• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Movies You've Seen Recently III: The Third Chapter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Charles Foster Kane said:
Even if you overlook everything that's there to overlook, the film is just incredibly contrived. If it hadn't tried so hard to keep the audience tense, it may have been more convincing. It was overkill.
Click to expand...

It's a device my friend. Movies use them all the time.

jtb said:
Sure you can. It fails as history and it fails as a compelling thriller. I could forgive Ben if it did one or the other, but it doesn't succeed at either. Which is particularly disappointing given how Gone Baby Gone and the Town succeed in all the thriller conventions where Argo fails.
Click to expand...

I think it was actually quite successful at being a thriller. I mean, I was pretty fucking thrilled, so were most other people in the cinema and judging by the reviews I've seen, many other people in the world.

They added a few extra things to make it more tense in some scenes, that doesn't make it fail as history.

Scullibundo said:
If you'll remember, I'm responding to your assertion that the film was pretty accurate. And saying you can't hate something because of innacurracies is hilarious coming from somebody who hated 21 Jump Street for not being realistic, before lapping up Argo.
Click to expand...

I hated 21 Jump Street because of many things, not just because of how realistic it was, that was just one of the many factors. Maybe I should add this fact into my initial statement about 21 Jump Street because you can't seem to let this go.

Also, like I've already said, this is cinema, the story was adapted and I think it was done very well.

Jimothy said:
FUCK YOU MILES DAVIS
Click to expand...

I think I might have smiled a bit at this scene in the film.
 
moka said:
It's a device my friend. Movies use them all the time.
Click to expand...

Some use it well, Argo didn't.

I think it was actually quite successful at being a thriller. I mean, I was pretty fucking thrilled, so were most other people in the cinema and judging by the reviews I've seen, many other people in the world.

They added a few extra things to make it more tense in some scenes, that doesn't make it fail as history.
Click to expand...

If you bought it, you bought it. I didn't it, it just took me out of the film. It does make it fail at history, and I agree with jtb, if it's going to fail at that at least succeed at the other.
 
Charles Foster Kane said:
Some use it well, Argo didn't.



If you bought it, you bought it. I didn't it, it just took me out of the film. It does make it fail at history, and I agree with jtb, if it's going to fail at that at least succeed at the other.
Click to expand...

Eh, orite. To each his own I guess.

Now, I'm looking for something to watch tonight. Recommendations, anyone?
 
moka said:
It's a device my friend. Movies use them all the time.



I think it was actually quite successful at being a thriller. I mean, I was pretty fucking thrilled, so were most other people in the cinema and judging by the reviews I've seen, many other people in the world.

They added a few extra things to make it more tense in some scenes, that doesn't make it fail as history.



I hated 21 Jump Street because of many things, not just because of how realistic it was, that was just one of the many factors. Maybe I should add this fact into my initial statement about 21 Jump Street because you can't seem to let this go.

Also, like I've already said, this is cinema, the story was adapted and I think it was done very well.



I think I might have smiled a bit at this scene in the film.
Click to expand...
What you said was 'in my opinion, the film was quite accurate', so again, that is what I was responding to. Affleck and co didn't just 'add a few things', they completely changed the way events played out and who was responsible or doing what so as to shape it as an American triumph in which the people an countries that were really responsible were given bit parts or were represented as being entirely uncooperative.

It is a complete re-writing of history.
ViewtifulJC said:
Hates on Argo's inaccuracies and bullshits

worships Schindler's list
Click to expand...
Oh boy I can't wait to hear this comparison.
 
moka said:
Like I said, I agree that there were some parts that were highly exaggerated but overall, I felt it was an accurate-enough portrayal of what happened. I mean, it's a film, things had to be added and taken away to make it better for the screen.

As far as changing the nature of the American-Canadian efforts, I'm not so sure. Didn't the Canadians just host the American Embassy staff while the CIA made efforts to rescue them? I'm not trying to downplay the bravery of the Canadians involved but I feel like their involvement was made fairly obvious in the film.
Click to expand...

