Movies you've just watched

[rancor]

Requiem for a Dream

finally watched it .. what can i say
Darren Aronofsky made one of the most Best Fucked up movie

I'd be interested to know what you thought of Spun. Nowhere near the quality of Requiem, but I like it because it's a bit more balanced - rather than being almost 100 minutes of non-stop depression. You see the lighter side of meth-heads.

Trailer:

https://youtu.be/lrWD1kVi0ME

[Skykid]

I don't understand what we're talking about here, persona or acting ability? They're two completely different things.

Exactly my point - I think it's easy to confuse celebration of acting ability with results on film, and I think you concede the argument when you give Chan a pass but not Statham (correctly, of course).

I think you may have got the wrong end of it. I was only outlining that most of everyone confuses persona for acting ability. I just want to make it clear that they are not one and the same. You may like Cage and hate DiCaprio, but only one can act.

I actually don't understand Statham at all because he has neither a shred of acting ability or any discernible charisma. That makes him something of a modern movie enigma.

In truth I just have this funny image of my head of Skykid walking down the street and critiquing random people on acting ability.

Ha ha. No, I think I'm most in-depth here on shmups, but in conversation I'll happily talk up film/acting - I just agree to disagree more quickly IRL.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't disagree.

TBH I tend to care less about acting when so much else is sinking films these days. Hell, Statham himself had a good point about the green screen (in his original comment about putting his grandma in front of the screen). Alec Guinness thought the original Star Wars was bad, but he never heard about midichlorians, either.

I also remembered my brief look into the wonderful world of Pro Wrasslin' / PUROWRESURU that there are people out there with very opaque criteria for what makes an act great. Was it how ridiculous the pre-fight promo was? Or many times they staggered about before falling? With so many layers of crazy to choose from, I guess some people are content to be entertained by the sheer madness of it all. I guess that's in common with politics as well.

About Statham's charisma I'll say...he has some quality, I guess doggedness, that I can't help but like him for, even though he can't act. I've only seen him in the Expendables films though. The Rock calling V.D. a "candy ass" doesn't tell me a whole lot about the quality of a film performance, but I can't help but root for The Rock in this case. To be perfectly reasonable I'll admit that this is also clearly off the topic

[Skykid]

I'm just gonna say, while on the subject, I did a full report on Rogue One in the RO thread, and if we're looking for a film that fails almost primarily due to lack of charisma and personality in its cast, that is the movie for analyses.

Modern movies have really lost a simple aspect of the art when it comes to developing characters. They just don't know how to do it anymore.

[Aleksei]

Do the right thing by watch Do The Right Thing.

[Zen]

I'm just gonna say, while on the subject, I did a full report on Rogue One in the RO thread, and if we're looking for a film that fails almost primarily due to lack of charisma and personality in its cast, that is the movie for analyses.

Modern movies have really lost a simple aspect of the art when it comes to developing characters. They just don't know how to do it anymore.

(Have not seen Rogue One yet, so I have not read your review) and while we all seem, to some degree, to perhaps be talking about different things over the last posts, your point;
"Modern movies have really lost a simple aspect of the art when it comes to developing characters. They just don't know how to do it anymore." is well taken.
Do you have a theory as to why this, or is it just an observation? Does this perhaps tie into points being brought up about persona versus acting ability? Is more neutral or homogenised character writing a fashion/sign of the times or, are there really no more heroes?

[xxx1993]

Resident Evil: The Final Chapter. Probably the most intense one yet.

[Xyga]

There was a real sense of malice and cruelty behind the set design and early spooky shit that I still think stands out today, and the part where they unscramble the video freaked the hell out of me as a teen, but the ending falls on its stupid 90s movie face with full-shot Sam Neil jumping around literally playing the devil.

I'd put Event Horizon in the same category of wildly uneven 90s experimental horror that really hits the marks in certain scenes as In the Mouth of Madness. "It's Mommy Day!"

Nail on the head, in my opinion.
The sanity destroying chaos of the void is strong in this film. "Horror" with a capital "H". The unscrambled vid was the real "DooM" film and smiling innocent faced Sam Neil does pure evil like no other

Doesn't come close to Jacob's Ladder (1990) in that field though.
Another film that had some stuff left out bc too unsettling/disturbing, I don't even know if the home release has all of the freakiest scenes, I haven't seen it yet anyway.

