The Last Movie You Watched (no spoilers)

[calsnowskier]

I've had many tell me I just have to see it.

But I don't see the point. But I get yours.

I've seen one thing in IMAX and it was the Andretti Speed thing. Kind of cool. But I was interested in it. I don't have any interest in Avatar.

Fair enough. And as long as you never see it, you will always be right in your mind. People who have never tried crack never understand how it can be so addictive.

All this said, I doubt I will bother seeing Avatar 2 or Avatar 3 in IMAX 3D. All your arguments against the movie carry weight, and there isn’t much point in going again. Those movies will need to get AMAZING reviews for me to even consider seeing them.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Fair enough. And as long as you never see it, you will always be right in your mind. People who have never tried crack never understand how it can be so addictive.

All this said, I doubt I will bother seeing Avatar 2 or Avatar 3 in IMAX 3D. All your arguments against the movie carry weight, and there isn’t much point in going again. Those movies will need to get AMAZING reviews for me to even consider seeing them.

Roger.

 

[calsnowskier]

I'll likely live.

Too expensive, too much effort, too uncomfortable, no pause feature, no fume hood, etc.

I might consider it if I lived just up the street from a complex in Vancouver or something. But I don't.

I remember in 1986 wanting to go see Top Gun at the Stanley Theatre. Line up went around the block twice and included the next sitting. Sorry, but no.

And the “too uncomfortable” argument I also have an issue with.

For Dunkirk, the uncomfortable volume of the sound is something you will lose while watching at home. If you watch at home, you will just lower the volume and miss a good portion of the experience. The point of the sound in this movie was to intentionally make you uncomfortable.

Discomfort was also the entire point of The Passion of the Christ. If you watch that at home, you can too easily distract yourself from the hour long torture scene, and thus, the entire movie loses its intensity. If you watch that in a theater, you have to concentrate on the torture for an hour. No iPad. No bathroom. No going to the fridge to get a drink. No fast forward 20 mins to bypass some of it. You have to sit there and stare at a guy getting tortured for an hour. And that was the point.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

And the “too uncomfortable” argument I also have an issue with.

For Dunkirk, the uncomfortable volume of the sound is something you will lose while watching at home. If you watch at home, you will just lower the volume and miss a good portion of the experience. The point of the sound in this movie was to intentionally make you uncomfortable.

Discomfort was also the entire point of The Passion of the Christ. If you watch that at home, you can too easily distract yourself from the hour long torture scene, and thus, the entire movie loses its intensity. If you watch that in a theater, you have to concentrate on the torture for an hour. No iPad. No bathroom. No going to the fridge to get a drink. No fast forward 20 mins to bypass some of it. You have to sit there and stare at a guy getting tortured for an hour. And that was the point.

I was more referring to what you sit on.

And lower the volume? Never...... we have a rather large house and my TV room is insulated and quite separate.

And we are usually all watching anyway (wife, son, myself). And I sit no more than 6 feet from my TV. Encapsulated in speakers.....

And I have no MaxiPad so I am not distracted by much.

 

[calsnowskier]

I was more referring to what you sit on.

And lower the volume? Never...... we have a rather large house and my TV room is insulated and quite separate.

And we are usually all watching anyway (wife, son, myself). And I sit no more than 6 feet from my TV. Encapsulated in speakers.....

And I have no MaxiPad so I am not distracted by much.

Have you seen Passion? Did you sit through it in one sitting?

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Have you seen Passion? Did you sit through it in one sitting?

Yup.

And yup.

I possess testicular fortitude....

The missus didn't though.... She baled.

 

[chf]

Heh. P.O.T.C. One of the few movies I bailed on part way through.

Blood ****.

 

[calsnowskier]

Heh. P.O.T.C. One of the few movies I bailed on part way through.

Blood ****.

I was wondering how long it would take for “torture-pron” or “blood-pron” to be mentioned.

Thanks for obliging...


I am NOT a religious guy, but even I understood the point of that movie. And was not “blood-pron”

 

[chf]

I was wondering how long it would take for “torture-pron” or “blood-pron” to be mentioned.

Thanks for obliging...


I am NIT a religious guy, but even I understood the point of that movie. And was not “blood-pron”

Eh, I disagree. I'm A-OK with violent movies. I've engaged in lengthy debates with people over the years over movies like Clockwork Orange, where people don't get the underlying message of the movie.

I've got no problem with a director wanting to show the Jesus character getting tortured.

My opting out was the length of the showing of that scene. (there may have been more, dunno, I stopped watching)

It's like, okay, hey, I've got it Mel. Let's move on and tell some more story.

And to be clear, I've got no real issue with pron or sex either. Just don't need to see it in a mainstream video where it doesn't serve the story. So sure, you want to show 2 characters developing their relationship, and want to show sex as part of that, go nuts.

We don't need a pron style 35 minute sex scene to do that though. Then it's just for the sex's sake.

I don't need to see someone shitting on the toilet for a half hour, or getting operated on for a half hour, fucking for a half hour, or getting tortured for a half hour.

There's no extra enlightenment that comes from minutes 5 - 30. No extra understanding.

