Movies you just recently watched
- Thread starter Jman
- Start date
- Messages
- 22,233
- Tings
- 110,541
Paranorman. It was quite creative I must say. Norman was a great character, and they nailed his personality. He was probably the best part of the movie, hands down. The first 20-25 minutes were great, as they really made you care for him, and you wanted to see how he would turn from a cast out freak into someone his mates would accept. They especially laid this out very firmly at the beginning, when You see him watching TV and talking with his grandmother, only to have the father come in and yell at Norman to get over the fact that she's been dead for a while now, and you see that she was never actually was there on the couch with him. Another notable scene was where he had a breakdown during a school play, and he went nearly insane with dilusions, which resulted in him falling off the stage and getting dragged out of the theatre by his parents, and his classmates butchering his locker. The talk that goes on within the family on the drive home is moving in a way, as the father is angry, even almost calling his own son Norman a freak, and the mother is upset, trying to calm him down.
The part it goes downhill is when things begin to turn literal. We find out that Norman really is seeing/talking to dead people. At first it was acceptable, since it was played out very seriously, but it quickly started to get silly in a typical sort of way. It was a bit disappointing for it to take this direction, because it really had something great going for it.
Skipping to the end, they put a really artistic finish to the film. The scene where Norman was trying to reach the young witch was extremely visually stunning, and the character design played along phenomenally. She was voiced by Jodelle Ferland, my elementary school friend.
By the time it finished, he was "right," and that bothered me because it kind of screws with an important moral. I would have much rather seen Norman overcome his supposed dilusions of seeing imaginary/dead people, or perhaps people accepting him for who he is; instead they decided to be literal about it and show that he really does have this power and that other people were "wrong" for not believing him.
In short, absolutely fantastic beginning, very nice ending sequence, but I wish they had expanded upon the beginning in a deeper way instead of turning it into something so literal.
The part it goes downhill is when things begin to turn literal. We find out that Norman really is seeing/talking to dead people. At first it was acceptable, since it was played out very seriously, but it quickly started to get silly in a typical sort of way. It was a bit disappointing for it to take this direction, because it really had something great going for it.
Skipping to the end, they put a really artistic finish to the film. The scene where Norman was trying to reach the young witch was extremely visually stunning, and the character design played along phenomenally. She was voiced by Jodelle Ferland, my elementary school friend.
By the time it finished, he was "right," and that bothered me because it kind of screws with an important moral. I would have much rather seen Norman overcome his supposed dilusions of seeing imaginary/dead people, or perhaps people accepting him for who he is; instead they decided to be literal about it and show that he really does have this power and that other people were "wrong" for not believing him.
In short, absolutely fantastic beginning, very nice ending sequence, but I wish they had expanded upon the beginning in a deeper way instead of turning it into something so literal.
- Messages
- 19,946
- Tings
- 186,263
Of your latest 20 messages, 11 are one-word posts. Surely those are contributions of high-quality for both the forum and the community. What would we do without you Rayrobi, we'd have a hard time reaching our quota of stupid and useless posts.Rayrobi said:Well first ban yourself for spamming(spomming) at the record day. Then we may talk about banning people who accidentally double- or tripleposted.DesLife said:I should have banned you at that time then Haruka, you sick double poster !
- Messages
- 12,392
- Tings
- 156,600
You sound like an angry atheist.RayFan9876 said:
- Messages
- 15,068
- Tings
- 222,543
Paranorman had me thinking "They could have improved so much here" a lot. The school seemed ridiculously unrealistic and stereotypical, while it tries to give a feeling of reality. The humour didn't, ehrm, amuse all that much at some parts, but I do suppose this movie was intended for young kids. I also found people from the 1800's to speak just like the modern day civilization to be a little odd. Good movie, but it really missed the opportunity to go deeper into the concept.
- Messages
- 22,233
- Tings
- 110,541
Indeed, and it almost cut it half-and-half. Some parts of it were done really well (more in relation to Norman's interaction with the school), while other parts seemed utterly fake (everything else interacting with Norman).RayTunes said:
You sound like a mistaken Atheist. What part of that sounded 'angry' exactly?spiraldoor said:
- Messages
- 12,392
- Tings
- 156,600
You disliked the ending of the film – a children's fantasy film at that – because it did not lecture the audience about overcoming delusions of an afterlife. Between this and Tideland it's clear that the quality of a film is less important to you than its politics.