[Xyga]

Chronicle (2012)

Much better than the Marvel/DC 'superhero mammoth production of the season'... at a fraction of the budget.

Nails the super powers on film thing, closest thing I've seen of a potential live action Akira.
Even the visual effects (mix of practical and CGI) though obviously cheap, don't suck.

It's really too bad that director made the wrong choices after that.

[kaicooper]

The Wrestler 2008
i hate wrestling but THIS is great movie..amazing performance by Mickey Rourke
he played it well specially he used to be Boxer long time ago..helped him alot to show
the best in this awesom movie..last scene was Powerful

9/10

[GaijinPunch]

Doesn't come close to Jacob's Ladder (1990) in that field though.

Thanks -- needed something new to watch (as the gal is sick of watching things I've seen 100 times) and this is it. More later.

[Skykid]

I'm just gonna say, while on the subject, I did a full report on Rogue One in the RO thread, and if we're looking for a film that fails almost primarily due to lack of charisma and personality in its cast, that is the movie for analyses.

Modern movies have really lost a simple aspect of the art when it comes to developing characters. They just don't know how to do it anymore.

(Have not seen Rogue One yet, so I have not read your review) and while we all seem, to some degree, to perhaps be talking about different things over the last posts, your point;
"Modern movies have really lost a simple aspect of the art when it comes to developing characters. They just don't know how to do it anymore." is well taken.
Do you have a theory as to why this, or is it just an observation? Does this perhaps tie into points being brought up about persona versus acting ability? Is more neutral or homogenised character writing a fashion/sign of the times or, are there really no more heroes?

Yes, I have theories. To me it's a general failure on an industry level that's fettered down to the product through producer systems. Ultimately it's about priorities. There was a time when, believe it or not, producers actually thought a good movie had a better chance of making their investment worthwhile. Doesn't mean they had a clue what constituted a good movie, but under the circumstances the director had a little more free reign and trust in Hollywood.

Now the producers make the movie by way of a blueprint. There is a modern template that doesn't call for well written, acted, or three dimensional characters - it calls for bigger and louder effects to divert the audience's attention from the absent core. The idea of engaging on a simple emotional level with a protagonist is not as important as getting the cast out the way and home (ending their salary) so post production can begin to apply all the spectacular background stuff.

The problem is human beings don't care about background stuff no matter how spectacular it gets. We want emotional engagement with other human beings who are against the odds and/or within a drama. That's why modern Hollywood is so stone cold. They place no emphasis on rounding personalities, only on moulding a poorly written half-baked script in thrilling CGI.

I think what we're witnessing is modern tools making people, characters and personalities less essential. The template is an absolutely robust money making machine and they have no intention of adjusting it if it ain't broke and people like xxx1993 keep going to watch every piece of shiny shit they spew out of their industrial asses with a kind of brainded relish.

You can probably blame the human race, in part, for becoming progressively stupider in the internet age, and consuming absolute crap as part of their daily diet.

"I can't miss Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, I hear it's the best one yet!"

And on a final note, I'd like to add something less bleak. Hollywood hasn't always been this broken. American Zoetrope lit it on fire in the 70s and 80s: the trio of Coppola, Lucas and Spielberg, and other directors caught wind of the motion and went to town, creating all the material that has been under the Hollywood remake/reboot process for the last decade.

But with the exception of a few efforts, Hollywood isn't about art films, but it was about artistry of film to a degree. What we used to get were well made films with simplistic, comic book, cliché characters. And there's nothing wrong with comic book, cliché characters - they're the ones we can identify with on a basic level and foster an easy emotional engagement.

Doctor Jones, Arnie, Marty McFly, Rambo, Captain Willard, Murphy, Lieutenant Ripley, Chief Brody, to name some of the more famous ones, weren't exactly realistic characters - but they were personable, humorous, lively characters.

Fast forward to 2017 and we have Felicity Jones in Rogue One: a gender neutral, expression free lump of coal that looks like a water doused cat for the duration. No humour, no memorable dialogue, no weight or gravity, no depth or complexity, not even a simple personality quirk to identify with.

