Halfway point 2011

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
Anomaly
Posts: 472
1894 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:21 pm

Re: Halfway point 2011

Post by Anomaly »

You must have this issue with a majority of the people on this site then.

tef
Posts: 445
1361 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:57 am

Re: Halfway point 2011

Post by tef »

Stewball wrote:I'm still working on a patent for the black art of trends and herd mentality.


Why's it gotta be a black art, dawg.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Halfway point 2011

Post by Stewball »

Anomaly1 wrote:You must have this issue with a majority of the people on this site then.


A bigger issue is that a lot of people on this movie site don't go to the movies that much. :?:

tef wrote:Why's it gotta be a black art, dawg.


Same reason it's Devil's Food Cake, yo.


I just put 2 & 2 together:

ShogunRua wrote:I actually haven't seen a single film from 2011 so far, as they virtually all looked terrible, but I think that's chiefly my fault for not investigating closer, and only paying attention to mainstream releases.



If Midnight in Paris is the absolute best among that list, I think I can very calmly skip 2-10, heh...


You trash it when you haven't even seen it, and talking about not going to the movies......
So OK, your tastes are different, but I didn't think they were that different.

ayall
Posts: 458
1652 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:17 pm

Re: Halfway point 2011

Post by ayall »

haven't seen anything breathtaking yet, but then again, everyone knows the movie year is severally right skewed when it comes to the really great movies.

summer flicks have been about par.
I did enjoy Win Win & Arthur, but they learned more towards entertaining then good.

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Halfway point 2011

Post by ShogunRua »

Stewball wrote:
ShogunRua wrote:I actually haven't seen a single film from 2011 so far, as they virtually all looked terrible, but I think that's chiefly my fault for not investigating closer, and only paying attention to mainstream releases.



If Midnight in Paris is the absolute best among that list, I think I can very calmly skip 2-10, heh...


You trash it when you haven't even seen it, and talking about not going to the movies......


That's a fine bit of detective work there, Stewball.

If you had investigated even closer, you would also have noticed that those two posts were written about 5 days apart (June 30th and July 5th).

And if you were really smart, you would have clicked on my username, then "Most Recent Reviews", and noticed there was a certain picture I watched and ranked on July 4th...

Anyways, "Midnight in Paris" wasn't bad; it was just okay. I'm not surprised it's been so overrated, however; people have been beaten down so much by recent, shitty Hollywood movies, that when something comes along with a respectable amount of humor, an original concept, and decent acting and directing, even if it's as painfully cliched and predictable as "Midnight in Paris", it's seen as something really good/special, which it isn't.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Halfway point 2011

Post by Stewball »

ShogunRua wrote:
Stewball wrote:
ShogunRua wrote:I actually haven't seen a single film from 2011 so far, as they virtually all looked terrible, but I think that's chiefly my fault for not investigating closer, and only paying attention to mainstream releases.



If Midnight in Paris is the absolute best among that list, I think I can very calmly skip 2-10, heh...


You trash it when you haven't even seen it, and talking about not going to the movies......


That's a fine bit of detective work there, Stewball.

If you had investigated even closer, you would also have noticed that those two posts were written about 5 days apart (June 30th and July 5th).

And if you were really smart, you would have clicked on my username, then "Most Recent Reviews", and noticed there was a certain picture I watched and ranked on July 4th...

Anyways, "Midnight in Paris" wasn't bad; it was just okay. I'm not surprised it's been so overrated, however; people have been beaten down so much by recent, shitty Hollywood movies, that when something comes along with a respectable amount of humor, an original concept, and decent acting and directing, even if it's as painfully cliched and predictable as "Midnight in Paris", it's seen as something really good/special, which it isn't.


Ah, so now you HAVE seen a movie from 2011.

You denigrate cliches, and I get your point--Paris is a cliche, Starry Night is a cliche, Woody Allen is a cliche, and romantic-comedies have been and are being done to death. The poster is a good representation of building on, or past, such cliches, which became cliches in the first place because, like stereotypes and humor, they are based on Truth. Is it even possible to make a movie without building on what's come before, without cliches of some sort? If something has no significant degree of originality, then yeah, forget it, but I don't think MIP is that....at all.

Jerky
Posts: 253
6163 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:37 pm

Re: Halfway point 2011

Post by Jerky »

The year hasn't been good so far. With that said, here are my Top and Bottom Ten of the first half of 2011

Top Ten

1. X-men: First Class
2. Thor
3. I Saw The Devil
4. Source Code
5. All Star Superman
6. Super 8
7. Limitless
8. Rammbock
9. Scream 4
10. Conan O'Brien Can't Stop


Still have not seen: The Tree Of Life, Green Lantern, Meek's Cutoff, Rango, Hanna, Midnight in Paris, Unknown, Bridesmaids, The Hangover II, Pirates 4, Transformers 3, Cars 2, Kung Fu Panda 2, Fast Five

Bottom Ten

10. Just Go With It
9. The Rite
8. Vanishing On 7th Street
7. Battle: Los Angeles
6. Season of the Witch
5. Stake Land
4. Sucker Punch
3. The Mechanic
2. No Strings Attached
1. The Dilemma

WILL NEVER WATCH: Zookeeper, Beastly, Monte Carlo, Big Momma's House part Whatever!!!!

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Halfway point 2011

Post by ShogunRua »

Stewball wrote:You denigrate cliches, and I get your point--Paris is a cliche, Starry Night is a cliche, Woody Allen is a cliche, and romantic-comedies have been and are being done to death. The poster is a good representation of building on, or past, such cliches, which became cliches in the first place because, like stereotypes and humor, they are based on Truth.


