Moderator: Community Team


You, sir, are a dangerous lunatic.jonesthecurl wrote:Shawshank.
The Life Acquatic.
Star Wars.
Piece of schmidt.rdsrds2120 wrote:I agree with The Star Wars movies, and the LOTR series. I also (literally) fell asleep.
-rd
It was the Bill Murray thing. I really wanted to see it, having been a fan up to that point. I went to see it in a posh cinema in the West End of London, was appalled, left in the middle.Woodruff wrote:You, sir, are a dangerous lunatic.jonesthecurl wrote:Shawshank.
The Life Acquatic.
Star Wars.
(Although I've never heard of "The Life Aquatic".)
The movies listed aren't shit, but they're not spectacular. Another one for example is Avatar. It's a movie about big blue indians. Woo hoo...nagerous wrote:All the films mentioned in this thread are quality.
Dukasaur wrote:Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.
ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
True dat.ManBungalow wrote: And I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Inception yet. I enjoyed it, but it's not quite as orgasmic as some would have you believe.
Ok, first of all...there are only two Star Wars movies, and that isn't one of them.ManBungalow wrote:Star Wars/A New Hope
I haven't seen it (nor a lot of the movies mentioned here).ManBungalow wrote:And I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Inception yet. I enjoyed it, but it's not quite as orgasmic as some would have you believe.
I believe the books caused all the hype. It was on The New York Times bestseller for a very long time from what I remember, so everyone assumed that the movie would be dynamite.IcePack wrote:1, 2, and 3. The Hunger Games.
wtf was the hype about?
Oh yeah, Avatar for sure. That movie can only be described as "OK".DirtyDishSoap wrote:Another one for example is Avatar. It's a movie about big blue indians. Woo hoo...

I actually like the prequels, Anakin is one of my favourite fictionnal characters.Sniper08 wrote:star wars the orginal trilogy is over rated imo , dont get me wrong they are still great movies(well VI is ok) but they arent what ppl make them out to be . on the flip side the prequels are under rated , they arent bad movies just ppl had such vivid memories of the orginals they felt the prequels let them down.
It's the best because it changed absolutely everything about film making.john9blue wrote:citizen kane.
WHOA THERE'S A TWIST AT THE END HOLY SHIT BEST MOVIE EVER
this is the part where you all start hating on me for being a philistine
In order to appreciate that you'd have to see a lot of movies that came before it. The cinematography was incredibly innovative: deep focus shots where things are going on in both the foreground, midground, and background all at once. The low-angle shots involved new ways of building sets. They introduced effects to make crowds look bigger and buildings look grander. The compositions and shading of the shots are quite beautiful.
Welles invented the L-cut: the edits for a scene would change the soundtrack a few frames ahead of the visual. They do that all the time today, and when you see old movies that don't do that the cut feels abrupt and jarring.
Finally, there's the way the film was produced. They gave Welles an unheard of amount of creative control, so he got to make the movie he wanted to make. It's as if he made an indie film on a big studio budget, perhaps the only time in history that has ever really happened. That gave Welles the freedom to shoot a controversial script (Kane is a thinly disguised version of William Randolph Hearst, who tried to get the movie shut down or destroyed) using novel filmmaking techniques.
But I can hear you saying, "Why do I care?" and in fact, you really don't. All of this is for film buffs, who repeatedly call it the Greatest Movie of All Time. For the rest of us, all of these technical tricks have been done over and over and over, and "it was the first!" rings rather hollow.
Get the version of the film with Roger Ebert's commentary and you'll find out why the critics all go ga-ga over the movie. Beyond that, though, it's just a movie. A pretty good story, with some nice visuals and some great acting, but just a movie.
Nah, episode 1 was terrible.Sniper08 wrote:star wars the orginal trilogy is over rated imo , dont get me wrong they are still great movies(well VI is ok) but they arent what ppl make them out to be . on the flip side the prequels are under rated , they arent bad movies just ppl had such vivid memories of the orginals they felt the prequels let them down.
It is, to date, the only movie I fell asleep while watching in the theater.Symmetry wrote:Nah, episode 1 was terrible.Sniper08 wrote:star wars the orginal trilogy is over rated imo , dont get me wrong they are still great movies(well VI is ok) but they arent what ppl make them out to be . on the flip side the prequels are under rated , they arent bad movies just ppl had such vivid memories of the orginals they felt the prequels let them down.
You, sir, can go f*ck yourself.Maugena wrote:Napoleon Dynamite.
It was not that funny.
I agree. I also did not find Superbad that funny.Maugena wrote:Napoleon Dynamite.
It was not that funny.
I only laughed once - when, after Napoleon was done exercising (or whatever), his brother's girlfriend is talking to him and Napoloean drinks some kind of gatorade really quickly. That was it.Army of GOD wrote:Napoleon Dynamite is funny f*ck all of you