Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 I have seen it. I own it. However, I struggle watching it. Not because it is a bad movie, but because of the subject matter. I have probably seen most of them. 367774[/snapback] So your opinion's an informed one, at least. But you don't consider it a good movie...but you don't consider it a bad one? What, precisely, qualifies as a "good" movie by your standards?
CosmicBills Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 Looking just at the top 10 in box office is an absurd way to measure the amount of quality films made each year. What determines a 'good' movie? Just how much money it makes? Certainly not. What determines a 'good' movie is how it moves the person watching it. If someone can sit there and watch a Carrot Top movie and enjoy it, then that is a good movie for THAT person. Everyone has their own tastes afterall. Still, like all art, there are rules and standards that determine great films from trash. While these rules don't have to be adhered to, they exist all the same. Even though the number of movies released each year has increased, that does NOT mean that the PERCENTAGE of good films per year has dropped. In the 80s, 70s, and 60s there were tons of terrible films made, just as today. But there were also some brilliant films made during those eras as well. I find it funny that you are using "Bewitched" to illustrate your point since, based on your list, it appears you much prefer the big summer comedies/blockbusters to more serious, compelling films. Afterall, you chose: "Patch Adams" (terrible drivel, Williams worst movie by far), "Cheaper by the Dozen" (I love Martin, but this movie was a disaster), and "The Mummy" (enjoyable, but pure popcorn) over the likes of "Good Will Hunting" (much more poignant and emotionally true than "Patch Adams"), "The Increadibles" (a much better story and film than "Cheaper by the Dozen"), and "Gladiator" (all the action of the "Mummy" but with 100 times the heart, emotion and characters). A man with a list like that should be the last one complaining about the product Hollywood is putting out. They make more than enough films every year to satisfy your tastes. And PLEASE don't get me wrong. I am not trying to insult your tastes. Everyone goes to the movies for their own reasons. Some go to be moved while others go simply to escape reality for 2 hours. There is no right or wrong choice. All I am trying to say is that based on your apparent tastes, there have been PLENTY of good movies to come out over the past 10 years. In fact, as I said earlier, the percentage of good movies per year (for EVERYONE'S tastes) has not changed and never will.
VABills Posted June 26, 2005 Author Posted June 26, 2005 So your opinion's an informed one, at least. But you don't consider it a good movie...but you don't consider it a bad one? What, precisely, qualifies as a "good" movie by your standards? 367790[/snapback] In my opinion, original screenplay, good acting, good direction, minimal plot holes, and something that keep you enganged most of the movie. Something that I can't wait to either watch it again or wait for video to come out so I can see a several more times. Again though probably the thing that gets me about movies is terrible acting. If the actors sound corny then they aren't believable, and therefore a terrible fit for the role. Oh and to answer the other poster, Incredibles was watchable, but the "voice acting" wasn't that good, and it's basically not an original storyline. Few funny lines, but....
KD in CA Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 You people really don't like Movies..... In the past 10 years... Memento City of God Collateral Gladiator Black Hawk Down Saving Private Ryan Schindlers List Se7en Kill Bill Vol 1 Kill Bill Vol 2 Pulp Fiction The Game Fight Club Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Being John Malcovich Adaptation The Matrix The Aviator American Splendor Sideways The Virgin Suicides Lost in Translation Rushmore Royal Tennebaums I can keep going. Yes, there are alot of sh------- movies out there, esp in the summertime, but you need to remember that there are alot of quality American Films put out every year. 367779[/snapback] Good list. I’ve seen most of them and thought they were all good or very good films (except Being John Malcovich – didn’t do it for me). It seems like a lot of people go into every movie as though they are a movie critic. What's the point of that? I just want to be entertained, and if it's a brilliant movie that's a bonus. I finally saw Star Wars last night and was very entertained. But what the hell was Obi Wan thinking? Finish the job and save everyone a lot of trouble down the road!
KD in CA Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 Let me get this right, the following are NOT great movies? I'll extend it a little: 1 Saving Private Ryan DreamWorks $216,540,909 6 As Good as It Gets Sony $148,478,011 7 Good Will Hunting Miramax $138,433,435 3 Apollo 13 Universal $172,071,312 9 Seven New Line $100,125,643
Smoker2Buffalo Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 Good list. I’ve seen most of them and thought they were all good or very good films (except Being John Malcovich – didn’t do it for me). It seems like a lot of people go into every movie as though they are a movie critic. What's the point of that? I just want to be entertained, and if it's a brilliant movie that's a bonus. I finally saw Star Wars last night and was very entertained. But what the hell was Obi Wan thinking? Finish the job and save everyone a lot of trouble down the road! 367864[/snapback] Exactly! I love some of the relaly good movies, but I also really enjoy ones that may not be considered good, but I very entertaining. I don't go to see movies to challenge my mind, I go to be entertained for a few hours.