This is patently false:

Jimmy Carter on Argo
Peace loving peanut farmer said:
90% of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian. And the movie gives almost full credit to the American CIA. And with that exception, the movie is very good. But Ben Affleck's character in the film was... only in Tehran a day and a half. And the main hero, in my opinion, was Ken Taylor, who was the Canadian ambassador who orchestrated the entire process.
Click to expand...
 
Liquidsnake said:
Didn't you get a DTV feel?

I felt like it was filmed on a 12 mill. budget.
Click to expand...

I could see what you mean by that; they really didn't have a whole lot of locations to play around with, and the action sequences were very few and far between. I think Oplev made the most of whatever budget he got, though.
 
Ridley327 said:
I could see what you mean by that; they really didn't have a whole lot of locations to play around with, and the action sequences were very few and far between. I think Oplev made the most of whatever budget he got, though.
Click to expand...

Strange that the call got the exact same treatment, yet it blew away expectations.

Anyway the girl from Prometheus was excellent.
 
moka said:
Also, like I've already said, this is cinema, the story was adapted and I think it was done very well.
Click to expand...
no all you've already said amounts to "I hated one movie explicitly for being unrealistic but I liked another despite persistent inaccuracy" while pulling out phrases like "this is cinema" or "it's a device my friend" or "their (sic) tv tropes" that don't really mean anything when you throw them out there without any further justification for what you mean and when you dress them up in mildly trying-to-be-superior tones. so basically all of your argumentation reads really really silly and faux-intellectual, so far tbh

for the record I liked argo decently despite historical inaccuracy; the true real-world problem with that film is the way it renders every non-North American person as basically a wild angry mob member. I also liked 21 Jump Street plenty. I could see arguments for internal logic (which is more important than realism (though it is true that argo's problematic in that it makes claims to realism but those are in-film so they factor into internal logic)) being inconsistent in one and not the other, but you're not making one. truly the entire sum of what you've typed in this thread so far on those two films is "this one's dumb this one's not" without any evidence to how an opinion was made. which is fine people are allowed to have their opinions be as simple as they want just understand it makes them soooooooo easy to be argued against and torn apart
 
big ander said:
no all you've already said amounts to "I hated one movie explicitly for being unrealistic but I liked another despite persistent inaccuracy" while pulling out phrases like "this is cinema" or "it's a device my friend" or "their (sic) tv tropes" that don't really mean anything when you throw them out there without any further justification for what you mean and when you dress them up in mildly trying-to-be-superior tones. so basically all of your argumentation reads really really silly and faux-intellectual, so far tbh

for the record I liked argo decently despite historical inaccuracy; the true real-world problem with that film is the way it renders every non-North American person as basically a wild angry mob member. I also liked 21 Jump Street plenty. I could see arguments for internal logic (which is more important than realism (though it is true that argo's problematic in that it makes claims to realism but those are in-film so they factor into internal logic)) being inconsistent in one and not the other, but you're not making one. truly the entire sum of what you've typed in this thread so far on those two films is "this one's dumb this one's not" without any evidence to how an opinion was made. which is fine people are allowed to have their opinions be as simple as they want just understand it makes them soooooooo easy to be argued against and torn apart
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that I've mentioned numerous times in this thread that I disliked 21 Jump Street for many reasons, including how unrealistic it is, you guys keep mentioning it like it's the sole reason why I hated it. That's probably my fault for not listing what I thought were some of the other faults with the film, so here they are:

This isn't an exhaustive list

  • Not funny
  • Forced jokes
  • Completely unrealistic
  • Contains lines like: "Jenko: You have the right to... [forgets the Miranda rights] Jenko: ... suck my dick, motherfucker!"

Maybe it's just not my kind of film.

Here's why I like Argo so much, there are more, again, this isn't an exhaustive list:
  • I like the story
  • Good acting
  • Has a really good feel to it, the time period is portrayed nicely
  • Gets quite intense at times
  • Based on a real story

I don't understand why you would automatically assume that the sole thing I look for in a film is complete realism anyway. 21 Jump Street was off the charts on my bullshit metre though, that's why I mentioned it.

Also, when I said that something was a 'trope', we were discussing how certain elements were added to the film for effect, things that didn't happen in the real story. I really can't be more clearer than that.