Those weren't really my problems with the work.

Look at the protagonist; played by Owen Wilson; he's a writer, a romantic, a compassionate if passive man, who loves Paris in the rain, appreciates art and history, and is a kind-hearted liberal. Throughout the whole work, we will not see him doing a single bad thing, nor will a single purely bad quality be revealed about him. (Only a charming naivete and denial...)

The antagonist, his fiancee, Rachel McAdams, is a cold, imagination-less, materialistic, cares nothing for art, mean, abrasive, and of course, her and her parents are staunch conservatives who mention Bush and call everyone they dislike "communists" at every turn.

Throughout the whole work, we will not see her do a single good thing, nor will a single redeeming quality be revealed about her.

And of course, no surprise, to extricate themselves from the dilemma of an impending marriage, McAdams cheats, and Owen Wilson finds a PERFECT girl who loves walking in Paris in the rain just as much as he does.

I mean, even by the standards of a romcom, this is childish and cartoonish as it gets! And every other event in the film is just as obvious.

Even though it's not a superhero/cartoon/board game adaptation or a re-make, it's still a film for....kids!

Two other amusing points;

1. As a friend pointed out to me, the main role is written for Woody Allen to play...but he's too old for it. So instead, we see Owen Wilson trying to play Woody Allen.

Not only is he not as funny, but he's just not believable visually! It's one thing when a short, small, ugly man with giant glasses like Woody Allen does his nebbish, meek, confused routine. It's quite another when someone who looks like Owen Wilson does it. The former is believable, the latter is not.

2. Why is it that in every time travel movie, when the protagonist goes back in time and meets important characters, they instantly become his friends and hang out with him, even if he is a virtual deaf-mute in their presence, doing nothing to impress them?

I mean, look at how easily the Fitzgeralds, Hemingway, and others all fall over Gil Pender, even though he is as boring and passive in their presence as he is in modern times. It's not like there were a shortage of interesting people or even aspiring writers in Paris in the 1920s....

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Halfway point 2011

Post by Stewball »

ShogunRua wrote:Those weren't really my problems with the work.

Look at the protagonist; played by Owen Wilson; he's a writer, a romantic, a compassionate if passive man, who loves Paris in the rain, appreciates art and history, and is a kind-hearted liberal. Throughout the whole work, we will not see him doing a single bad thing, nor will a single purely bad quality be revealed about him. (Only a charming naivete and denial...)


But what does he stand for? Nothing, until he starts running into great personalities from the past.

The antagonist, his fiancee, Rachel McAdams, is a cold, imagination-less, materialistic, cares nothing for art, mean, abrasive, and of course, her and her parents are staunch conservatives who mention Bush and call everyone they dislike "communists" at every turn.


Being a fiscal conservative, I cannot disagree with this criticism, especially the bias against fiscal conservatives, except to say that it's excellent satire from both sides. The superficial vs the meaningful. In the end he rejects both his fiance and the love from his ideal time, and (apparently) ends up with a much better match from his own time--which pushes home the obvious message, live for the now.

Throughout the whole work, we will not see her do a single good thing, nor will a single redeeming quality be revealed about her.


Again, I agree your assessment of its over-the-top bias, and I'm one to jump on that at the first opportunity. But, again, I'm very much for putting it's prime message, live in your own time, up there where everyone can see it. If that's followed, anti-reason will follow suit--even if that's opposite of the actual intent.

And of course, no surprise, to extricate themselves from the dilemma of an impending marriage, McAdams cheats, and Owen Wilson finds a PERFECT girl who loves walking in Paris in the rain just as much as he does.


Inconsequential artistic license.

I mean, even by the standards of a romcom, this is childish and cartoonish as it gets! And every other event in the film is just as obvious.


Could anything labeled or viewed as a romcom be worthy, no matter its other attributes? Has there ever been a good one?
1. As a friend pointed out to me, the main role is written for Woody Allen to play...but he's too old for it. So instead, we see Owen Wilson trying to play Woody Allen.


I said that immediately the first time I saw it, and was grateful for it being so because I thought Wilson was much less obnoxious at playing Allen than Allen is.

2. Why is it that in every time travel movie, when the protagonist goes back in time and meets important characters, they instantly become his friends and hang out with him, even if he is a virtual deaf-mute in their presence, doing nothing to impress them?


Here again, artistic license gives them the (supposed) intuition to recognize (via the ether) his inherent talent. I still wonder who wrote the opening for his manuscript that "Gertrude Stein" read. Thought at the time that it was great, but my memory being what it is, I can't quote it and it isn't on IMDB.

I mean, look at how easily the Fitzgeralds, Hemingway, and others all fall over Gil Pender, even though he is as boring and passive in their presence as he is in modern times. It's not like there were a shortage of interesting people or even aspiring writers in Paris in the 1920s....


C'mon, he's meant as an example of the everyperson for the audience to identify with, to have a chance to spread their (our) creative wings before creatures long dead who have come back to the land of the living (having learned what?) in a fantasy to embolden us to be what we have the capability of being.

nauru
Posts: 515
1667 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:41 am

Re: Halfway point 2011

Post by nauru »

Tier 8 Films
Source Code

Tier 7 Films
X-Men: First Class
The Adjustment Bureau

Tier 5 Films
Ironclad
Bad Teacher

Tier 4 Films
Super 8
Unknown
Hobo with a Shotgun
Sucker Punch

Tier 3 Films
Battle: Los Angeles
Rango
Season of the Witch
Shaolin

Tier 2 Films
Priest
Limitless

Tier 1 Films
Paul
The Green Hornet
The Big Bang
Last edited by nauru on Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply