I have run out of films

Tools    





I'm only interested these days in watching a film if I think it might make my top 150/200.
That means it needs to pass the trailers round and the reviews round, to even get a viewing.
There was a time when I had vast lists of films to watch. I've now either watched them, started to watch them and didn't finish them, or watched them go through qualies without success.

The most recent films I've finished are:
The Lodger 1927 (9.5, made my list)
Leave Her to Heaven 1945 (9.25, made my list)
You Were Never Really Here 2017 (8.75, quite close to my list)
The Shape of Water 2017 ( 8.75, quite close to my list)
The Sweet Smell of Success 1957 (8.25, didn't make my list)


I've been through for example the TSPDT? 1000, and the S&S 100 and 250, and I feel I've tried everything on there that I want to try.

I suppose I could do documentaries properly?



Also answers to Jabba
Sounds like someone is experiencing fatigue and needs to start watching movies for the enjoyment of it instead of putting films through vigorous scrutiny to see if they are worth his time.


Not every film needs to 'make your top 200', whatever that means.



I think that's good advice. Both because, well, there's no other option, but also because while your guess is probably a lot better than random chance, it still stands to reason you'll be surprised sometimes. So now's the time you allow yourself to try weird stuff and be surprised!



I'm only interested these days in watching a film if I think it might make my top 150/200.
This is a meaningless criteria. Just watch movies. It's easy.

Back when I started watching more and more movies, in my teens and early twenties, I just followed the natural trail of where they led me. And this was long before essentially everything was available via streaming or compiled on one list or another. If you like certain actors, directors, genres, cinematographers, etc. just keep watching as much of their works as you can. I found it inevitably led to new filmmakers and film styles, which in turn lead to more and more, and on and on forever. It ain't complicated.

Unless you want to make it so. Then goshbless. Enjoy your "Top 200".
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



This is a meaningless criteria. Just watch movies. It's easy.

Back when I started watching more and more movies, in my teens and early twenties, I just followed the natural trail of where they led me. And this was long before essentially everything was available via streaming or compiled on one list or another. If you like certain actors, directors, genres, cinematographers, etc. just keep watching as much of their works as you can. I found it inevitably led to new filmmakers and film styles, which in turn lead to more and more, and on and on forever. It ain't complicated.

Unless you want to make it so. Then goshbless. Enjoy your "Top 200".
I have done all that, but only for the purposes of finding films to get in my top 150/200.

I've come about it in what's probably an unusual way because I actually set out on my film watching experience (I guess about 4 years ago) with the specific purpose of compiling a list of the best ever films.

I mean of course I had watched films before that, but little out of the ordinary. I'd just watched the stuff that everyone else my generation had.
Now I feel I kind of know film history, and I'm sure that most of the films in my list I'd never heard of 5 years ago.

That has been a very effective way of watching the most great films possible in the shortest space of time.

But the downside is it's left me in a situation where nothing else appeals as it's not going to be as good as what I've already seen.



This is the dumbest non-problem problem I have heard in a while.

You're absolutely right. Just watch those same 200 movies over and over again. Nothing could possibly be any better than the list you have compiled right now. Problem solved. You should be joyously relieved! You solved it! You figured out the only 200 movies one ever needs watch. What an accomplishment. And definitely objectively true. Without a doubt.



Try watching bad movies. You might end up enjoying them
Thanks for the suggestion.

It's a possibility.

Is there a way you would recommend for finding such bad movies?



Try watching bad movies. You might end up enjoying them
And there's plenty of them, too!



Thanks for the suggestion.

It's a possibility.

Is there a way you would recommend for finding such bad movies?
Search on imdb based on ratings, but filter it for lower ratings. You could also ask here and other places for recommendations.



Thanks for the suggestion.
Is there a way you would recommend for finding such bad movies?
You already have this answer: everything that is not on your personal list of 200 titles is less than brilliant, therefore you can just classify the other thousands and thousands of movies you haven't yet seen as "bad". Easy-peasy lemon-squeezy.



"You ain't seen nothing yet
B-b-b-baby, you just ain't seen n-n-n-nothing yet
Here's somethin' that you're never gonna forget
B-b-b-baby, you just ain't seen n-n-n-nothing yet
Nothing yet, you ain't been around"



~Bachman–Turner Overdrive
.



So, there's some obvious tension here: on one hand as we watch more films we probably do get better at guessing what we will or won't like. You don't wanna watch films at random because time is finite and opportunity costs matter, so some informed guesswork based on trailers or performers or directors, where you decide not to watch something because you don't think you'll like it, is reasonable...

...but statistically, you will be wrong sometimes. It's inevitable. There are things out there right now you have already dismissed that you will love, you just don't know what they are.

I've seen a lot of people over the years say they have no interest in such-and-such, sometimes a film, a director, an actor, or even entire genres. Which is their prerogative, of course. But it's a very limiting idea, because it basically ensures that what you get out of the art of filmmaking now is the most you will ever get out of it. If you only watch things that appeal to your current tastes, your current tastes will not change. It's like eating chicken tenders, liking them, and then deciding you might as well eat only those forever because they're pretty good.

Being surprised by art is one of life's great joys, but it's only possible if you sometimes watch things you have no preexisting desire to watch.



Oh, also, there are lots of films that will have individual elements that are exceptional, even if the film as a whole lacks the quality to become one of your favorites. There are quite a few films, for example, that are middling overall, but contain incredible acting performances. Or poor acting but great writing. Or just beautiful cinematography. There is value in experiencing all those things even if the film as a whole might be a
.



You can always pick a new hobby as well. Books are so fulfilling (they can be pretty "cinematic" too).

Currently reading...




I mainline Windex and horse tranquilizer
Make your own.
__________________
A hundred percent death proof.

Tomato Necromancy - now with Vitamin R!
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=65140



There are a lot of newer movies that are very good.
I'm going to disagree with this.
Ive also run out of movies.



It's so weird to have this point of view, when I have the exact opposite issue. I want to consume as much films as I can, from as much genres, sources, and places I could find... and it bothers me sometimes that I probably won't be able to, for example, see all the films on X list, or see all the films from Y director/actor.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!