I also don't understand why you're all making a connection between what I said about 21 Jump Street and Argo. Seriously, my comments on both of these films were completely unrelated, I watched these films quite far apart from each other and both of the films are extremely different from each other. Quite baffling.
 
The scene in Argo (during the climax)
where they are stopped by the shooting of a film and can't get to the producers building to answer the phone
was incredibly forced. That's the whole movie there. It only gets worse with the cars chasing the plane.

Almost as bullshit as the fake shooting the little girl in Crash (almost, but not quite).
 
Thug Waffle said:
I think so, yes.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know that could be a pretty subjective questions to some extent, but when dealing with directors who seem to have a relatively large, well respected body of work, sometimes I've seen people recommending particular movies as first exposure, since they may be easier to digest or more inviting to the directors overall filmmaking style.

Appreciate the opinion.
 
Papa Steve said:
Yeah I know that could be a pretty subjective questions to some extent, but when dealing with directors who seem to have a relatively large, well respected body of work, sometimes I've seen people recommending particular movies as first exposure, since they may be easier to digest or more inviting to the directors overall filmmaking style.

Appreciate the opinion.
Click to expand...

A Woman is a Woman is extremely easy to digest. It's light hearted, playful, innocent, and pure, and so is Anna Karina in it. It's a fine start for someone just getting into Godard's work. Hurry up and see it.
 
Papa Steve said:
Yeah I know that could be a pretty subjective questions to some extent, but when dealing with directors who seem to have a relatively large, well respected body of work, sometimes I've seen people recommending particular movies as first exposure, since they may be easier to digest or more inviting to the directors overall filmmaking style.

Appreciate the opinion.
Click to expand...

I understand. A Woman is a Woman was my first experience with Godard (and Anna Karina, for that matter) and I'm glad for it.

There's also a documentary on Truffaut and Godard called "Two in the Wave" or something like that. It's on Netflix. I'm not finished with it, but it's a good watch so far, and it's interesting to learn about the influence both men had on New Wave cinema. The doc grants you some sociopolitical context as well, which will surely inform further viewings of each director's work (provided you remember it).
 
eLZhi said:
A Woman is a Woman is extremely easy to digest. It's light hearted, playful, innocent, and pure, and so is Anna Karina in it. It's a fine start for someone just getting into Godard's work. Hurry up and see it.
Click to expand...

Sounds great, I'm planning on watching it later tonight.

Thug Waffle said:
I understand. A Woman is a Woman was my first experience with Godard (and Anna Karina, for that matter) and I'm glad for it.

There's also a documentary on Truffaut and Godard called "Two in the Wave" or something like that. It's on Netflix. I'm not finished with it, but it's a good watch so far, and it's interesting to learn about the influence both men had on New Wave cinema. The doc grants you some sociopolitical context as well, which will surely inform further viewings of each director's work (provided you remember it).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up. I tend to debate whether or not I want to see behind the scenes stuff like that before I've really gotten into their work or not, as I sometimes have a hard time separating the director(and their views in general) from their work. Not that you always want to do that per say, I just generally prefer to take in the work unfettered by knowing the creators background/political leanings, etc. I guess I could have just said, will add it for later viewing, haha.
 
gryz said:
sorry didn't realize this thread was only for the discussion of pretentious movie one-upmanship
Click to expand...

VbBnAHP.jpg
 
Sinister.

Eesh... this was nearly as bad as the equally anodyne Insidious. Decent cast with Ethan Hawke trying particularly hard, nicely shot, but the script... oh dear...

You know things aren't going to go well when Hawke's true-crime writer character cringes like a teenage girl at some of the tamest found-footage mayhem you ever did see.

But given that this is movie where the bulk of the mythology is doled out by a bearded academic via skype (this guy may as well be called Prof. Exposition), unconvincing characterization is the least of its problems.

Newsflash: Kids with white panstick on their faces are not inherently scary, especially given that their presence carries no overt threat
until the ever so predictable twist ending
.