VABills Posted June 26, 2005 Author Posted June 26, 2005 Let me get this right, the following are NOT great movies? 367865[/snapback] Never saw as good as it gets. Tom Hanks is a good actor but he couldn't make SPR or A13 a good movie. Good Will Hunting wasn;t good and Seven, while I enjoyed it was really not a good movie. There are several movie I like that I will watch over and over but they are not "good" movies. Rambo, Blade, and those types are good enjoyable movies, but the production, and actoring was poor at best.
Ghost of BiB Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 So your opinion's an informed one, at least. But you don't consider it a good movie...but you don't consider it a bad one? What, precisely, qualifies as a "good" movie by your standards? 367790[/snapback] A movie he liked. Seriously, everyone has different ideas. I thought Private Ryan was a very good movie. I too, have a copy of the Passion. It's not as good a movie as I thought it was going to be, strictly from a movie perspective. I think a lot more could have been done with the story. Lord knows there's enough material there. You can only watch Jesus being beaten for so long before it becomes numbing.
KD in CA Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 Never saw as good as it gets. Tom Hanks is a good actor but he couldn't make SPR or A13 a good movie. Good Will Hunting wasn;t good and Seven, while I enjoyed it was really not a good movie. There are several movie I like that I will watch over and over but they are not "good" movies. Rambo, Blade, and those types are good enjoyable movies, but the production, and actoring was poor at best. 367869[/snapback] It's all a matter of taste. I agree about most action movies like the ones you mentioned (or something like Predator, which I thought was medicore). But the ones I listed are all great movies IMO. AGAIG may have been Nicholson's best performance ever. I think both he and Helen Hunt won Oscars for that one. p.s. I'd also add a few others not mentioned: American Psycho Minority Report American Beauty L.A. Confidential The Ice Storm (I was also living right down the road during filming) Dogma Casino American History X Rounders (personal choice only...I know it doesn't belong on any 'greats' list) A Civil Action (very underrated IMO) Arlington Road Three Kings
Kelly the Dog Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 Your own fault, VA, for going to see event and tent pole and populist movies instead of seeking out and seeing the excellent movies that come out every year. All it really shows is you being a lemming.
Dr. Fong Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 Never saw as good as it gets. Tom Hanks is a good actor but he couldn't make SPR or A13 a good movie. Good Will Hunting wasn;t good and Seven, while I enjoyed it was really not a good movie. There are several movie I like that I will watch over and over but they are not "good" movies. Rambo, Blade, and those types are good enjoyable movies, but the production, and actoring was poor at best. 367869[/snapback] I know everyone is entitled to an opinion, but in this case yours is wrong.
bartshan-83 Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 So let me get this straight. In your top 10 lists you panned THREE Brad Pitt movies that are widely acclaimed as being very good (and some of his best) and you did NOT like either of the first 2 star wars movies. YET, you still went and paid probably $8-9 each to see Mr. & Mrs. Smith AND SW III. And you wonder why Hollywood can keep putting "bad" movies out?
MadBuffaloDisease Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 Someone going to see "Star Wars," any of them, for the acting is like going to see a porno for the same thing. You are NOT there for the acting.
Smoker2Buffalo Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 Someone going to see "Star Wars," any of them, for the acting is like going to see a porno for the same thing. You are NOT there for the acting. 367930[/snapback] Well put. You go for the cool and effects and awesome lightsabre fights.
CosmicBills Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 Never saw as good as it gets. Tom Hanks is a good actor but he couldn't make SPR or A13 a good movie. Good Will Hunting wasn;t good and Seven, while I enjoyed it was really not a good movie. There are several movie I like that I will watch over and over but they are not "good" movies. Rambo, Blade, and those types are good enjoyable movies, but the production, and actoring was poor at best. 367869[/snapback] You did not LIKE those movies. That is far different from saying they are not good films. Good Will Hunting is near perfect, as was Seven. Both are fantastically written, well acted and beautifully directed. To say otherwise demonstrates you don't really understand what qualities makes for good cinema.
CosmicBills Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 Your own fault, VA, for going to see event and tent pole and populist movies instead of seeking out and seeing the excellent movies that come out every year. All it really shows is you being a lemming. 367895[/snapback] Amen!