Hopefully that clears up my position. I can watch a Tarantino flick and have a great time, but even there, I subscribe to the 'less is more' school of filming and editing. Leave more to the viewer's imagination, and they actually imagine worse. Thus the meaning is actually enhanced. Tarantino actually gets this. (see: the ear scene in Reservoir Dogs)

At any rate, enough of my thread hijack! I love me some Mel Gibson movies, personally I thought he missed the boat badly on TPOTC. YRMV obviously.

 

[calsnowskier]

Eh, I disagree. I'm A-OK with violent movies. I've engaged in lengthy debates with people over the years over movies like Clockwork Orange, where people don't get the underlying message of the movie.

I've got no problem with a director wanting to show the Jesus character getting tortured.

My opting out was the length of the showing of that scene. (there may have been more, dunno, I stopped watching)

It's like, okay, hey, I've got it Mel. Let's move on and tell some more story.

And to be clear, I've got no real issue with pron or sex either. Just don't need to see it in a mainstream video where it doesn't serve the story. So sure, you want to show 2 characters developing their relationship, and want to show sex as part of that, go nuts.

We don't need a pron style 35 minute sex scene to do that though. Then it's just for the sex's sake.

I don't need to see someone shitting on the toilet for a half hour, or getting operated on for a half hour, fucking for a half hour, or getting tortured for a half hour.

There's no extra enlightenment that comes from minutes 5 - 30. No extra understanding.

Hopefully that clears up my position. I can watch a Tarantino flick and have a great time, but even there, I subscribe to the 'less is more' school of filming and editing. Leave more to the viewer's imagination, and they actually imagine worse. Thus the meaning is actually enhanced. Tarantino actually gets this. (see: the ear scene in Reservoir Dogs)

At any rate, enough of my thread hijack! I love me some Mel Gibson movies, personally I thought he missed the boat badly on TPOTC. YRMV obviously.

But the prolonged scene IS the point.

And I stress I am not religious. I personally believe the entire concept of religeon is just mankind’s way of staying sane. Randomness makes no sense, therefore there MUST be some old dude with a beard who loves us all who planned the whole thing. The very concept to me is primitive and makes “civilized” society nothing more than a bunch of savages dancing around a fire preparing to sacrifice a virgin.

I say that because my explanation of what I think the movie is SOUNDS like I am a believer. Which I am not.

The prolonged scene is to BEGIN to show what Jesus paid. To make the viewer uncomfortable. To give just the tiniest understanding to what he went through. And s8mply saying “he was tortured” does not work. We all know that story. But the human mind can’t comprehend that level of suffering. So to sit in a theater for 45 mins (or however long the scene was) and actually watch him get whipped. Watch him get beaten. For 45 minutes. It is jarring.

It isn’t entertaining. I didn’t enjoy it. But I understood it. And simply saying “he was tortured” is a completely different statement than the statement that movie made. Watching Dunkirk with a reasonable volume is probably more enjoyable, but it doesn’t make the same statement as I believe was intended with the actual volume used in theaters.

And I personally believe you don’t need to be a bible-thumper to appreciate the film. I am evidence of that.

 

[Omar 382]

How much more 'pizazz' could you get than that shootout?

Obviously, the guy wasn't decrying the usage of the shootout scene- it was its execution.

I, the guy who made the original statement, and just about everyone who's seen the movie wanted to see a REAL shootout with REAL violence- not the pussy, PC shit that the producers rolled with to satiate the masses and retain the PG-13 rating.

Decapitations. Genital mutilations. Gang rapes.

Could you be any more dense?

 

[chf]

But the prolonged scene IS the point.

And I stress I am not religious. I personally believe the entire concept of religeon is just mankind’s way of staying sane. Randomness makes no sense, therefore there MUST be some old dude with a beard who loves us all who planned the whole thing. The very concept to me is primitive and makes “civilized” society nothing more than a bunch of savages dancing around a fire preparing to sacrifice a virgin.

I say that because my explanation of what I think the movie is SOUNDS like I am a believer. Which I am not.

The prolonged scene is to BEGIN to show what Jesus paid. To make the viewer uncomfortable. To give just the tiniest understanding to what he went through. And s8mply saying “he was tortured” does not work. We all know that story. But the human mind can’t comprehend that level of suffering. So to sit in a theater for 45 mins (or however long the scene was) and actually watch him get whipped. Watch him get beaten. For 45 minutes. It is jarring.

It isn’t entertaining. I didn’t enjoy it. But I understood it. And simply saying “he was tortured” is a completely different statement than the statement that movie made. Watching Dunkirk with a reasonable volume is probably more enjoyable, but it doesn’t make the same statement as I believe was intended with the actual volume used in theaters.

And I personally believe you don’t need to be a bible-thumper to appreciate the film. I am evidence of that.

And again, as an editor, I totally get that he may have been trying to achieve that, but if that was what he was going for he failed (imo) miserably. There's times when I want to evoke a response in my viewer too, but if I overdo it, then I undo any effect I was trying for.

