Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been debating in other forums and I'm CONVINCED that adding Zombies to movies instantly makes the movie cooler. Some people say Ninja's cause they are total butt-kickin, explosions cause everyone likes big fireballs, and other people are saying little people. I say zombies because whether you're a guy or girl, kicking some undead arse rules! What's hotter than a woman blowing some zombie away cause it's gonna chomp on some fool's brain? Chainsaw, lead pipe, samurai sword. Anything. Fightin' off undead beasties is universal. Mehbeh I'm biased, but please help me settle this matter.

A good story and the absence of a screaming child as a main character.

Good camera angles + good music + good script.
Anything that helps with making the viewers believing they are been part of the movie.

Y'know it is like a tapestry or oil painting for me, sometimes they speak to me on a deeper level and sometimes just don't work.

Many films may be multi-layered, have a fine script and good characters but for some reason they don't come together to make a truly good film. Some films go by a formula (Disney and Hollywood especially) and while all the parts are there, the film ends up more as a technical exercise in film making and not any kind of art. They lack soul yet other films can be relatively low budget and exude that oompf or gene se qua to make them over achieve despite their inherent flaws. It is simply a hard thing to nail down and their are too many factors involved.

Admittedly, preconception and frame of mind can affect how I enjoy a film. I'm older and jaded, I can't help that and sometimes only time can judge how much a film is appreciated.

I would rather see an interesting if not all that great of a movie versus the next Hollywood blockbuster, that's for sure.

Take the recent film Where the Wild Things Are as an example. I liked the film but I wouldn't say it was one of the best film ever made. However it was an interesting film from a very specific point-of-view. This alone was refreshing for me and a risk coming from Hollywood.

I like movies where they take a story and totally run with it, instead of just cutting and pasting elements onto a standard story structure. Examples would be Pulp Fiction, Memento, Pulse (The original).

I am thoroughly offended Bruce Campbell is not on the list.

boom, pew pew,more boom, zombies and a good plot!

Bruce Campbell = Zombie

Chuck Norris = Ninja

Mr. T = Explosion.

Other = The diaspora of the feature film has to equate the juxtaposition of writer vs. film studio and their underlying need of profit-driven theatrical debuts. While the quintessential desire of any future driven, profit sharing conglomerate would be the maximization of potential profits and reduce the risk of monetary loss, the individual must be assured that the literary work of the writer, the objective view of the directors visionary work, and the enthusiasm of the producer can create a conglomeration of visionary morality and profit-driven exponentiary growth.




Enuff big werds for ya?



Edit: And if ya didn't know, I have no idea wth I just said past Mr T = explosions.

warpcrafter wrote:I like movies where they take a story and totally run with it, instead of just cutting and pasting elements onto a standard story structure. Examples would be Pulp Fiction, Memento, Pulse (The original).

Umm, Pulp Fiction is a pastiche of other movies. It's really good, but its basically the opposite of what you said.




I think pacing and pathos are the biggest thing for me. If a film moves well from beginning, to middle to end, and has a few moments where I feel for the characters then everything else tends to fall into place.

For me it's all about great acting - even the most formulaic, saccharine rom-com can be lifted from the mire with a great central performance. Plus, in films where 'not a lot' happens - great acting can keep you pinned to your seat.
See 'There Will Be Blood' for details.

Christopher Walken.

Aaaand...we have a winner.


You might as well lock this thread now.

Explosions, Michael Bay told me it was explosions. Everything else is irrelevant.

Boobs.

Boobs and Chainsaws.

And perhaps Chainsaw Boobs.

Explosive midget zombie ninjas.

My vote is other what makes it cool are naked girls or large scale battles.

Bad guys that aren't brain damaged and don't die in droves usally works foe me, althpugh i do enjoy a good BOOM, but then again who dosen't?

When a movie has the proper chemistry it works.

Everything that was in Zombieland is a good moive.
I also agree with lunahound, and aliens was a good moive seires.

Kilkrazy wrote:Christopher Walken.

