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.
Tim 121RVC wrote: Hmm, I thought The Goonies was a seriously good option for this topic too.
Okay, how about one of these:
- Intouchables
- Willow
- Toy Story
- Madagascar
- Meet The Parents
- Labyrinth
1. Dull and noting interesting
2. Bad acting, bad soundtrack but I can see why people like it still.
3. Notting bad but far too boring and nothing that caught my interest, even as a child when it came out.
4. Seen it several times at work with some of the children I deal with in my job, not a bad movie but the voice acting makes me long for my lunch break.
5. Bad acting, terrible plot and obnoxious setting.
6. Good movie and one I don't mind watching
Matt Swain wrote: No one hates blazing saddles! C'mon, the campfire scene makes everyone laugh!
One of my favorite movies, but that kind of humor is not for everyone. And I think a lot of people these days just don’t get satire, and go straight to being offended. And if you take it at face value, there are a lot of horribly racist things in that movie. Now, they are there poking fun AT racists, but that bit might miss a lot of people. And piss off all sorts.
Matt Swain wrote: No one hates blazing saddles! C'mon, the campfire scene makes everyone laugh!
You mean the movie that induces heart failure, a loss of will to live and a smoldering dislike for western movies? I suppose one would need to be a fan of such actions and other means of what they wanted to portray as comedy to find anything to even break a smile to.
Matt Swain wrote: No one hates blazing saddles! C'mon, the campfire scene makes everyone laugh!
You mean the movie that induces heart failure, a loss of will to live and a smoldering dislike for western movies? I suppose one would need to be a fan of such actions and other means of what they wanted to portray as comedy to find anything to even break a smile to.
Honest question, do you actually like anything? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you post one positive, uplifting thing on this forum. Now, I’m “meh” on Blazing Saddles myself, but love a ton of MB’s other works. But every time I’ve seen you post, it’s ALWAYS in the negative. What DO you like? Honest question, I’m not attacking; you just seem like you need a little bit of cheer in your hobbies.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
Matt Swain wrote: No one hates blazing saddles! C'mon, the campfire scene makes everyone laugh!
You mean the movie that induces heart failure, a loss of will to live and a smoldering dislike for western movies? I suppose one would need to be a fan of such actions and other means of what they wanted to portray as comedy to find anything to even break a smile to.
Honest question, do you actually like anything? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you post one positive, uplifting thing on this forum. Now, I’m “meh” on Blazing Saddles myself, but love a ton of MB’s other works. But every time I’ve seen you post, it’s ALWAYS in the negative. What DO you like? Honest question, I’m not attacking; you just seem like you need a little bit of cheer in your hobbies.
Why I do like things, but I do not find any amusement in 95% of things pumped out over the years. I do post positive things but, I feel no need to explain anything to you actually, but as to disprove your claim here are movies I do enjoy. If you in the future feel the need to ask such things send me a PM!
Ran by Akira Kurosawa
Bone tomahawk from 2015, the director eludes me at the moment.
Veiviseren( Norwegian film)
Kongens Nei ( also an Norwegian film
Dunkirk
Impossible to not like this movie unless you just don't like dinosaurs. In which case...there is just no pleasing you is there?
This was a book before it was a movie...so there is actually quite a strong contingent of hatred out there.
Dang those book readers! Ehh - they probably changed a bunch of stuff around so they didn't get their nostalgic feels out of it. As a piece of cinema though how could you not actually like it? The scenes are stunning - even compared to what we can do today with CGI. The music is spectacular. Even the comedic relief is perfect.
They are indeed quite different. I loved the book when I was a child, but like a lot of Crichton’s works it aged pretty poorly in my opinion. The movie, on the other hand, didn’t wow me when it came out, yet aged very well. It is one of the movies I find batter than the book it’s based on, but I doubt that is a common opinion.
It's been a long time, but as I recall the film followed the book fairly faithfully.
Oh, and I've heard literally no one say Grave of the Fireflies is a bad movie. Depressing, yes absolutely. Bad no. Same goes for Spirited Away wrt bad and actually quite a lot of Studio Ghibli's stuff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/14 19:29:50
Vermis wrote: Grave of the Fireflies is one of those films that I'm very glad I saw, and that I never want to see again.
It's too good at what it does.
This. I'd watch Plaguedogs and Watership Down instead of watching Grave of the Fireflies for a second time. Yet I don't for a moment regret watching Gave the first time.
Bran Dawri wrote: It's been a long time, but as I recall the film followed the book fairly faithfully. .
Mostly. The kids' ages were swapped, there was a bunch of stuff cut out (like the Pteradon enclosure and second T-rex, which were more or less incorporated into the second movie instead), and the old guy doesn't get eaten by Compies. Other than that, IIRC, it was pretty much spot on, with most scenes being directly lifted from the book.