Mr Boogie at least looks sorta creepy (a definite step up from Insidious' Darth Maul in glam rocker furry-boots demon) but he does precisely nothing for the entirety of the Sinister's interminable 1hr 50m running time but occasionally peer out of the screen as if to check whether the audience has nodded off yet.

The biggest crime the movie commits though is wasting Boards Of Canada's supremely unsettling "gyroscope" on this soundtrack of this fear-free farrago.

3/10
 
moka said:
Despite the fact that I've mentioned numerous times in this thread that I disliked 21 Jump Street for many reasons, including how unrealistic it is, you guys keep mentioning it like it's the sole reason why I hated it. That's probably my fault for not listing what I thought were some of the other faults with the film, so here they are:
Click to expand...
"despite the fact that I've said I have several reasons but have only actually said one, you guys keep saying I've only said one reason"

This isn't an exhaustive list

  • Not funny
  • Forced jokes
  • Completely unrealistic
  • Contains lines like: "Jenko: You have the right to... [forgets the Miranda rights] Jenko: ... suck my dick, motherfucker!"

Maybe it's just not my kind of film.
Click to expand...
comedy is massively subjective and if you'd said something like "not my humor" (which is what 3 of your bullet points amount to, you just wrote it differently a couple times) that would have been far more defensible. so you basically have two reasons for not liking 21js: not your humor (fine) and unrealistic (dumb). using "unrealistic" as a derogatory term is nonsensical. film is unrealistic to the core. propelling through time observing unreal situations from impossible vantage points. you cannot complain that a film is unrealistic. documentaries are unrealistic.

you can complain that a film doesn't have consistent internal logic. which I already pointed out. if you thought 21js was inconsistent and argo was consistent, then sure go for it. personally: 21js has a cartoon vibe throughout that it remains within. argo makes claims to realism, then bends events and reduces the Iranian people to background noise. one rubs me the wrong way just a bit, the other doesn't.


Here's why I like Argo so much, there are more, again, this isn't an exhaustive list:
  • I like the story
  • Good acting
  • Has a really good feel to it, the time period is portrayed nicely
  • Gets quite intense at times
  • Based on a real story
Click to expand...
like this is fine but like I said when your opinions are mega simplified it's very easy to brush an opinion aside, and statements like "gets quite intense at times" are kinda empty, no what I mean? like, if a thriller DOESN'T get sort of intense at a couple moments, it's a humongous problem. or, "good acting": when you say "good acting" you make it real easy for someone to respond "no, bad acting." when you get specific about your experience, maybe say like "I thought arkin gave his character enough weight without negating any of the levity of the hollywood side of the story" you're giving a more detailed opinion and therefore a better review that doesn't read really elementary.
note I'm not even disagreeing with anything you said here. just pointing out how your pretty reductive posts make for thin arguments and that's why people in here are finding it so easy to argue with you.
it's also emblematic of a problem everyone struggles with: focusing on tangible details. a film shouldn't be a checklist. "ok good cinematography...good editing..." nah. the intangible is where it's at.

I don't understand why you would automatically assume that the sole thing I look for in a film is complete realism anyway. 21 Jump Street was off the charts on my bullshit metre though, that's why I mentioned it.
Click to expand...
expression through omission dude. when literally the only specifics you offer are "I liked one film because it was real, and didn't like another because it wasn't" you're heavily implying that the only thing you look for in a film is realism. that is not a ridiculous assumption at all.
and the fact that you included "Based on a real story" in your review of argo points to that too! so you're still implying that.
so I'd like to ask this because it's an argument worth having: what to you makes a story that makes claims to truth more valuable than one that is intentionally fake?
I'd argue: nothing. "truth" isn't more valuable than falsehood. what matters is what's communicated. what resonates. watch Life of Pi, that's a pretty great argument for stories being valuable. hell, watch 12 Angry Men to see how elusive truth is and why it doesn't really matter.

