obviously doesn't matter, inherently, from an entertainment standpoint. If you see the remake first, should it really affect your enjoyment retroactively when you learn about the original? Obviously not. So it's not really clear how to account for this sort of thing.

For example, I've seen both The Departed and Infernal Affairs, and I think Marty's take on it is better in almost every way. Should it matter that he got his framework from another film? It would certainly make the script, itself, less impressive, but I don't know if I should penalize the film for it at all.