The character (and motivations) of Hammond is a pretty big departure. I seem to recall other characters having different personalities in the movie as well, but it’s been a long time.
Yeah, it's been a while since I read the book, but I do recall Hammond possibly being a little less Santa Clause-y.
I wonder if the fact that Richard Attenborough's Hammond was such a cuddly little fellow was the reason they didn't kill him off. In the book, it felt like he got exactly what was coming to him for his hubris. In the movie, you wind up feeling sorry for this likeable but naive old fellow who just wanted to make dreams come true and had it all come crashing down around him...
Yeah, Hammond was the big change from book to movie. Swapping kids’ ages was no big deal. And Ian Malcolm died in the book (they were barely able to bring him back to life though). And the two books were split into three movies; basically everything that occurred in the books happened in one of the three movies. Most of Jurassic Park the book ended up in Jurassic Park the movie, and some of it ended up in Lost World the movie. Then Lost World the book ended up in Lost World the movie and JP3.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
Trondheim wrote: Bone tomahawk from 2015, the director eludes me at the moment.
The horror western one? Bah!
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
insaniak wrote: Yeah, it's been a while since I read the book, but I do recall Hammond possibly being a little less Santa Clause-y.
I wonder if the fact that Richard Attenborough's Hammond was such a cuddly little fellow was the reason they didn't kill him off. In the book, it felt like he got exactly what was coming to him for his hubris. In the movie, you wind up feeling sorry for this likeable but naive old fellow who just wanted to make dreams come true and had it all come crashing down around him...
There were a fair few departures. Muldoon doesn't die, Hammond and Wu do, there's that the island wasn't actually abandoned during the storm and in fact was actively being repaired and the escaped dino's looking to be recaptured after they escaped, Hammond definitely being an ass and not a lovable old guy, Grant actively hunting down a raptor nest and almost diving headfirst into it etc.
I forgot Muldoon doesn’t die in the book. Which is odd, given he was my favorite character in the movie. I modeled my Borderlands 2 Axton character after him, even when the “clever boy” skin came out (yes, I know it’s “clever girl” in his line from the movie).
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
6 is actually oone of the better ST movies as I recall. Not just for Captain "then fly her apart" Sulu, but also Shakespeare-quoting Klingons, aliens with testicles on their knees and "Second star to the right and straight on till morning."
Bran Dawri wrote: 6 is actually oone of the better ST movies as I recall. Not just for Captain "then fly her apart" Sulu, but also Shakespeare-quoting Klingons, aliens with testicles on their knees and "Second star to the right and straight on till morning."
I'm not a fan of Star Trek in general, especially not the older ones, but I liked this movie. It was a good S-F movie with good acting and dialogues.
Bran Dawri wrote: 6 is actually oone of the better ST movies as I recall. Not just for Captain "then fly her apart" Sulu, but also Shakespeare-quoting Klingons, aliens with testicles on their knees and "Second star to the right and straight on till morning."
It’s also a solid way to bridge the two timeframes.
We see the Khitomer Accords being signed, and the reason why Klingons went from sworn foes, to sometime allies of The Federstion.
That of course feeds nicely into TNG, and for me opened up more Klingon related narratives, which are among my favourites in TNG’s stable.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Bran Dawri wrote: It's been a long time, but as I recall the film followed the book fairly faithfully. .
Mostly. The kids' ages were swapped, there was a bunch of stuff cut out (like the Pteradon enclosure and second T-rex, which were more or less incorporated into the second movie instead), and the old guy doesn't get eaten by Compies. Other than that, IIRC, it was pretty much spot on, with most scenes being directly lifted from the book.
The main difference, which for me was entirely positive, was that most of Chrichton's ramblings about chaos theory and how modern science is evil (ignore those wicked cool dinosaurs bought back through modern science) were cut out, leaving Malcolm without much to do other than "be Jeff Goldblum". It's a funny case where I think "dumbing down" a book was entirely the right choice.
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
.the princess bride
.robin hood men in tights...well pretty well all mel brooks comedies
.aliens (directors cut only-still my #1 scifi movie of all time i have probably watched it 60 times)
.monty python-and the holy grail
I can think of a few other big, well received movies, but there will be a vocal minority that will hate them.
I can't watch Saving Private Ryan. I get that it's an impressive piece of cinematography, but I can't enjoy it on any level. I watch movies for escape, so getting too carried away with the realism in a movie based in an actual, horrific war just winds up being stomach-churning.