Aw you beat me to it, but aye, 100% agreement.

see...i thought naked women with BOOM and Pew pew and gore just could not fail....then i watched grind house. It wasn't the worst thing i ever saw...but it for sure wasn't good.

I always find that Movies where you can really get "Into" the characters are the best....crap examples but i'll try....
The Joker (mr ledger) he was sooo creepy he made my skin literally crawl! i was hooked from the very start...

Goodfellas (mr pesci) i get so frightend of him...like cringing!

Character driven performances (Rozes examples of Ledgers "Joker" and Pescis " Tommy "what the feth makes me so funny!" DeVito" are spot on.) make for a great film.
All the BOOM,pew pew and naked women in the world can't save a movie if you,as the viewer,could care less about the characters....although films comprised entirely of naked women can be very "entertaining" regaurdless of character development.

Oh,and I will add an enthusiastic "ditto" for Christopher Walken,this man is just briliant.

children of filth wrote:Explosive midget zombie ninjas.

I got Ninja'd!

Anyway, I was the first vote for midgets. You haven't been voting for them? Why not!?

sebster wrote:Umm, Pulp Fiction is a pastiche of other movies. It's really good, but its basically the opposite of what you said.

Could you give examples? Because I have no idea what you're talking about.

warpcrafter wrote:

sebster wrote:Umm, Pulp Fiction is a pastiche of other movies. It's really good, but its basically the opposite of what you said.

Could you give examples? Because I have no idea what you're talking about.

Mean streets by Martian Scorsese,The Killing by Stanley Kubrick,On the Waterfront by Schulberg ,are all evident influnces in Pulp Fiction.

All Tarantino's films are derivative of, or (depending how you look at things) inspired by noir, pulp, blaxploitation and generally B movies of the 40s to the 70s. An hommage if you will.

There's no doubt he can synthesise a mean script and soundtrack on a good day. His art de assemblage is at the heart of his oeuvre.

I've always regarded originality as an overrated virtue. What is the Pablo Picasso quotation about the greatest artists stealing their material?

Look at Star Wars, widely regarded as the greatest cinematic achievement of the late 20th century -- even Lucas himself admits it is a rip-off of Hidden Fortress.

I don't know if it is 'cool' as such but really good movies can simultaneously be 'of their time' while tapping the past and remaining timelessly relevant in the future.

The absence of crackpot doomsday theories (ala 2012 and Knowing), proper shambling zombies (like the old Night of the Living Dead), and of course awesome boobs.

Cheese Elemental wrote:The absence of crackpot doomsday theories (ala 2012 and Knowing), proper shambling zombies (like the old Night of the Living Dead), and of course awesome boobs.

I belive Cheese is on to somthing here,perhaps the perfect film would have shambling zombies with awesome boobs devouring John Cusack and Nicolas Cage.

warpcrafter wrote:

sebster wrote:Umm, Pulp Fiction is a pastiche of other movies. It's really good, but its basically the opposite of what you said.

Could you give examples? Because I have no idea what you're talking about.

There's countless influences, as well as the one's mentioned the trashy elements owe a lot to Roger Corman, the framing to Sergio Leone, the whimsy of the dance scene to french new wave movie A Band Apart, and countless others. Then the dialogue itself is basically a long list of references to film and television - there's lists out there that pick out every reference and they're really long.

At the end of the day Pulp Fiction is basically about other movies. Critics have spent a long time debating Pulp Fiction as post-modernism, and I can't read more than a line of it before my eyes try to escape from head to stop the suffering. At the end of the day, Tarantino wasn't drawing from his own life or the lives of others he knew, he was drawing from all the films and televisions shows he'd watched, his thoughts were dominated by stuff he saw in other movies that he thought was cool.

And it worked really, really well.

FITZZ wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:The absence of crackpot doomsday theories (ala 2012 and Knowing), proper shambling zombies (like the old Night of the Living Dead), and of course awesome boobs.

I belive Cheese is on to somthing here,perhaps the perfect film would have shambling zombies with awesome boobs devouring John Cusack and Nicolas Cage.

FUND IT!