- Messages
- 22,233
- Tings
- 110,541
I don't see that as being my standpoint at all. Sure I'm an Atheist, but I have no problem watching a good, well done fantasy. But the problem here is that the quality actually falters and becomes silly when it goes for the literal route. Since you think that my idea is 'lecturing the audience about Atheism,' concern yourself with the same fact that therefore, the creator this version must be lecturing the audience that the dead walk our streets. Sure my view is an opinion, but it's an extremely valid one that this movie could have been a lot more interesting and significantly better if it weren't so literal. It also affects the quality because it so strongly contrasts with the beginning of the film. In fact, Norman being the movie's biggest interest, seemed quite out of place in the zombie environments. I know zombies were a big part of this movie, but when I saw them appear, I was just thinking 'no, no, no, this was not necessary.'
It turns from being a relatively internal, emotional conflict in the first third, to an external battle between good and evil. Not that that's always a bad thing, but it's almost never a good thing. Any decent critic would agree with this.
But the moral. Oh, the moral really is inexcusable. I wouldn't have a problem if it weren't so forced. Realistically, the only reason anyone would join Norman's side in the end like this is because he was the only one who could fix the problem, and he had a cool gift. He gave them absolutely no proof that he could do this, he couldn't in any way give them any proof, and to everyone else he even came across as delusional. They weren't being ignorant; believing him would be like believing the Bible that there DEFINITELY IS a God up there, and I don't mean that in a bigoted way, I mean that it's the equivalent to putting your faith in something that has absolutely no proof contributing to the possibility of its existence. Norman didn't try to prove it to them, and he couldn't prove it to them anyway, so in essence, the others are right for not believing him. Bullies are bullies, but if its their choice to believe that something doesn't exist because there's no proof whatsoever aside from a guy saying it does, then they are right in their own way. The ending really screws with this moral because, like I said, the characters all became nice and respectful to Norman because he was right about something that in all odds wouldn't be true, especially considering the total lack of any sort of proof to go off of. It would have been alright if they had respected him for being so caring to the witch, but that wasn't so, as it was jeoperdised with variations on the phrase 'you were right, we were wrong.'
It turns from being a relatively internal, emotional conflict in the first third, to an external battle between good and evil. Not that that's always a bad thing, but it's almost never a good thing. Any decent critic would agree with this.
But the moral. Oh, the moral really is inexcusable. I wouldn't have a problem if it weren't so forced. Realistically, the only reason anyone would join Norman's side in the end like this is because he was the only one who could fix the problem, and he had a cool gift. He gave them absolutely no proof that he could do this, he couldn't in any way give them any proof, and to everyone else he even came across as delusional. They weren't being ignorant; believing him would be like believing the Bible that there DEFINITELY IS a God up there, and I don't mean that in a bigoted way, I mean that it's the equivalent to putting your faith in something that has absolutely no proof contributing to the possibility of its existence. Norman didn't try to prove it to them, and he couldn't prove it to them anyway, so in essence, the others are right for not believing him. Bullies are bullies, but if its their choice to believe that something doesn't exist because there's no proof whatsoever aside from a guy saying it does, then they are right in their own way. The ending really screws with this moral because, like I said, the characters all became nice and respectful to Norman because he was right about something that in all odds wouldn't be true, especially considering the total lack of any sort of proof to go off of. It would have been alright if they had respected him for being so caring to the witch, but that wasn't so, as it was jeoperdised with variations on the phrase 'you were right, we were wrong.'