This shit is dire. I'd love to will the entire world to stop paying for it, but they're not listening. Nicki Minaj is busy shitting in their ears and they're having a great time bobbing their heads.

[kaicooper]

Red Planet 2000
just done watching it..its mix bag but more positive
first 20 mintues had lots of bad CGI(or just way tomuch CGI lol)
but when they reach Mars..here comes the real jorney..its like straight forward game
reminds me of some old 60's movies..in good way..kinda pure survival
it has some flaws..but entertaining movie..underrated too

7/10

=======
Next is:
Missions to Mars 2000

[wgogh]

I'm just gonna say, while on the subject, I did a full report on Rogue One in the RO thread, and if we're looking for a film that fails almost primarily due to lack of charisma and personality in its cast, that is the movie for analyses.

Modern movies have really lost a simple aspect of the art when it comes to developing characters. They just don't know how to do it anymore.

(Have not seen Rogue One yet, so I have not read your review) and while we all seem, to some degree, to perhaps be talking about different things over the last posts, your point;
"Modern movies have really lost a simple aspect of the art when it comes to developing characters. They just don't know how to do it anymore." is well taken.
Do you have a theory as to why this, or is it just an observation? Does this perhaps tie into points being brought up about persona versus acting ability? Is more neutral or homogenised character writing a fashion/sign of the times or, are there really no more heroes?

I believe that now, with the new format of the TV series, the movies are becoming another kind of experience. The "case of the week" format doesnt serve people that now watch an episode after another, when they want, without missing one. So now, series are more like a very long movie, divided in parts. But with the actual movies from today, on the other hand, you go to the cinema and have a quick experience, while in your home, you "have time" to pay attention to the story, characters and so on, as the series develop. So it is becoming a situation where you have "movies for lights, sound effects and a cinema experience, while you have TV series to actually try to tell stories, taking their time".
As it was put here as an example, Resident Evil: Final Chapter can be very intense, and that is basically what matters when people go to the cinema for an experience, like going to the circus. Doesnt matter if no one is going to watch it two years later, it is more about going out, eating, watching the thing, and you're done.
(usually, 3D animation movies still have thought through story and characters, and that may be because they are essentially a unrealistic 3D scenario, so you can't shock anyone with effects that would just seem natural on a stylised world. That said, they can't relay on the light show and are forced to come up with something.)

I'm not saying that it is the only or more important reason, but it is a true factor. I would like to know what you think about. Am I right or saying nonsense?


...Also, Kaicooper, you've been really into space themed things those days, right?

[BrianC]

Resident Evil: The Final Chapter. Probably the most intensely bad one yet.

fixed

[Skykid]

I believe that now, with the new format of the TV series, the movies are becoming another kind of experience. The "case of the week" format doesnt serve people that now watch an episode after another, when they want, without missing one. So now, series are more like a very long movie, divided in parts. But with the actual movies from today, on the other hand, you go to the cinema and have a quick experience, while in your home, you "have time" to pay attention to the story, characters and so on, as the series develop. So it is becoming a situation where you have "movies for lights, sound effects and a cinema experience, while you have TV series to actually try to tell stories, taking their time".
As it was put here as an example, Resident Evil: Final Chapter can be very intense, and that is basically what matters when people go to the cinema for an experience, like going to the circus. Doesnt matter if no one is going to watch it two years later, it is more about going out, eating, watching the thing, and you're done.

...

Am I right or saying nonsense?

Respectfully friend, you're talking absolute crap.

If going to the cinema has denigrated into such a fleeting, throwaway experience, you may as well nuke it from orbit.

What you're saying is that its only function is to serve brainless automatons who like bright colours and noises for 2 hours, before forgetting and moving on to a different avenue.

Let's look at Mrs Doubtfire as an example. It's an early 90s movie that I have no desire to own or rewatch. It belongs in the section of disposable Hollywood popcorn movies. It's not Apocalypse Now, Jaws, or It's a Wonderful Life.

But for what it is, it was a well written script, well concieved, excellently cast and solidly acted. It had humour, personality, superficial emotional depth, and plenty of characters. Its only special effect was a makeup job.

