And it helps that Tarantino hasn't jumped onto the CGI bandwagon. 
 
I was getting pretty annoyed after the new Die Hard movie came out and people were all but saying that it was bad, excusing it with 'Well, it's a Die Hard, so what do you expect?' Have these people forgotten how good the first Die Hard was?
Quote:

whitecrow said:

Right with ya, I'm not going to lower my standards because the lowest common denominator has. People doing this is the reason we have the Transformer series. the CGI masturbation era is a nightmare for cinephile's because now directors just try to make that next big "Visual experience" which is a buzz phrase that makes me grind my teeth like no other. 300 I feel did it right, it had an interesting enough story; the characters had like...talking parts that wasn't just screaming over gunshots or explosions and although it was just a lot of GCI circle jerking it was also a well put together movie. Same with pretty much any Tarantino movie IMO.

Click to expand...

Quote:

mutabor said:

 The 5 Most Widely Believed WWII Facts (That Are ********)

Click to expand...

 
Great article!

Couple of great albums in your Top 10 Sig there. Reminded me I picked up Liquid Swords on vinyl a month back and still haven't taken it for a spin.
 
There's a badass edition of it being done for RSD this year as well.
 
Also reminded me I need to hunt down a MoFi copy of What's Goin' On as I already have Let's Get It On.
 
Quote:

metalsonata said:

And it helps that Tarantino hasn't jumped onto the CGI bandwagon. 
 
I was getting pretty annoyed after the new Die Hard movie came out and people were all but saying that it was bad, excusing it with 'Well, it's a Die Hard, so what do you expect?' Have these people forgotten how good the first Die Hard was?

Click to expand...

Quote:

ledave said:

Just saw the new Gi Joe from pre-screening tickets or whatever they're called. It was so bad! No suspense whatsoever, it's like a bunch of their guys got killed in a bombing and they went out and killed everyone and that's it!

Click to expand...

 
 
I know what you're saying, but as others pointed out, you can't fault the film for not being something it never set out to be in the first place. To your point, though, I used to say how disappointed I was in Jurassic Park when I first saw it. I mean, similar to how you described GI Joe, to me Jurassic Park was just some people go to look at dinosaurs, the dinosaurs get out and everyone tries to escape. You can describe the film very simplistically, and in fact the plot WAS simple. But movies like that are supposed to be full of action and suspense and lots of shiny things to grab your attention. They aren't meant to be Casablanca or vying for an Oscar. 
 
I'm not saying you're wrong about the movie cause 1) I haven't seen it, and 2) nobody can fault you for what you like or don't like. And hell, I may hate it too lol. But I think sometimes people are unfair when they evaluate a movie because their expectations are a bit out of whack. 
 
 
EDIT: I wrote this before I saw Metalsonata's post. Maybe there is a better way to say it than using the phrase "lowering expectations". The problem I often see is that people steadfastly refuse to suspend their disbelief, even when it's PERFECTLY clear that the film isn't trying to be taken seriously. If you know beforehand that you are NOT entertained by this sort of film, then why set yourself up for disappointment? lol   I often use Transformers as an example. I know people who were offering up all these criticisms of the film that just sounded absurd. The plot involved robots from space turning into vehicles and planes, waging war on Americans over some secret cube that was buried in the snow. I think it's pretty clear from the get-go what sort of movie you're about to watch here lol. 

Only a couple? I'd like to think that they're all great.
 
Quote:

morbidtoaster said:

Couple of great albums in your Top 10 Sig there. Reminded me I picked up Liquid Swords on vinyl a month back and still haven't taken it for a spin.
 
There's a badass edition of it being done for RSD this year as well.
 
Also reminded me I need to hunt down a MoFi copy of What's Goin' On as I already have Let's Get It On.
 

Click to expand...

 
I don't personally think it's a question of whether or not you can suspend your disbelief--it's more a question of the film's quality and its ability to actually get you to enjoy the film. There are a lot of movies I love that can't be taken seriously--but I enjoy them nonetheless because they're well put together. (Tarantino's filmography comes to mind.) And no, I'm not talking about the artistry of the CGI--I realize that a lot of talent, blood, sweat, and tears went into the crafting of the CGI-heavy moments in films like Transformers. And I realize that the story is going to be dumb. But is it too much to ask for interesting characters? Or perhaps better pacing and editing? Or less slow-motion 'omg run away from that explosion' scenes? Or for some internally consistent logic? I don't think that it is. And generally speaking I do avoid movies that I feel won't satisfy my expectations--though I feel the need to check in occasionally to see if things have improved any. As of Battleship, they have not. Lol.
 
