Jump to content

Rate the Last Movie You've Seen


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just watched Miracle! :D 9.5/10 . . . But I'm biased cause I loooooooooove ice hockey!

that's one of my better half's favorites. He's an ice hockey official. Spent 2 years with the pros, now he's just hometown game whistle-blower. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's one of my better half's favorites. He's an ice hockey official. Spent 2 years with the pros, now he's just hometown game whistle-blower. ;)

That sounds pretty awesome! I used to get free tickets to games when I lived in Detroit for a few years. But now I'm back in Kansas and haven't been to a game in far too long. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think Terry Gilliam, Johnny Depp, Benicio Del Toro, or anyone else involved in the making of the movie has also tried drugs?

I never said that. I just don't think they successfully emulated the drug experience, and it seemed to me like that's what they were trying to do. I'm not trying to write a review here, I'm just giving advice to people who either have seen or are interested in seeing Fear and Loathing. I think watching and reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are fairly similar experiences, except for one is much more enjoyable than the other. I think sometimes the distinctions people make between different kinds of art are too big, and it's more fun to react to art on an emotional level than going through a checklist of the aspects of good art. I guess some people probably prefer the latter though, and that's fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that. I just don't think they successfully emulated the drug experience, and it seemed to me like that's what they were trying to do.

To expect a movie to emulate real life is to expect an artist to walk on water. No movie (or any other form of art) has ever done that. Ever. You do know that all art is "a failure to express," (quoth J.P. Gorin) right? What movie emulated the drug experience successfully, or how could a movie emulate the drug experience successfully? You tell us, but don't cop out on your readers by giving vague and erroneous comparisons to books and your real life; it's a disservice to them.

I'm not trying to write a review here, I'm just giving advice to people who either have seen or are interested in seeing Fear and Loathing.

Call it what you may: a review, a critique, or "advice to people."

I think watching and reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are fairly similar experiences, except for one is much more enjoyable than the other. I think sometimes the distinctions people make between different kinds of art are too big, and it's more fun to react to art on an emotional level than going through a checklist of the aspects of good art. I guess some people probably prefer the latter though, and that's fine.

Well, the people who don't see a distinction didn't see the movie.

Going back to apples and oranges: in spite of the fact I enjoy the experience of eating fruit, what would it matter if I really liked the crunchy sound of an apple when talking about the flavour of oranges? The movie experience is, primarily and foremost, visual; take away the image and you don't have a movie. You could say the book experience is "visual" as well since a lot of people read their books (although there are audio books, Braille books, picture books), but most books rely mainly on your mind being able to recall all your senses. Your mind is the director and it can take the story to where your mind wants it to go. It's a personal experience that doesn't have to deal with the limitations of timing, budget, and audience. A movie, which takes an idea from a book, is what the screenwriter, director, producers, and [sometimes] actors agreed upon, budgeted for, timed, and planned for a mass audience (I'm talkin' worldwide audience here). Holy crap. Which is better? A book that didn't have to take any of those limitations into consideration (and, in all cases, doesn't have to consider) or a movie that effectively took some ideas from different people's brains and translated them into constructed images that a lot of other people around the world could enjoy? In this sense, all movies are way better than the books. Thus, every time someone says "the book was better" or express any thought along those lines, then I know for a fact the person was not watching the movie :beatnik:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. Fine I'll bite.

You seem to be saying that in all cases a movie is better than a book, due to the effort and manpower that goes into a movie compared to a book. So by this reasoning, a Britney Spears album which takes months to produce, many engineers, mixers, and probably tons of mood-altering medication, is superior to The Beatles' "Please Please Me" which was recorded live in the studio in a day? Watching "Step Up 2 The Streets" is a more enjoyable, fulfilling, enriching experience than reading a Philip Roth novel? And then you go on with the apples and oranges silliness. You're engaging in sophistry at this point. I think you just want to sustain an argument, rather than make any constructive, realistic points. And that's why I said it was getting stupid.