Fast forward to now and disposable cinema is as follows:

Appallingly written, devoid of original ideas, terribly cast and acted, zero emotional depth, no attempt to create personality or characters. Instead it consists of 15 minute CGI sequences that get boring after 30 seconds, punctuated by filler which involves an ensemble of cardboard people saying some things in some rooms to move a terrible plot in some sort of forward direction, before going into another boring 15 minute CGI sequence.

It's awful. If you are accepting cinema as it is today, disposable to the point where you're paying to have actual dog shit poured into your eyes and ears, it's not surprising that the industry is loving you right now. You have no desire to demand something better, meaning they have no reason to work harder than they are to give it to you.

There are rare moments when a Scorcese, Tarantino, Thomas Anderson, or Cohen duo flicker amidst the shit torrent to remind you what cinema used to be - the art of assembling cinematography with performances with scripts - but these instances are becoming dangerously sparse.

[MintyTheCat]

It's awful. If you are accepting cinema as it is today, disposable to the point where you're paying to have actual dog shit poured into your eyes and ears, it's not surprising that the industry is loving you right now. You have no desire to demand something better, meaning they have no reason to work harder than they are to give it to you.

In a very seal sense the viewing audience is quite different than it was in the 1970s when, to my mind, writing reached a pinnacle with many a gritty, realistic and complex story and developed characters in film.

I remember an interview where Andrew Eldritch put the notion forward and said that these days most of the listeners simply do not have the background to understand the references.

What I have witnessed these last twenty or so years, is that rather irritatingly nothing can be left open - as in, open to interpretation; it must be hammered home explicitly and often dramatically for all of us.
The number of times the plot must be gone through, divulged in such stark terms than only a someone with no ability to concentrate would be able to follow. Or, perhaps it is that people simply distract themselves. It does not really matter any longer. It makes it rather tedious and boring and indeed limiting.

Personally, I put this down to people simply reading less for the most part and the quality of the work that they read is just less sophisticated. It is kind of weird that we have an even greater choice of literature now and the means to access it but relatively few do compared to the 1960, 70s, etc.
There is a real irony at play. Take the level of numeracy in most of our countries as an example, often this is just how the proverbial Rome fell; it just fell inwards and became its own victim and then, as what often happens, at around the lowest percentile becomes the new norm and then it is a race to the bottom. Not a lot you can do about it as a whole but you can handle it individually.

[Skykid]

It's awful. If you are accepting cinema as it is today, disposable to the point where you're paying to have actual dog shit poured into your eyes and ears, it's not surprising that the industry is loving you right now. You have no desire to demand something better, meaning they have no reason to work harder than they are to give it to you.

In a very seal sense the viewing audience is quite different than it was in the 1970s when, to my mind, writing reached a pinnacle with many a gritty, realistic and complex story and developed characters in film.

I remember an interview where Andrew Eldritch put the notion forward and said that these days most of the listeners simply do not have the background to understand the references.

What I have witnessed these last twenty or so years, is that rather irritatingly nothing can be left open - as in, open to interpretation; it must be hammered home explicitly and often dramatically for all of us.
The number of times the plot must be gone through, divulged in such stark terms than only a someone with no ability to concentrate would be able to follow. Or, perhaps it is that people simply distract themselves. It does not really matter any longer. It makes it rather tedious and boring and indeed limiting.

Personally, I put this down to people simply reading less for the most part and the quality of the work that they read is just less sophisticated. It is kind of weird that we have an even greater choice of literature now and the means to access it but relatively few do compared to the 1960, 70s, etc.
There is a real irony at play. Take the level of numeracy in most of our countries as an example, often this is just how the proverbial Rome fell; it just fell inwards and became its own victim and then, as what often happens, at around the lowest percentile becomes the new norm and then it is a race to the bottom. Not a lot you can do about it as a whole but you can handle it individually.

You know all you've said there is that basically everyone these days is stupider than they used to be.

[Squire Grooktook]

This is the biggest part though IMO

Personally, I put this down to people simply reading less for the most part

[GaijinPunch]

You know all you've said there is that basically everyone these days is stupider than they used to be.

Well... have you been on the fucking internet lately?