- Messages
- 12,392
- Tings
- 156,600
It's a children's fantasy film, so obviously its subject matter is not meant to be taken as a literal representation of reality. The moral of a film, on the other hand, is intended to impact or influence the audience's thinking in a real sense. I find it baffling that you would equate the two.RayFan9876 said:
Who cares? It's a kids' movie about zombies and stuff. Stop taking it so seriously. Deep breaths now.RayFan9876 said:
- Messages
- 22,233
- Tings
- 110,541
I didn't even remotely equate the two. That was a completely different criticism, and the moral complaint was actually what you quoted below:spiraldoor said:
Children's film or not, that doesn't give it a justifying reason to make an awkwardly poor turn into the second act. The film was made by a private independent studio, and had much less to do with the money than other companies. They had little to no time constraints, and they clearly put a tonne of effort into this movie, but their writers could use a talking to. Like you said, it's a children's movie, but it even manages to be overly complex with the very unnecessary zombie conflict. The plot with the zombie court and the witch witch is likely to go over most kids' heads and leave them a bit bored, as even I had some trouble following it at first.spiraldoor said:
I really wouldn't spend this much time on critique if it were just a stupid kids' film, but the problem is that his movie really had potential to be something really excellent, setting a new standard for animated films, but it sort of dropped that when the second act came around.
- Messages
- 22,233
- Tings
- 110,541
I just saw The Last House on the Left for the first time. For those who don't know, it's debateably a classic among 1970's horror films.
And honestly, it was very hard to watch. The dialogue and acting is absolutely superb, and even though you're supposed to find the main character something of a bitchy conformist, you can't help but feel an incredible sense of empathy for her character, especially when the kidnapping scene takes place. I kid you not, even though the content of the film seems light compared to what you would find in other horror films, the acting was so incredible and plausible that it feels like you're watching that isn't even staged in the slightest, rather, a cameraman filming a cruel kidnapping and abuse. When they cut off her friend's arm in punishment for trying to escape, the blood didn't matter at all, the only actual blood I noticed was the blood-curdling shiver it gave me when she screamed.
But I think that the most intense scene has to go where it rightfully should and was meant to be: she knows that she lives literally right across the street from where she's being held, however, the kidnappers don't. In probably some of the best acting I've ever seen in a film (that statement can be backed up from Ebert himself) she tries to grab her friend (who lost so much blood from the demanication that she can't stand) and tell her in an incredible simultaneous cross between hopeful joy, hopeless sobbing and sheer terror that she lives right across the street and that she needs to get up and run (which is clearly impossible). The kidnappers however find them right away, take the blood-drained girl and stab her in the back (with another bone-chillingly good last performance for her), then chase the protagonist down a hill to the edge of a swamp lake. She walks in and sits in the lake, facing away from them, knowing they're going to kill her. Finally they shoot her in the back. That scene just makes my head spin it was done so well.
But among the absolutely superb acting and masterful dialogue, the unarguably forced comedy cutaways to the two silly cops and the chickens were just weird. I honestly don't know what to think of them. Why are they there? They're completely separate from the tone of the rest of the movie. Part of me wants to think it's almost brilliantly ironic in the sense that two completely different things with entirely opposite moods are happening only a few country blocks apart, adding to the sense of plausibility; nobody knows what was happening, not even the cops just less than a hundred metres from what was taking place. I don't mean it as bittersweet and hinting comedy that somehow ties into the story, I mean it's direct slapstick that looked like it could have been straight out of a kid's show, with the fat lady truck driver mistaking the cops for chickens after a few of her chickens fell off the truck and god feathers stuck all over them, and then hitching them on her truck with overly corny punchlines and things too stupid to be incidental when matched up with the brilliant script of the rest of the movie. I don't know whether or not to find it somehow brilliantly ironic or to just hate it. It always would cut away to the comedy with the catchy ragtime piano/60's rock right before something really gruesome happens. I don't know how else to describe it than "fucking weird," and not really in a good way. It's almost like they just put them there to make the kidnapping scenes seem all the more horrific... but why like that?
I don't know what I have to say else about the film really, and my feelings a as mixed as they can be. It's not the kind of movie that you feel pleasant at all after watching. I can usually watch all the horror movies I like and not give a shit, but this one was simply powerful... and fucking weird.
I watched the trailer from the 2009 remake after posting this, and eh, it looks like they turned it from something driven by a certain kind of realist artistic passion to something just focused on a revenge plot. The trailer I admit was nicely done, but having just seen the original version, it's clear to see that they don't have the natural ability that the original did. The characters in the 2009 version seem almost entirely flat, and while the original's had little to no more expansion of character than the remake's, the acting alone, the way they moved, the way they spoke and the way they thought and other silent things were enough to present you with a few very definable characters/personalities.
Plus, in the '09 remake trailer they showed the protagonist trying to swim under the lake to avoid being killed (unsuccessfully), which I fucking hate.