If I do a film of a person with Crohn's disease, I may want the actor to portray some of the reality of that, but I'm going to keep it brief, and AGAIN, less is more. If I use audio or reaction shots, then the audience doesn't need to see what the reality of that person's disease is.

If I do closeups of the toilet bowl, or worse, show what happens when things go awry in public, I'm just going to take the viewers OUT of the story, instead of keeping them in.

That's probably a horrible example. Trying to think of something with the same opprobrium as torture.

Ok, let's take cannibalism. 'Hannibal' did a fucking amazing job of walking the tightrope between violence and gratuitous shock value. We don't NEED to see Lecter carving up a body, we can just see him preparing the final dish, and the horror is even worse.

 

[chf]

Obviously, the guy wasn't decrying the usage of the shootout scene- it was its execution.

I, the guy who made the original statement, and just about everyone who's seen the movie wanted to see a REAL shootout with REAL violence- not the pussy, PC shit that the producers rolled with to satiate the masses and retain the PG-13 rating.

Decapitations. Genital mutilations. Gang rapes.

Could you be any more dense?

Is this your sarcasm again? If so, needs work.

 

[Omar 382]

Is this your sarcasm again? If so, needs work.

I admit that I do not possess moderation in my issuance of (attempted) humorous quips. I'm kind of like Elton John- I release anything that comes to mind. When I'm on, I'm on- but there are a lot of swings-and-misses as well. I'm generally happy if I hit at 40%.

To be fair though, that GOT post about a shootout like Valentine's Day Massacre and Daenerys giving birth to the dragons while "Sugar Pie, Honey Bunch" plays was pure gold.

It might be a cultural gap. I'll start ending my jokes with "eh" any time I address you in the future to remedy the situation.

 

[chf]

I admit that I do not possess moderation in my issuance of (attempted) humorous quips. I'm kind of like Elton John- I release anything that comes to mind. When I'm on, I'm on- but there are a lot of swings-and-misses as well. I'm generally happy if I hit at 40%.

To be fair though, that GOT post about a shootout like Valentine's Day Massacre and Daenerys giving birth to the dragons while "Sugar Pie, Honey Bunch" plays was pure gold.

It might be a cultural gap. I'll start ending my jokes with "eh" any time I address you in the future to remedy the situation.

Well I AM getting you enough to be able to ask, instead of just jumping right to 'fuck off!'

And yeah, tone is tough on the interwebs.

 

[Omar 382]

If I do a film of a person with Crohn's disease, I may want the actor to portray some of the reality of that, but I'm going to keep it brief, and AGAIN, less is more. If I use audio or reaction shots, then the audience doesn't need to see what the reality of that person's disease is.

If I do closeups of the toilet bowl, or worse, show what happens when things go awry in public, I'm just going to take the viewers OUT of the story, instead of keeping them in.

This Chron's Disease movie concept... it is just a concept now, right? Like, you haven't purchased the rights to make the film yet, have you?

 

[chf]

This Chron's Disease movie concept... it is just a concept now, right? Like, you haven't purchased the rights to make the film yet, have you?

Steal away my friend, steal away.

 

[calsnowskier]

And again, as an editor, I totally get that he may have been trying to achieve that, but if that was what he was going for he failed (imo) miserably. There's times when I want to evoke a response in my viewer too, but if I overdo it, then I undo any effect I was trying for.

If I do a film of a person with Crohn's disease, I may want the actor to portray some of the reality of that, but I'm going to keep it brief, and AGAIN, less is more. If I use audio or reaction shots, then the audience doesn't need to see what the reality of that person's disease is.

If I do closeups of the toilet bowl, or worse, show what happens when things go awry in public, I'm just going to take the viewers OUT of the story, instead of keeping them in.

That's probably a horrible example. Trying to think of something with the same opprobrium as torture.

Ok, let's take cannibalism. 'Hannibal' did a fucking amazing job of walking the tightrope between violence and gratuitous shock value. We don't NEED to see Lecter carving up a body, we can just see him preparing the final dish, and the horror is even worse.

I am enjoying this convo, but as you stated a while back, it passed the hijack level a LONG time ago.

So while I would love to continue, let’s call it here, and just agree to disagree...

 

[chf]

I am enjoying this convo, but as you stated a while back, it passed the hijack level a LONG time ago.

So while I would love to continue, let’s call it here, and just agree to disagree...

Sure.

 

[Omar 382]

Eastern Promises: 4/5 stars. Watching this 2007 crime drama from David Cronenberg reminds me that I seriously need to watch more Viggo Mortensen films. I don’t mean to sound gay (oh yeah- not that there’s anything wrong with that) but the word I will use for his performance in this movie is “flawless.” Ok, yes, very gay, but I can’t think of a better word, considering I can’t think of anything I didn’t love about his performance.

Naomi Watts was (predictably) decent. The old guy who is the father of the arrogant prick kid was really good, and apparently he’s not even a very well-known actor at all.

When the film ended, I thought the ending certainly could have shown more, but I actually liked it ending where it did now. If they chose to delve into future events, it would have felt tacked on. Best to leave that for a possible sequel, though, unfortunately, that’s apparently not going to happen.