[Skykid]

You know all you've said there is that basically everyone these days is stupider than they used to be.

Well... have you been on the fucking internet lately?

Yes, and to the cinema too.

[Zen]

Skykid wrote:

Spoiler

Yes, I have theories. To me it's a general failure on an industry level that's fettered down to the product through producer systems. Ultimately it's about priorities. There was a time when, believe it or not, producers actually thought a good movie had a better chance of making their investment worthwhile. Doesn't mean they had a clue what constituted a good movie, but under the circumstances the director had a little more free reign and trust in Hollywood.

Now the producers make the movie by way of a blueprint. There is a modern template that doesn't call for well written, acted, or three dimensional characters - it calls for bigger and louder effects to divert the audience's attention from the absent core. The idea of engaging on a simple emotional level with a protagonist is not as important as getting the cast out the way and home (ending their salary) so post production can begin to apply all the spectacular background stuff.

The problem is human beings don't care about background stuff no matter how spectacular it gets. We want emotional engagement with other human beings who are against the odds and/or within a drama. That's why modern Hollywood is so stone cold. They place no emphasis on rounding personalities, only on moulding a poorly written half-baked script in thrilling CGI.

I think what we're witnessing is modern tools making people, characters and personalities less essential. The template is an absolutely robust money making machine and they have no intention of adjusting it if it ain't broke and people like xxx1993 keep going to watch every piece of shiny shit they spew out of their industrial asses with a kind of brainded relish.

You can probably blame the human race, in part, for becoming progressively stupider in the internet age, and consuming absolute crap as part of their daily diet.

"I can't miss Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, I hear it's the best one yet!"

And on a final note, I'd like to add something less bleak. Hollywood hasn't always been this broken. American Zoetrope lit it on fire in the 70s and 80s: the trio of Coppola, Lucas and Spielberg, and other directors caught wind of the motion and went to town, creating all the material that has been under the Hollywood remake/reboot process for the last decade.

But with the exception of a few efforts, Hollywood isn't about art films, but it was about artistry of film to a degree. What we used to get were well made films with simplistic, comic book, cliché characters. And there's nothing wrong with comic book, cliché characters - they're the ones we can identify with on a basic level and foster an easy emotional engagement.

Doctor Jones, Arnie, Marty McFly, Rambo, Captain Willard, Murphy, Lieutenant Ripley, Chief Brody, to name some of the more famous ones, weren't exactly realistic characters - but they were personable, humorous, lively characters.

Fast forward to 2017 and we have Felicity Jones in Rogue One: a gender neutral, expression free lump of coal that looks like a water doused cat for the duration. No humour, no memorable dialogue, no weight or gravity, no depth or complexity, not even a simple personality quirk to identify with.

This shit is dire. I'd love to will the entire world to stop paying for it, but they're not listening. Nicki Minaj is busy shitting in their ears and they're having a great time bobbing their heads.

Excellent. Could the short answer be "MONEY"? Your point about the producers is depressingly real.
Reminds me of the film line "if there is one thing I have learned about experts, it's that they are experts in fuck all". Or to be more accurate, producers know what works without necessarily knowing, nor giving a fuck about knowing, why its works.
Could this be why we no longer have a Brando and instead have a Felicity Jones (I'm hoping her performance is not as generic as her name and her looks. Just noticed her character name is Jyn Erso. Thats sorta two letters away from jyner-ic)
So a wild card like Brando would look real bad on paper as part of a financial projection. Cut that liability and off we go?
In this scenario the consumer is considered totally malleable. The producers are convinced that the mark is, in the main, mindless and all that is need to distract from any gripe is more spectacle. Perhaps wgogh is on to something.
I fully agree with your point on emotional engagement in a drama being at the soul of it all but for how many of us?
So did the producers solely drive this descent or had the consumer a part it it? Which came first? And can any of this be made sense of without considering demographics, cost cutting, control and dare I say it, agenda?

Is it too late to stop this Beast?

So what can a person do? Go see good plays more often? Risk Cucumber benadix locking us all in post show and murdering us with virtue signaling?


p.s is a lot of what is being discussed here inferred in the recent Coen's Hail Caeser?

edited: to correct having forgot to to link to Skykid's post.