Also, when I said that something was a 'trope', we were discussing how certain elements were added to the film for effect, things that didn't happen in the real story. I really can't be more clearer than that.
Click to expand...
no I– I know what a trope is. your use of the word doesn't defend the insertion of a cliche into a story, just mentions that it happened. also the idea that tropes are inserted for effect is weird to me because like...what's not put into a movie for effect then?
simply a trope or cliche is a common repeated story-telling device. they aren't inherently unrealistic or inherently realistic. and saying that "oh well putting those events in there's ok because they're tropes" isn't a defense, it's a description. yes we know they're tropes, but are they consistent with the rest of the film and are they dramatically satisfying. believe it or not I'd say argo's finale, while a pretty cliche ending to a thriller, works well. the beats hit quickly enough that the thrills stay elevated and you don't get caught up in the ridiculousness in the moment.

I also don't understand why you're all making a connection between what I said about 21 Jump Street and Argo. Seriously, my comments on both of these films were completely unrelated, I watched these films quite far apart from each other and both of the films are extremely different from each other. Quite baffling.
Click to expand...
well when you watched them doesn't really matter because you posted about them within days of each other. and they weren't unrelated, they were completely related because your entire comment on one film was about negative lack of realism and most of your comment on the other was on positive presence of realism (and then backpedaling on the value of realism when the veracity was taken away). so if you're really baffled by that, I dunno man.
Borgnine said:
VbBnAHP.jpg
Click to expand...
completely unrealistic movie so I hated it, but I give Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory a peer pressure rating of 2/2.
gryz said:
sorry didn't realize this thread was only for the discussion of pretentious movie one-upmanship
Click to expand...
wanderlust is decent. big fan of pretty much everyone in the supporting cast so it was gonna be hard for me to not like it. it's form is loose in a similar way to WHAS so it has that going for it, but I don't think that works as well when there are apparent dual protagonists. the attempts at plot were all kinda lame actually, had the movie been even looser it might have been better.
 
Saw Fast Five. It's entertaining, and for a fifth installment in a series I care little about it was quite decent, though over the top (but that's expected). Does anyone else wonder how many people they killed in the climax? 6/10

Also saw Going My Way. I may have overdosed on kindness a bit. It's just one of those Oscar winners (I'm trying to eventually see them all) no one remembers or particularly misses. I guess I must throw like an atheist. It wasn't terrible, but you feel its age. 5/10

Edit: Just realized Going My Way came out the same year Double Indemnity did. Damn steal. lol
 
Schindler's List

No tears were shed, but I felt something else: Silent internal rage w/a mixture of sadness. Pretty much the same way I felt when the atrocities on the slave ship in Amistad were being shown. Really loved the tribute at the end

And with that, I have finally seen all the Best Picture winners......I really should get out more
 
lazybones18 said:
Schindler's List

No tears were shed, but I felt something else: Silent internal rage w/a mixture of sadness. Pretty much the same way I felt when the atrocities on the slave ship in Amistad were being shown. Really loved the tribute at the end

And with that, I have finally seen all the Best Picture winners......I really should get out more
Click to expand...
Which in your opinion was the worst?
 
lazybones18 said:
I almost feel obligated to say Gone with the Wind since I absolutely loathe that movie, but I'm sure there's something else that I've seen much worse than that.
Click to expand...

There is no way in hell Gone with the Wind is the worst. While there is a lot of wrong in it, the beginning is very weak, and you feel many people had their hands in it, it still had great memorable moments and some of the shots are actually pretty good; plus the soundtrack is fantastic. There's far worse stuff that has won the Oscar, just off the top of my head: Gigi might be the worst I've seen, Chariots of Fire is one of the lamest and most forgettable, Ordinary People also forgettable, Crash is trash, Going my Way is meh, and I've heard The Greatest Show on Earth might be the worst. Arond the World in 80 Days is also quite lame. There's still lots more that are below Gone with the Wind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The worst commercials you've ever seen.
2
84
2K
Beretta replied
Chapter 2: Sharkasourous
4
24
Reizo Ryuu replied
Chapter 1: BootThunder
1
99
HRK69 replied
Film Limbo: 18 High-Profile Movies That Were Shot But Haven’t Seen The Light Of Day
12
473
Panajev2001a replied
What is the weirdest/creepiest thing you've seen while you had sleep paralysis?
2
68
1K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Top Bottom