Well as a history buff i am the opposite. i want them to try and re-create it realistically as much as possible so people understand the events of history and become immersed in it. saving private ryan was groundbreaking, but then Tom Hanks went and made band of brothers and completely blew it away, granted he had alot more time to tell the story than in a single movie.
6 is actually oone of the better ST movies as I recall. Not just for Captain "then fly her apart" Sulu, but also Shakespeare-quoting Klingons, aliens with testicles on their knees and "Second star to the right and straight on till morning."
2 and 6 were both directed/produced by Nicholas Meyer-the only man who can do star trek right...even on a shoestring budget (5 blew out the studio and was ended before it was actually completed tot he original script, then did so poorly they slashed the budget for 6. Meye had to re-purpose a bunch of the old TNG sets like the ready room/dining hall for the movie). he is also the only trek writer who remembered true Newtonian physics in a 3d space.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/27 03:39:55
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear/MCP
Vermis wrote: Grave of the Fireflies is one of those films that I'm very glad I saw, and that I never want to see again.
It's too good at what it does.
Ok........I hate that movie.....I really really do
Im going to be called contrarian and edgelord but i hate it
Spoiler because its rambly and spoilers
Spoiler:
First, Lets talk about how we are supposed to feel sympathy and sadness at their situation......but they are literally in it because the brother could not swallow his pride and just live with his aunt? Jesus kid, your sister died because of your pride. Your sister gets sympathy for me, because she was young enough to not realize you where being an asshat.
Second: Its filmed like we are not watching a movie, nor presented as such, but that we are Voyeurs into their lives. We are not watching a story or a movie, we are watching peoples sad lives, which to me feel manipulative.
THIRD: The director said the movie was made for teens to early 20s, in japan, in 1988. Who is going to go watch that in that age range during that time? Why? Because at the time, those people where the kids of survivors of the conflict, possibly the same age as the main two. Its meant to shame those kids, during a time of prosperity in japan, in showing what their parents went through. with the final judgmental look from the boy in the end as if to say "This is what your parents went through you little gak, why are you complaining, I DIED" and i just couldnt stomach it.
Fourth: its just kinda.....misery porn.....that is all it is
.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The character (and motivations) of Hammond is a pretty big departure. I seem to recall other characters having different personalities in the movie as well, but it’s been a long time.
In the Movie, he is more Walt Disney
In the Books, he is Pt Barnum with a god complex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/27 03:54:11
Bran Dawri wrote: It's been a long time, but as I recall the film followed the book fairly faithfully. .
Mostly. The kids' ages were swapped, there was a bunch of stuff cut out (like the Pteradon enclosure and second T-rex, which were more or less incorporated into the second movie instead), and the old guy doesn't get eaten by Compies. Other than that, IIRC, it was pretty much spot on, with most scenes being directly lifted from the book.
The main difference, which for me was entirely positive, was that most of Chrichton's ramblings about chaos theory and how modern science is evil (ignore those wicked cool dinosaurs bought back through modern science) were cut out, leaving Malcolm without much to do other than "be Jeff Goldblum". It's a funny case where I think "dumbing down" a book was entirely the right choice.
Um. The 'science is evil bit' is in the film. It brings nothing but death (and greed, which leads directly to death). The doctors and the kids have their initial enthusiasm and wonder ruthlessly stomped out over course of the film.
The message of the film is anyone who wants to open Pandora's box needs to be viciously killed and eaten.
Bran Dawri wrote: It's been a long time, but as I recall the film followed the book fairly faithfully. .
Mostly. The kids' ages were swapped, there was a bunch of stuff cut out (like the Pteradon enclosure and second T-rex, which were more or less incorporated into the second movie instead), and the old guy doesn't get eaten by Compies. Other than that, IIRC, it was pretty much spot on, with most scenes being directly lifted from the book.
The main difference, which for me was entirely positive, was that most of Chrichton's ramblings about chaos theory and how modern science is evil (ignore those wicked cool dinosaurs bought back through modern science) were cut out, leaving Malcolm without much to do other than "be Jeff Goldblum". It's a funny case where I think "dumbing down" a book was entirely the right choice.
Um. The 'science is evil bit' is in the film. It brings nothing but death (and greed, which leads directly to death). The doctors and the kids have their initial enthusiasm and wonder ruthlessly stomped out over course of the film.
The message of the film is anyone who wants to open Pandora's box needs to be viciously killed and eaten.
I felt as if there wasnt really a message or theme to the movie. I felt it was just a joyride TBH.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
Dang those book readers! Ehh - they probably changed a bunch of stuff around so they didn't get their nostalgic feels out of it. As a piece of cinema though how could you not actually like it? The scenes are stunning - even compared to what we can do today with CGI. The music is spectacular. Even the comedic relief is perfect.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