[kaicooper]

u guys should start writing a BOOK

[Skykid]

Skykid wrote:

Spoiler

Yes, I have theories. To me it's a general failure on an industry level that's fettered down to the product through producer systems. Ultimately it's about priorities. There was a time when, believe it or not, producers actually thought a good movie had a better chance of making their investment worthwhile. Doesn't mean they had a clue what constituted a good movie, but under the circumstances the director had a little more free reign and trust in Hollywood.

Now the producers make the movie by way of a blueprint. There is a modern template that doesn't call for well written, acted, or three dimensional characters - it calls for bigger and louder effects to divert the audience's attention from the absent core. The idea of engaging on a simple emotional level with a protagonist is not as important as getting the cast out the way and home (ending their salary) so post production can begin to apply all the spectacular background stuff.

The problem is human beings don't care about background stuff no matter how spectacular it gets. We want emotional engagement with other human beings who are against the odds and/or within a drama. That's why modern Hollywood is so stone cold. They place no emphasis on rounding personalities, only on moulding a poorly written half-baked script in thrilling CGI.

I think what we're witnessing is modern tools making people, characters and personalities less essential. The template is an absolutely robust money making machine and they have no intention of adjusting it if it ain't broke and people like xxx1993 keep going to watch every piece of shiny shit they spew out of their industrial asses with a kind of brainded relish.

You can probably blame the human race, in part, for becoming progressively stupider in the internet age, and consuming absolute crap as part of their daily diet.

"I can't miss Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, I hear it's the best one yet!"

And on a final note, I'd like to add something less bleak. Hollywood hasn't always been this broken. American Zoetrope lit it on fire in the 70s and 80s: the trio of Coppola, Lucas and Spielberg, and other directors caught wind of the motion and went to town, creating all the material that has been under the Hollywood remake/reboot process for the last decade.

But with the exception of a few efforts, Hollywood isn't about art films, but it was about artistry of film to a degree. What we used to get were well made films with simplistic, comic book, cliché characters. And there's nothing wrong with comic book, cliché characters - they're the ones we can identify with on a basic level and foster an easy emotional engagement.

Doctor Jones, Arnie, Marty McFly, Rambo, Captain Willard, Murphy, Lieutenant Ripley, Chief Brody, to name some of the more famous ones, weren't exactly realistic characters - but they were personable, humorous, lively characters.

Fast forward to 2017 and we have Felicity Jones in Rogue One: a gender neutral, expression free lump of coal that looks like a water doused cat for the duration. No humour, no memorable dialogue, no weight or gravity, no depth or complexity, not even a simple personality quirk to identify with.

This shit is dire. I'd love to will the entire world to stop paying for it, but they're not listening. Nicki Minaj is busy shitting in their ears and they're having a great time bobbing their heads.

Excellent. Could the short answer be "MONEY"? Your point about the producers is depressingly real.
Reminds me of the film line "if there is one thing I have learned about experts, it's that they are experts in fuck all". Or to be more accurate, producers know what works without necessarily knowing, nor giving a fuck about knowing, why its works.
Could this be why we no longer have a Brando and instead have a Felicity Jones (I'm hoping her performance is not as generic as her name and her looks. Just noticed her character name is Jyn Erso. Thats sorta two letters away from jyner-ic)
So a wild card like Brando would look real bad on paper as part of a financial projection. Cut that liability and off we go?
In this scenario the consumer is considered totally malleable. The producers are convinced that the mark is, in the main, mindless and all that is need to distract from any gripe is more spectacle. Perhaps wgogh is on to something.
I fully agree with your point on emotional engagement in a drama being at the soul of it all but for how many of us?
So did the producers solely drive this descent or had the consumer a part it it? Which came first? And can any of this be made sense of without considering demographics, cost cutting, control and dare I say it, agenda?

Money is the short answer to everything.

I have no idea why the public of today aren't interested in scriptwriting, dialogue, plot, cinematographic creativity, performances, personality, emotional connection, charisma or relatable people in their cinema - I just assume they have no idea what they're looking at.

Why not ask xxx1993; he is after all a poster child consumer and a target for the current industry. He is absolutely satisfied with a zero quality product. If you're in the habit of making money, you couldn't ask for a better patron.

