pito on Fri Apr 22 16:26:27 2011 said:

laurequillo on Fri Apr 22 15:34:52 2011 said:

pito on Fri Apr 22 15:28:08 2011 said:

laurequillo on Fri Apr 22 15:08:55 2011 said:

Well, first my main point is that there is always something objective, not all is subjective in a movie, there are certains things that can be measured. And of course you can notice them, I see a lot of movies that I know they are not so good but I like them. But if you see a great movie, i.e The Godfather, you know that is not the same than for example Rambo, even if you like both of them.
Then, the point about waching a movie just for fun is true. But the problem is what is fun for you maybe it is not for others, and maybe I just watched a movie and get bored because it did not make any sense for me, so of course at the end everybody wants to be entertaint but not all of us get entertain by the same type of movie! And all those details (cinematography, dialogue, music, timing, composition...) increase the "movie experience" and make me really enjoy the movie, so for sure they count at the entertain level! (I am not talking about realistic or not, because I dont care about that). When I watch a Tarantino movie for example Kill Bill or Inglorious Basterds, the dialogue is great and the music, and every detail of the movie makes me enjoy it, but not because is realistic, is because it appeals to me.

About the Tarantino: ok I get your point, but thats just subjective and has nothing to do with "knowing more" .. Its just the style you like?

And what is so good about godfathers then? The dialogues or..? To be honest: those movies, I get bored watching them...

well, I could watch The godfather every other day! But ok, that is your taste.

And about Tarantino, of course is the style I like, but the dialogues are pretty damn good! and that is the part that is objective!

Anyway, about old movies, it is just that there are some movies that everyone should watch, even if you dont like them...I dont know how to explain it...it is like with books, if you like literature you should read some shakespare`s novel, so with movies it is the same...but I know that it is not a clear or a strong argument, but I really believe it. And you can see how people used to do movies before the fu*ing CGI...I hate CGI...and the charm of those old movies...and how the good ones are still funny and good and completely up to date!

Eum, but this is something I dont agree on.
I dont see the point in watching something you dont like.. this is only good if you really want to learn something..


Using your "book" analoy: its not because someone likes to read/reads a lot he/she should read all the so called classics.. Again: I come back to the part of: who makes them classic.. critics..
An good example here is the book "Das Capital" by Karl Marx. You hear so much about this book and almost everyone I know that reads a lot has this book... but when it comes to reading it: no-one ever did read it or if they did, they didnt get further then the first 20 pages...

Back from cinema 10 minutes ago....

I just watch "RED RIDING HOOD"...

6/10 for the storyline...

laurequillo on Fri Apr 22 17:30:57 2011 said:

pito on Fri Apr 22 16:26:27 2011 said:

laurequillo on Fri Apr 22 15:34:52 2011 said:

pito on Fri Apr 22 15:28:08 2011 said:

laurequillo on Fri Apr 22 15:08:55 2011 said:

Well, first my main point is that there is always something objective, not all is subjective in a movie, there are certains things that can be measured. And of course you can notice them, I see a lot of movies that I know they are not so good but I like them. But if you see a great movie, i.e The Godfather, you know that is not the same than for example Rambo, even if you like both of them.
Then, the point about waching a movie just for fun is true. But the problem is what is fun for you maybe it is not for others, and maybe I just watched a movie and get bored because it did not make any sense for me, so of course at the end everybody wants to be entertaint but not all of us get entertain by the same type of movie! And all those details (cinematography, dialogue, music, timing, composition...) increase the "movie experience" and make me really enjoy the movie, so for sure they count at the entertain level! (I am not talking about realistic or not, because I dont care about that). When I watch a Tarantino movie for example Kill Bill or Inglorious Basterds, the dialogue is great and the music, and every detail of the movie makes me enjoy it, but not because is realistic, is because it appeals to me.

About the Tarantino: ok I get your point, but thats just subjective and has nothing to do with "knowing more" .. Its just the style you like?

And what is so good about godfathers then? The dialogues or..? To be honest: those movies, I get bored watching them...

well, I could watch The godfather every other day! But ok, that is your taste.

And about Tarantino, of course is the style I like, but the dialogues are pretty damn good! and that is the part that is objective!

Anyway, about old movies, it is just that there are some movies that everyone should watch, even if you dont like them...I dont know how to explain it...it is like with books, if you like literature you should read some shakespare`s novel, so with movies it is the same...but I know that it is not a clear or a strong argument, but I really believe it. And you can see how people used to do movies before the fu*ing CGI...I hate CGI...and the charm of those old movies...and how the good ones are still funny and good and completely up to date!

Eum, but this is something I dont agree on.
I dont see the point in watching something you dont like.. this is only good if you really want to learn something..


Using your "book" analoy: its not because someone likes to read/reads a lot he/she should read all the so called classics.. Again: I come back to the part of: who makes them classic.. critics..
An good example here is the book "Das Capital" by Karl Marx. You hear so much about this book and almost everyone I know that reads a lot has this book... but when it comes to reading it: no-one ever did read it or if they did, they didnt get further then the first 20 pages...

Nop, the critics do not make them classics, Time make them classics. And I think is valid to say that one should read/watch the classics to have a wide and truthful knowledge of literature/cinema and to better understand and appreciate what we watch and read now.

And well, not all classics are good! But first you have to read/watch them to know that! For example I did not watch Citizen Kane, so I cannot tell if is as good as "critics" say

THOR... 6.8/10

expected storyline, but is enjoyable to watch...

youtube has several videos of the 30 Second Bunnies

retelling the film in about 30s with bunnies and kind of nice parodies.

e.g. Alien
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjNl93mT6M0&feature=relmfu

or Kill Bill 1&2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BqBpdy75fU&NR=1
and many more, quite nie and funny

Saw Kung Fu Panda 2 a few weeks ago

Really good.

7.5 / 10

Now where is my 'inner peace' ?

Ey guys Long time no see!!! I am quite busy finishing my projects and sending out CVs!!! I will join you soon again!!!
Anyway...
"Kung Fu Panda 2", really boring, much worse than the first one. 4/10
"Rango" quite interesting, a good one. 7/10
"X-Men, first class", Really good 8.5/10
"Hanna", an interesting one, I have to watch it again, but I would say 7/10
"Sucker Punch", one of the worst movies of the year, 3/10
"Source Code", quite boring and not convincing, with really bad acting roles. 5/10

Agree: X-men first class is very good...
8.5/10

kung fu panda 2 and x men were amazing!

also watched last night "night on earth" by jim jarmusch, really good 4.8/5

Attack the Block (2011)
5/10