Quote:

focker said:

EDIT: I wrote this before I saw Metalsonata's post. Maybe there is a better way to say it than using the phrase "lowering expectations". The problem I often see is that people steadfastly refuse to suspend their disbelief, even when it's PERFECTLY clear that the film isn't trying to be taken seriously. If you know beforehand that you are NOT entertained by this sort of film, then why set yourself up for disappointment? lol   I often use Transformers as an example. I know people who were offering up all these criticisms of the film that just sounded absurd. The plot involved robots from space turning into vehicles and planes, waging war on Americans over some secret cube that was buried in the snow. I think it's pretty clear from the get-go what sort of movie you're about to watch here lol. 

Click to expand...

 

Quote:

grokit said:

 
Great article!

Click to expand...

+1. That was a very entertaining read.

Quote:

metalsonata said:

 
 
 And I realize that the story is going to be dumb. But is it too much to ask for interesting characters? Or perhaps better pacing and editing? Or less slow-motion 'omg run away from that explosion' scenes? Or for some internally consistent logic? I don't think that it is.
 

Click to expand...

 
See, that's kind of the point I'm trying to make. When I go see a movie like Battleship or Transformers, I'm just not paying attention to stuff like that *at all*. If I pay money to see the big popcorn flick, for the most part I just want to have fun, and typically it's going to be of the mindless variety. I just want to go for a fun, visceral ride that entertains me for two hours and lets me vicariously play around in some other reality. Nobody went to see Transformers because they were interested in how developed Shia LeBouf's character was. They wanted to see robots blowing stuff up.
 
Expecting more from this type of film, to me, is like peeing into the wind. 

Quote:

mutabor said:

 
There is a Japanese movie running currently in our movie theaters "Isoroku Yamamoto, the Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Fleet" or "The Admiral" ( 2011). This movie has little chances to reach American movie theaters like many Soviet or Russian movies about WW II. The reason is clear - American authorities don't want another point of view to influence people and shake their concepts taken from history classes. According to the review it's not an anti-american movie but anyways you shouldn't show other side position because you may feel sympathy towards them or acquire better understanding of their actions.
 
 The 5 Most Widely Believed WWII Facts (That Are ********)
 
I don't support overly patriotic propaganda from any side. Every side contorts facts in order to show itself in favorable manner be it Soviets, Americans etc. 

Click to expand...

 
That's a bunch of  nonsense. They could care less really. For example, have you seen "The Pacific"? There's a ton of stuff they've put in that movie that you'd think the government would not want people to know about. Do they care? I highly doubt it and none of it is any secret. It was all in books written a long time ago. The Pacific is about as far away from "patriotic propaganda" as you can get. In the movie they even mention rarely taking prisoners in Okinawa and why. Then there is "Letters from Iwo Jima" told from the Japanese side. I don't know the accuracy of it though.
 
I've seen the Isoroku Yamamoto movie. There's nothing in it that's radically different than "Tora Tora Tora". Both are quite accurate. They could release that here without any problems and they should. It did get a UK release. Now would they release a movie like "For those we love"? Heck no, but they could if they wanted. That one is about the Kamikaze pilots and probably wouldn't go over too well here.
 
I think "Battle of Okinawa" is the most one-sided movie i've seen in a long time, but at least it made me want to research the subject. For example, in that one they made it appear like we used napalm on civilians after we had told them they should give up and we wouldn't harm them.
 
BTW what's funny is that this movie got a US release! Hard to believe considering they made ALL the americans look like savages (which is totally understandable). Supposedly on Okinawa it's reported that for every 100 Japanese killed there was only 1 taken prisoner. I know why, but many people don't.

Quote:

wakeride74 said:

Click to expand...

already have a group of people going to see it with. SO EXCITED!!!!!!

Quote:

tdockweiler said:

 
That's a bunch of  nonsense. They could care less really. For example, have you seen "The Pacific"? There's a ton of stuff they've put in that movie that you'd think the government would not want people to know about. Do they care? I highly doubt it and none of it is any secret.