[MintyTheCat]

This is the biggest part though IMO

Personally, I put this down to people simply reading less for the most part

Yes, a good education system teaches people to ask questions and you cannot hope to cover all so training hardly works over the long-term - which is why education as 'education' beats training. What I find, and this is comparing to how it was when I was in school, is that it is more training these days: training to pass the math exam, and that sort of thing as opposed to 'thinking' in terms of mathematics. For me, I could care less about passing an exam but having the knowledge and being able to apply it is what matters.

You know all you've said there is that basically everyone these days is stupider than they used to be.

Well... have you been on the fucking internet lately?

Yes, and to the cinema too.

No, I did not say that, Skykid; I alluded to what is available versus how what is available is being utilised.

There is some truth in patience and focus being diminshed through instant messaging, instant news, automated spelling-checking, low end AI and predictive typing and marketing, etc - it liberates thinking - which is good and bad.

I liken this to an electronic musician using a Synthesiser back in the 70s and 80s to today. In the old days a musician would have to create the patches from nothing and it was rather challenging constructing FM patches for say the DX7 by yamaha. These days the musician is absolutely blown away and overwhelmed by the endless choices and it would be more akin to choosing what not to use from a massive library.

I use a DX7 and I program my patches from first-principles but my patches are mine and you will not find them in a larger library but sure, I could use what ever is put in front of me but I choose not. At one level that is me taking my own path but the alternative is highly seductive as it is less work with immediate results - is that popular still?

[MintyTheCat]

u guys should start writing a BOOK

Skykid has wrote a book - you can find it on this forum

Seriously though, you should seriously consider investing more time for writing, Skykid. Nothing against the forum and for what it is but honestly you could aim a bit higher with your writing. No offence intended.

[wgogh]

It's awful. If you are accepting cinema as it is today, disposable to the point where you're paying to have actual dog shit poured into your eyes and ears, it's not surprising that the industry is loving you right now. You have no desire to demand something better, meaning they have no reason to work harder than they are to give it to you.

I have the feeling you got me wrong at one point. I'm not defending it nor do I like the state of movie industry today. You can be sure my opinion on that case is similar to yours, at least regarding the mainstream. I'm not "accepting" as you said, far from that.
It IS bright colours and noises for 2 hours, I didnt said it should be or this was any good.
Re-reading my comment, I can see that perhaps I may have sounded like seeing a positive side, but thats because I was looking for the whys, opinions aside.

u guys should start writing a BOOK

I did. In portuguese though..

[WelshMegalodon]

u guys should start writing a BOOK

There really isn't much left to say.

I've seen forebodings of impending doom in X industry enough times to realize that there isn't any point to it. My go-to response is that it's not so much the medium getting worse as the number of idiot moviegoers becoming bigger and louder, though this is not by means the only cause.

There's also that copout excuse of how nostalgiafag this-and-thats with their rose-tinted glasses supposedly only remember the classics and filter out the crap, but screw that. We know how much garbage there was back in the day - or at least Skykid does.

In any case, blanket criticism of the entire human race as denizens of a rapidly deteriorating world veers dangerously close to comments-section tripe in my book.

[kaicooper]

Mission to SHIT 2000

it has shitty ratings..no problem..ppl says its underrated and bla bla..so lets c
yes i liked RED PLANET alot and i did review it but i through giving this movie a chance(Mission to Shit)
no its not Underrated..its Waaaaay Overrated to get 5.6 IMDB and 34% RT..
everything is wrong in this movie..good cast maby yea..but wtf was Brian De Palma thinking?
opening was unnecessary gathering boring..etc
he was trying to show us outsanding gravity shot like it happned in 2001 but FAILS so badly..
and the shittest part is SOUNDTRACK..this's not Funeral..this's space movie ..misstion to mars movie
not independence day movie..most thirlling scenes has BAAD SOUNDTRACK choices..
and yea the editing is funny too lol..oh that ALIEN part ehehehehe..im done
2/10

[Xyga]

Dr. Strange (2016)

Has to pause the film somewhere near the end because I really needed to take a dump... and I forgot to resume watching it. (realized two hours later)

Yes it's that captivating.