The Ultimate Movie Thread of Ultimate Destiny

Atomkilla said:
My definition of a spoiler is extreme in itself.
Click to expand...
Yes, I noticed. I don't consider expectations spoiler, nor do I think anyone figures that to be part of the general interpretation. It is certainly *A* thing to be considered that can be avoided for the sake of a better viewing experience, one less tainted by said expectations.

Atomkilla said:
I also read reviews, but only after seeing the film.
Click to expand...
And this is where we differ. For me, it's a failure of a review if you CANNOT watch it before witnessing/experiencing the thing being reviewed. Choosing not to watch a review until after the fact doesn't denote that the review is a failure, but if, independent of your choice on how or when to digest said review, it would not be suitable to watch prior to what it reviews, then it is a failure, as a review. Those are my strict criteria about reviews, and under those criteria I despise most, which is why my list has become so narrowed and refined. I DO want to watch reviews before I see films, because I don't want to watch a movie based on a trailer... a trailer which might just give away the only really epic parts of the film, or showcase the ending of the film, such as with Phantom Menace or The Amazing Spider-Man 2, respectively. I don't want to watch a movie based on box office numbers or popular recommendation... because it shouldn't matter how MANY people have seen the film to determine if it was truly worth watching, especially if most of them immediately (or not long afterward) regretted their decision, like with Transformers. I don't want to watch a movie because of name recognition of simply based on a descriptive title, or brand association, or anything like that, which can totally betray the actual movie's qualities (or lack thereof).

I want to watch a movie because I want to watch it and in watching it enjoy a cinematic experience. I'm not looking for a feel-good time when I watch The Shawshank Redemption, but I'm in for a fantastic movie. I'm not looking for an adrenaline pumped euphoric experience when I watch Free to Play, but I'm in for a fantastic movie. If I know nothing about the film, or who created it, or how it was produced, or who was in it, I want a reliable source to sum it up for me so I can decide whether or not I should watch it. That's a review's job, to me, and if it can't do that because it spoils the film before I watch it, it's a failure. That's why right now there's only 1 guy I turn to for that. There are plenty of close-seconds, but they just don't match my criteria to the point that I accept them as my go-to review resource. There's plenty I'll watch AFTERWARDS for the reasons you mentioned, but because they don't meet my criteria, they're still failures as reviews go.
 
Each to his own, I guess.
In the end I prefer the word-of-mouth approach, recommendations from people whom I personally know etc. Reading a review from a trusted source is viable, I suppose, but I still don't like reviews all that much. I see what you're trying to say, though. It just doesn't work for me.

Again, each to his own.
 
It doesn't help that most internet reviews nowadays are just recaps of the movie Heavily filttered through the bias of the person making the review.
 
And thus my list being so refined. It's like saying that this forum is enjoyable to such a degree that I delight in chatting here, despite the fact that there's youtube and twitch where chat is a practice in not losing your mind amidst endless ranks of malignant degeneracy. The vast bulk is that, but a place such as NMA is a lovely oasis in that sea of retardation. It's hard to find good reviewers because the vast majority are just as you said, rehashing through the filter of bias, but when you do, it's delightful. =)
 
RedLetterMedia strikes a nice balance, I think. They don't lampoon something like the new Robocop remake just because it exists, but because it's kind of just a typical PG13 action movie like so many others. They do show occasional moments of bias- especially Rich (Or Rick? the balding guy who sometimes is part of the reviews)- but they're surprisingly temperate, I think because they like to distance themselves from the "mouth-frothing neckbeard" image.

Oh also, I just saw Drive. What a great crime film. I love how it begins with the Driver talking on the phone: at first I thought it was a noir voiceover, but they subverted that very smoothly. Also, The Princess Bride and Shadow of the Vampyre- unintentionally, I saw two Cary Elwes film in a row. That guy has quite the acting range.
 
I watched their Amazing Spiderman 2 "review", and going from that I really can't trust anything else they make, that review was the typical emotional and dismissive Internet "review" shit. At least Spoony makes funny videos so I can ignore his shitty Vlogs.
 
I'm telling you, watch the same thing, from Jeremy Jahns, and it's NONE of that. You'll enjoy it. =) His gripes were purely from a filming and timing perspective, not emotional and dismissive. The harshest he was towards TAS2 was in calling it "a good time, no alcohol required", which is essentially his lowest positive review, but STILL a positive review. Watch it. Love it.
 
If there's a movie I want to see, I'll just go see it. And if I go to see it, I'll enjoy it more if I haven't read any reviews for it at all. Afterward I'll enjoy the reviews more, and learn more from them, because I've already seen the movie.

I only use reviews to get a different point of view on something about which I've already formed an opinion.
 
But that's ignoring the WHY of why you want to see a movie. There has to be a reason. You don't just arbitrarily determine without cause that a movie requires your viewing, you acquire this for some particular reason. Director. Actors. Studio. Trailers. The name (be it associated with something you know, or you just like the sound of it). Reviews. SOMETHING gave you cause to want to see that movie, so trying to deny one or some of them and just pretend that the others didn't contribute is kinda silly.
 
For me it can be either 1 or a combination of the next: 1. If It's from a director/writer I like 2. If the Trailer looks good 3. If it's based on something I like 4. If it looks so bad it's good (altho with this one I prefer to watch while... ehmmm let's say for free) 5. If I have to proove someone wrong or I want to jokingly piss them off 6. if I am with my Nephew watching movies and it's the one that doesn't look like shit that he can also attend.
 
UniversalWolf said:
If there's a movie I want to see, I'll just go see it. And if I go to see it, I'll enjoy it more if I haven't read any reviews for it at all.
Click to expand...
Same here.
When I'm deciding, there are other indicators for me than complete reviews. Genre for instance, I'm not interested in romantic love stories at all. On the other hand, I totally dig any war or sci-fi stuff, even if some reviewers rate it as poor or boring. Good example is famous English movie Zardoz with 5.8/10pts on IMDB; I've enjoyed it greatly!