Click to expand...

 
Japan vs America part of WW 2 doesn't have much impact on corrupt understanding by Americans of WW 2 in general. You make a lot of emphases on American army fights and consciously neglect other battles ( much more important ones). Such skewed view on history ( raising awareness of favorable events and neglecting other - unfavorable) is patriotic propaganda. Every country does that. The subject of history is a significant tool of patriotic upbringing of citizens. 
 
American propaganda in comparison to Soviet propaganda for example is much more acceptable.

Quote:

mutabor said:

 
Japan vs America part of WW 2 doesn't have much impact on corrupt understanding by Americans of WW 2 in general. You make a lot of emphases on American army fights and consciously neglect other battles ( much more important ones). Such skewed view on history ( raising awareness of favorable events and neglecting other - unfavorable) is patriotic propaganda. Every country does that. The subject of history is a significant tool of patriotic upbringing of citizens. 
 
American propaganda in comparison to Soviet propaganda for example is much more acceptable.

Click to expand...

 
Wow, let's not crap all over this thread. I mentioned a few random thoughts and It wasn't my goal to give everyone a history lesson. You really seem to be making up random nonsense about my posts. You sound like the last person who would know the general consensus of what Americans would know about WWII. Have you even lived in the USA? Do you really need to start a bunch of drama over movie reviews?
 
Why the heck are you even mentioning propaganda? Wow, weird.

Quote:

tdockweiler said:

 
Wow, let's not crap all over this thread. I mentioned a few random thoughts and It wasn't my goal to give everyone a history lesson. You really seem to be making up random nonsense about my posts. You sound like the last person who would know the general consensus of what Americans would know about WWII. Have you even lived in the USA? Do you really need to start a bunch of drama over movie reviews?
 
Why the heck are you even mentioning propaganda? Wow, weird.

Click to expand...

 
Again, it would be wise to ignore mutabor. He has his preset ideals, and will twist/ignore your arguments to suit his.

But doesn't watching robots blow each other up for two and a half hours while painfully weak attempts at plotting and comedy flop around like dead fishes in the background get old fast? My point is is that I don't see how it *could possibly* be fun. I'm not saying that watching robots duke it out isn't fun--just that I'm going to require a bit more than that if I've gotta pay money for almost three hours of it. Lol. 
Quote:

focker said:

 
See, that's kind of the point I'm trying to make. When I go see a movie like Battleship or Transformers, I'm just not paying attention to stuff like that *at all*. If I pay money to see the big popcorn flick, for the most part I just want to have fun, and typically it's going to be of the mindless variety. I just want to go for a fun, visceral ride that entertains me for two hours and lets me vicariously play around in some other reality. Nobody went to see Transformers because they were interested in how developed Shia LeBouf's character was. They wanted to see robots blowing stuff up.
 
Expecting more from this type of film, to me, is like peeing into the wind. 

Click to expand...

Titanic - 8.75/10
 
I have this strange highly repetitive job where I can spend 3 hours per week with a movie in the background just as noise. I can pay attention to it, but I tend to watch the same movie over and over. I usually prefer ones that are slower and have lots of dialogue and interesting characters. For example I've seen "The Great Escape" about a million times.
 
I've been watching this weekly for some strange reason. I think up until 1 h and 20 minutes it's pretty average or slightly below. Some of the interactions between jack and rose are just awkward and not just due to the class thing. The dialogue is just lame and often cringe-worthy. Sounds way too scripted. James Cameron should have given Jack some better written dialogue or handed it over to a better script writer. The whole storyline between them is the one thing I don't really like about the movie. It's not very convincing. They're the weakest characters which makes no sense considering they get the most time on screen. Best actors in the movie were old rose and maybe Mr. Andrews. I'm also kind of annoyed when a director kills off all the unimportant characters due to lack of creativity.
 
Even that dinner scene was done all wrong IMO. Could have been much better.
 
 
 
I think James Cameron knows what will bring in the big money at the box office so he tried to make it as entertaining as possible. I guess that worked. If I wanted a better storyline I could always watch "A Night to Remember".
 
BTW this rating is based on maybe a dozen viewings...ugh. Do I really have that much free time?