VABills Posted June 26, 2005 Author Posted June 26, 2005 You did not LIKE those movies. That is far different from saying they are not good films. Good Will Hunting is near perfect, as was Seven. Both are fantastically written, well acted and beautifully directed. To say otherwise demonstrates you don't really understand what qualities makes for good cinema. 367942[/snapback] No what I said was there are several movies I enjoy that are really not good movies, and I recognize there are movies that I don't like that are really good movies. However, the ones that fall into either good movies or enjoyable movies seems to have really dwindled. The last 2 star wars were neither good nor enjoyable. Seven, like I said, enjoyed it, but it really had too many holes in the story line and left too much out there thus not making it a good movie overall. Pulp Fiction, Saving Private Ryan, Fight Club, Fast and fusious and things like that were targeted for the wow factor and had terrible acting, poor direction and overall production quality was low. They targeted an audience with "Shoke and Awe" and while it sold, doesn't make it a good or "classic" movie. Think about some other that were similar, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Footloose, etc... again targeted movies for specific crowd, but poor acting, etc.... Think in 50 years will go down as a classic, those are good movies.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 In my opinion, original screenplay, good acting, good direction, minimal plot holes, and something that keep you enganged most of the movie. Something that I can't wait to either watch it again or wait for video to come out so I can see a several more times. Again though probably the thing that gets me about movies is terrible acting. If the actors sound corny then they aren't believable, and therefore a terrible fit for the role. Oh and to answer the other poster, Incredibles was watchable, but the "voice acting" wasn't that good, and it's basically not an original storyline. Few funny lines, but.... 367838[/snapback] "Original screenplay"? That's a lot to ask these days...and I'd disagree with it, as well. I'd sooner see a well-done remake (e.g. Ocean's Eleven or The Thomas Crown Affair) than a crappy original screenplay (e.g. Battlefield Earth or Waterworld).
justnzane Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 No what I said was there are several movies I enjoy that are really not good movies, and I recognize there are movies that I don't like that are really good movies. However, the ones that fall into either good movies or enjoyable movies seems to have really dwindled. The last 2 star wars were neither good nor enjoyable. Seven, like I said, enjoyed it, but it really had too many holes in the story line and left too much out there thus not making it a good movie overall. Pulp Fiction, Saving Private Ryan, Fight Club, Fast and fusious and things like that were targeted for the wow factor and had terrible acting, poor direction and overall production quality was low. They targeted an audience with "Shoke and Awe" and while it sold, doesn't make it a good or "classic" movie. Think about some other that were similar, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Footloose, etc... again targeted movies for specific crowd, but poor acting, etc.... Think in 50 years will go down as a classic, those are good movies. 367948[/snapback] Well jeesz, man your standard seems to be changin from "great" movies to the classics. Many great movies from the 40's- 70's are completely lost on my generation, not because of quality issues, but progression in film. Only Legendary films can stand the test of time for that long. There are some years where you none of these films are released and others where there are a few. Saying what you think is a great movie, does not make it a classic. Instead, a widespread opinion tends to determine if a movie belongs in such a category. Personally, i think your taste is really neglectful of certain genres of film, as some of them do not require the best acting, but a good plot, production, etc. can make the movie legendary. Blazing Saddles had some pretty cheesy acting, but the movie has stood the test of time and my generation has great respect for that movie
CosmicBills Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 No what I said was there are several movies I enjoy that are really not good movies, and I recognize there are movies that I don't like that are really good movies. 367948[/snapback] I understand and respect this part of your statment. I am the same way. However, the ones that fall into either good movies or enjoyable movies seems to have really dwindled. Seven, like I said, enjoyed it, but it really had too many holes in the story line and left too much out there thus not making it a good movie overall. Pulp Fiction, Saving Private Ryan, Fight Club, Fast and fusious and things like that were targeted for the wow factor and had terrible acting, poor direction and overall production quality was low. They targeted an audience with "Shoke and Awe" and while it sold, doesn't make it a good or "classic" movie. 367948[/snapback] This is where we totally disagree. Seven's script was very, very well done and tight. And surprisingly it almost all made it to the screen. There are no holes in the plot or with the characters. When you put Pulp Fiction and Ryan on the same level as the Fast and the Furious there is a serious problem there. Pulp Fiction is undeniably QT's best screenplay (it's brilliant on many levels) and his direction (when you consider it was a very low budget film) is perfect. I can't tell you how many veterans I have spoken too about Private Ryan that have told me it is the most realistic film ever made of Normandy. Several who I spoke with had to pause the movie numerous times because the visuals, the characters and the action were just too close to home. So to state that the production qualities for Ryan (let alone the directing and acting) were poor is just ignorant of what the movie was really about. And, as Kelly and I said above, there are PLENTY of good films made each year. The percentage of good movies has not dropped over the past 50 years at all. You just have to look for them.
Recommended Posts