Guy who directed that movie, as other example, just to name a few as Akira Kurosawa, Martin Scorsese or Stanley Kubrick. Any of those names means to me that movie directed by those gentlemen is top-notch professional quality, definitely worth of seeing.
 
Last edited:
SnapSlav said:
But that's ignoring the WHY of why you want to see a movie. There has to be a reason. You don't just arbitrarily determine without cause that a movie requires your viewing, you acquire this for some particular reason. Director. Actors. Studio. Trailers. The name (be it associated with something you know, or you just like the sound of it). Reviews. SOMETHING gave you cause to want to see that movie, so trying to deny one or some of them and just pretend that the others didn't contribute is kinda silly.
Click to expand...


How is he ignoring the "why"?
 
Atomkilla said:
SnapSlav said:
But that's ignoring the WHY of why you want to see a movie. There has to be a reason. You don't just arbitrarily determine without cause that a movie requires your viewing, you acquire this for some particular reason. Director. Actors. Studio. Trailers. The name (be it associated with something you know, or you just like the sound of it). Reviews. SOMETHING gave you cause to want to see that movie, so trying to deny one or some of them and just pretend that the others didn't contribute is kinda silly.
Click to expand...


How is he ignoring the "why"?
Click to expand...
Quote, "If there's a movie I want to see, I'll just go see it." That implies an action without a cause. From a rational standpoint, that suggests rhetorically ignoring the cause for the sake of the phrase.

valcik said:
UniversalWolf said:
If there's a movie I want to see, I'll just go see it. And if I go to see it, I'll enjoy it more if I haven't read any reviews for it at all.
Click to expand...
Same here.
When I'm deciding, there are other indicators for me than complete reviews.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I said... at least twice.

I never said that reviews are THE only measure of determining whether you wish to see a film or not. I merely expressed that they must be A measure, as far as I'm concerned. To wit, a review that cannot be watched PRIOR to the film it covers without spoiling the film, to me, is a failure as a review. This does not necessitate the viewing of reviews prior to seeing films, as I expressed that there are a great abundance of reasons to prompt one to watch a movie. But this demands that a review meet certain standards IF it should be viewed prior to the film, and not after.

Walpknut said:
For me it can be either 1 or a combination of the next: 1. If It's from a director/writer I like 2. If the Trailer looks good 3. If it's based on something I like 4. If it looks so bad it's good (altho with this one I prefer to watch while... ehmmm let's say for free) 5. If I have to proove someone wrong or I want to jokingly piss them off 6. if I am with my Nephew watching movies and it's the one that doesn't look like shit that he can also attend.
Click to expand...
The same is true for all of us... sans the nephew part, but "for the sake of someone else" replaces that category perfectly. For example, going to see (shudders) Twilight because of a girlfriend, daughter, wife, etc. There are many different causes to see a film, reviews being one of them. One that I missed when I listed that, however, was whim. I personally do not go to watch movies on a whim, but others certainly do, and it certain is A cause to go see any film.
 
Just came back from The Edge of tomorrow, having heard just great things about it..... And the movie doesn't go beyond just being entertainning. The story is fun the presentation is just arid and lacking any sort of style. Fights are shaky cam fests and it has the worst cop out "happy ending" I have ever seen. I mean, people tend to criticize movies like the Avengers for being pop corn flicks... but they are great pop corn flicks, filled to the brim with style and obvious care put into the preserntation. Edge of Tomorrow seems like someone got handed the script as an assigment and they just put just the adecuate minimum effort on it. Then I read a sypnosis on the Novel it is "based on" and geezus fuck, talk about Whitewashing.
In summary, it is a decent way to pass 2 hours, but I just wouldn't repeat it.
 
SnapSlav said:
"If there's a movie I want to see, I'll just go see it." That implies an action without a cause.
Click to expand...
The action of going to see the movie is caused by the wanting. Just because I didn't tell you what caused the wanting doesn't mean nothing caused it. It could be anything from exceptionally good source material or a director I like to hot girl-on-girl action. It's not caused by reviews though, because I don't read them until after I've seen the movie.

Akratus said:
Tom Cruise movies in a nutshell.

Except Minority Report that shit was awesome.
Click to expand...
He used to be in more interesting movies like Rain Man and Risky Business. Nowadays it seems like it's nothing but action flicks.

Minority Report is a good argument for more P.K.Dick stories being made into movies. The themes of perceptual ambiguity typical of his writing translate well to a visual medium.
 
UniversalWolf said:
SnapSlav said:
"If there's a movie I want to see, I'll just go see it." That implies an action without a cause.
Click to expand...
The action of going to see the movie is caused by the wanting. Just because I didn't tell you what caused the wanting doesn't mean nothing caused it. It could be anything from exceptionally good source material or a director I like to hot girl-on-girl action. It's not caused by reviews though, because I don't read them until after I've seen the movie.
Click to expand...
Wrong audience. That was not addressed to you, that was addressed to Atomkilla. I never said you had no reasons. I said your statement was ignoring acknowledging those reasons, which you basically repeated just now.
 
I had a strange experience last night. I watched the original version of Let The Right One In, but with English voiceovers. At first that really bothered me, but I have to admit they're pretty well done, so once I got over the initial jarring reaction it wasn't too bad. I prefer subtitles though.

The main thing I realized is how much I prefer the original version over the U.S. remake. The whole visual style of the original is much more interesting.
 
The idea the vampire was actually a boy, with the knob removed - maybe a 19th century Castrati, who knows...something the Americans forgot to mention, was interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top