"Better" cannot be factually qualified. If I enjoyed reading Fear and Loathing more than watching it (which I did), I consider the book better. If I enjoy watching Fight Club more than reading it (which I did), I consider the movie better. If you consider all movies more enjoyable - and therefore, in your opinion, better - than all books, good for you. But to say that no matter what, a movie is better, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong, is absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

watched "In the Name of the Father" with Daniel Day-Lewis, Emma Thompson and Pete Postlethwaite yesterday

it tells the true story of four people who were falsely arrested and send to prison for an IRA bombing

gripping story, great acting :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will admit I've never seen a movie that successfully emulated the drug experience, but my problem with Fear and Loathing was that it seemed like emulating the drug experience was one of Gilliam's main goals in making the film. Or at least there were a lot of scenes where that was the only point. For instance, when Duke checks into the hotel and gets freaked out by the woman at the desk, most of the scene is shots of the woman's face distorting and becoming a dinosaur, and I didn't think that the scene evoked the feelings of Duke's fear well enough because it was just too silly. It seemed in many of the scenes that Gilliam was more interested in emulating the drug experience than furthering the plot or building the characters or evoking a feeling in the way I like movies to do. It's different than something like "Requiem for a Dream" where the point isn't for the viewer to feel "druggy," the drugs are just what the plot and characters are built around.

And although I usually like movies more than books, your reasoning for why movies are better seems to me like a good argument for the superiority of books. I don't think either art form is inherently better than the other, but one of the big advantages of books over movies is that you have to fill in the blanks with your own imagination, so a book is more accessible because you can build certain aspects of the book the way you think it should be. I find that reading a book is almost always a more personalized experience than watching a movie. Looking back at your post, that's actually pretty much exactly what you said. So why do you think a more personal experience with a work of art is a bad thing? Just because a movie is less personal doesn't mean it appeals to a wider (worldwider! that should be a word) audience. On the contrary, wouldn't a book appeal to a wider audience because it leaves more room for interpretation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

and to all those who don't care about this discussion, I'll get back on topic for a moment:

Just saw Inception. Like many summer blockbusters, it had a few problems (the message wasn't very profound, no feeling of connection to the very hollow characters), but it's easy to look past those things because the movie is incredibly entertaining. It's really fun to watch how Nolan weaves all the threads together. The whole last hour of the movie is like watching a jigsaw falling into place (thanks Radiohead!). Plus, you know a movie's good when the entire theatre audience spends the whole movie paralyzed in suspense and immediately starts swearing loudly after the last shot.

I'll give it a 9/10. It was great fun to watch, but it wasn't quite as good as reading "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, you know a movie's good when the entire theatre audience spends the whole movie paralyzed in suspense and immediately starts swearing loudly after the last shot.

:laughing: The theater I was in did that too.

Speaking of movies simulating drug experiences, Batman, have you seen Easy Rider? There's a lengthy drug scene in that one that may be more (or less) to your liking. Also, it's a great movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little off topic

I will admit I've never seen a movie that successfully emulated the drug experience, but my problem with Fear and Loathing was that it seemed like emulating the drug experience was one of Gilliam's main goals in making the film. Or at least there were a lot of scenes where that was the only point. For instance, when Duke checks into the hotel and gets freaked out by the woman at the desk, most of the scene is shots of the woman's face distorting and becoming a dinosaur, and I didn't think that the scene evoked the feelings of Duke's fear well enough because it was just too silly. It seemed in many of the scenes that Gilliam was more interested in emulating the drug experience than furthering the plot or building the characters or evoking a feeling in the way I like movies to do. It's different than something like "Requiem for a Dream" where the point isn't for the viewer to feel "druggy," the drugs are just what the plot and characters are built around.

And although I usually like movies more than books, your reasoning for why movies are better seems to me like a good argument for the superiority of books. I don't think either art form is inherently better than the other, but one of the big advantages of books over movies is that you have to fill in the blanks with your own imagination, so a book is more accessible because you can build certain aspects of the book the way you think it should be. I find that reading a book is almost always a more personalized experience than watching a movie. Looking back at your post, that's actually pretty much exactly what you said. So why do you think a more personal experience with a work of art is a bad thing? Just because a movie is less personal doesn't mean it appeals to a wider (worldwider! that should be a word) audience. On the contrary, wouldn't a book appeal to a wider audience because it leaves more room for interpretation?

The book Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas grabs you from the gitgo.

Have you read it ?

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...