And honestly, it was very hard to watch. The dialogue and acting is absolutely superb, and even though you're supposed to find the main character something of a bitchy conformist, you can't help but feel an incredible sense of empathy for her character, especially when the kidnapping scene takes place. I kid you not, even though the content of the film seems light compared to what you would find in other horror films, the acting was so incredible and plausible that it feels like you're watching that isn't even staged in the slightest, rather, a cameraman filming a cruel kidnapping and abuse. When they cut off her friend's arm in punishment for trying to escape, the blood didn't matter at all, the only actual blood I noticed was the blood-curdling shiver it gave me when she screamed.
But I think that the most intense scene has to go where it rightfully should and was meant to be: she knows that she lives literally right across the street from where she's being held, however, the kidnappers don't. In probably some of the best acting I've ever seen in a film (that statement can be backed up from Ebert himself) she tries to grab her friend (who lost so much blood from the demanication that she can't stand) and tell her in an incredible simultaneous cross between hopeful joy, hopeless sobbing and sheer terror that she lives right across the street and that she needs to get up and run (which is clearly impossible). The kidnappers however find them right away, take the blood-drained girl and stab her in the back (with another bone-chillingly good last performance for her), then chase the protagonist down a hill to the edge of a swamp lake. She walks in and sits in the lake, facing away from them, knowing they're going to kill her. Finally they shoot her in the back. That scene just makes my head spin it was done so well.
But among the absolutely superb acting and masterful dialogue, the unarguably forced comedy cutaways to the two silly cops and the chickens were just weird. I honestly don't know what to think of them. Why are they there? They're completely separate from the tone of the rest of the movie. Part of me wants to think it's almost brilliantly ironic in the sense that two completely different things with entirely opposite moods are happening only a few country blocks apart, adding to the sense of plausibility; nobody knows what was happening, not even the cops just less than a hundred metres from what was taking place. I don't mean it as bittersweet and hinting comedy that somehow ties into the story, I mean it's direct slapstick that looked like it could have been straight out of a kid's show, with the fat lady truck driver mistaking the cops for chickens after a few of her chickens fell off the truck and god feathers stuck all over them, and then hitching them on her truck with overly corny punchlines and things too stupid to be incidental when matched up with the brilliant script of the rest of the movie. I don't know whether or not to find it somehow brilliantly ironic or to just hate it. It always would cut away to the comedy with the catchy ragtime piano/60's rock right before something really gruesome happens. I don't know how else to describe it than "fucking weird," and not really in a good way. It's almost like they just put them there to make the kidnapping scenes seem all the more horrific... but why like that?
I don't know what I have to say else about the film really, and my feelings a as mixed as they can be. It's not the kind of movie that you feel pleasant at all after watching. I can usually watch all the horror movies I like and not give a shit, but this one was simply powerful... and fucking weird.
I watched the trailer from the 2009 remake after posting this, and eh, it looks like they turned it from something driven by a certain kind of realist artistic passion to something just focused on a revenge plot. The trailer I admit was nicely done, but having just seen the original version, it's clear to see that they don't have the natural ability that the original did. The characters in the 2009 version seem almost entirely flat, and while the original's had little to no more expansion of character than the remake's, the acting alone, the way they moved, the way they spoke and the way they thought and other silent things were enough to present you with a few very definable characters/personalities.
Plus, in the '09 remake trailer they showed the protagonist trying to swim under the lake to avoid being killed (unsuccessfully), which I fucking hate.
- Messages
- 22,233
- Tings
- 110,541
I just watched Caligula.
Ahahaha wtf.
Ahahaha wtf.
- Messages
- 12,392
- Tings
- 156,600
That film is an abomination unto the Lord. One of the most disastrously terrible things I have ever witnessed. I still have no idea why I watched it.
- Messages
- 22,233
- Tings
- 110,541
I had heard strange things about it, but I don't think words can properly describe how strange watching a high-budget pornographically exploitative Roman epic is.
Despite all the incest and bestiality, the thing that really made me lose my head out of sheer unbelievability was the head chopper (no pun intended).
Despite all the incest and bestiality, the thing that really made me lose my head out of sheer unbelievability was the head chopper (no pun intended).
