+- RepairmanJack.com Forums (https://repairmanjack.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Other Topics (https://repairmanjack.com/forum/forum-9.html)
+--- Forum: Off Topic (https://repairmanjack.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Thread: Films you can't bear (/thread-984.html)
Films you can't bear - jimbow8 - 07-17-2006
Blake Wrote:IMO: All three of those are great movies, and The Matrix isn't even in the same ball park. Well, Highlander had annoying heroines who screamed too much, but otherwise I quite enjoyed it. I also wouldn't say Highlander is in the same genre (more fantasy than sci-fi), but that's a minor point. Aliens (the James Cameron one) is still one of the funnest action/sci-fi movies ever made. And Blade Runner is a masterpiece of the art form.Blade Runner is the only SciFi of those three. Highlander is fantasy, and Aliens is an action movie with a scifi backdrop - and not a very good movie at all, IMHO. Alien is MUCH better and is Horror(/SciFi).
So it's definitely not a genre issue.
Blake
Films you can't bear - Ken Valentine - 07-17-2006
neotank Wrote:Ok here's a question to all the Matrix haters. Do you like SCi Fi type movies?
YES! But only if they're GOOD Sci-Fi movies.
SERENITY was GOOD. MATRIX stunk.
Quote:If you don't, then you just don't like the genre. (Did I spell Genre right?) Which I can understand. But if you are a sci fi fan and like movies like Blade runner and Highlander and Aliens, then how can you not at least think that the Matrix was a well made movie?
You spelled Genre correctly.
I saw HIGHLANDER and thought it was awful. I didn't care for ALIENS, but BLADERUNNER wasn't too bad.
In my view, THE MATRIX was simultaneously, annoying, pretentious and stupid.
(Unlike TOMB RAIDERS, which was cartoonish, stupid, and camp.)
Quote:Cuz it is a quality film all the way through. It's not like watching a train wreck of a movie like basic instinct 2! Although I'm sure it had a COUPLE good scenes in it.
If you go back through the posts, you'll find that people have already named the reasons they didn't like THE MATRIX.
As I said earlier, this is not a matter of right and wrong, it's merely a matter of taste.
You're not going to change anyones mind by trying to shove it down our throats . . . so give it up.
You like it . . . I don't. 'Nuf said.
Ken V.
Films you can't bear - Ken Valentine - 07-17-2006
Blake Wrote:I also wouldn't say Highlander is in the same genre (more fantasy than sci-fi), but that's a minor point.
But it's a very good point!
HIGHLANDER was Fantasy-Fiction, while virtually all of what is referred to as Science Fiction, would be more accurately called Speculative Future Fiction. Personally, I wouldn't call it Sci-Fi unless there is actual science in it. Not just gadgets which are nothing more than figments of some design-artist's -- or CGI technician's -- imagination.
Ken V.
Films you can't bear - Blake - 07-17-2006
jimbow8 Wrote:Blade Runner is the only SciFi of those three. Highlander is fantasy, and Aliens is an action movie with a scifi backdrop - and not a very good movie at all, IMHO. Alien is MUCH better and is Horror(/SciFi).
I like Aliens, but I love Alien, too (also a Ridley Scott film, of course). You're right that they're completely different kinds of movies, and both use sci-fi as a backdrop for the story rather than the story itself. (Star Wars is like that, too: fantasy with a pseudo sci-fi backdrop.)
Can we agree that Alien 3 kinda sucked?
Blake
Films you can't bear - Blake - 07-17-2006
Ken Valentine Wrote:HIGHLANDER was Fantasy-Fiction, while virtually all of what is referred to as Science Fiction, would be more accurately called Speculative Future Fiction. Personally, I wouldn't call it Sci-Fi unless there is actual science in it. Not just gadgets which are nothing more than figments of some design-artist's -- or CGI technician's -- imagination.
I think "Speculative Future Fiction" is being too kind to many of the films that call themselves science fiction unless "speculative" includes the impossible (for example, Star Trek gets pretty ridiculous sometimes). But I think that's what you were getting at with your post.
I agree with your science criteria, but there aren't too many films that fit the bill. 2001 definitely does. I think you could also make an argument for Serenity, which I loved. (Seeing a sci-fi film where the ships and explosions don't make noise in space is great.)
Blake
Films you can't bear - Ken Valentine - 07-17-2006
Blake Wrote:I think "Speculative Future Fiction" is being too kind to many of the films that call themselves science fiction unless "speculative" includes the impossible (for example, Star Trek gets pretty ridiculous sometimes). But I think that's what you were getting at with your post.
I was thinking of speculative as being what conditions in the future would be like. In that case, they're all speculative.
Quote:I agree with your science criteria, but there aren't too many films that fit the bill. 2001 definitely does. I think you could also make an argument for Serenity, which I loved. (Seeing a sci-fi film where the ships and explosions don't make noise in space is great.)
Joss held to that in the TV series, but not so much in the movie.
Remember the sound that big gun mounted on the outside of the ship made when Serenity was moving out of Reaver space?
Ken V.
Films you can't bear - XamberB - 07-17-2006
I think "Potrait of Lady" would have to be at the top of the list for me.
Hazel Stone
Intrepid Girl Engineer
Films you can't bear - jimbow8 - 07-17-2006
Blake Wrote:I like Aliens, but I love Alien, too (also a Ridley Scott film, of course). You're right that they're completely different kinds of movies, and both use sci-fi as a backdrop for the story rather than the story itself. (Star Wars is like that, too: fantasy with a pseudo sci-fi backdrop.)Only if you remove the 'kinda.'
Can we agree that Alien 3 kinda sucked?
Blake
Yes, SW is more fantasy than SciFi, technically.
Films you can't bear - Blake - 07-17-2006
Ken Valentine Wrote:Remember the sound that big gun mounted on the outside of the ship made when Serenity was moving out of Reaver space?
Good catch! I honestly didn't notice that.
Blake
Films you can't bear - Bluesman Mike Lindner - 07-17-2006
Lisa Wrote:Maggers mentioned this on another thread and I thought it was worth pursuing. In her words:
Here's my list:
1. THE MATRIX. That's right, I said THE MATRIX. A movie that managed to be boring, confusing, pretentious, corny, embarrassing, and highly fucking unlikely--all at the same time.
2. THE ENGLISH PATIENT. I was actually angry that I sat through the whole thing. Dull and duller.
3. AFFLICTION. Nothing "wrong" with this one. Acting, writing, directing are all excellent. But it is deliberate, disturbing, and harrowlingly realistic. So much so that it ceases to be entertainment and becomes difficult or impossible to watch more than once.
4. TITANIC. "Rose!" "Jack!" "Rose!" "Jack!"
5. MOULIN ROUGE. This film gave me motion sickness. I'm not kidding.
6. MEET JOE BLACK. I almost killed myself after I watched this, just so I wouldn't have to "meet Joe Black" before I die. Most boring romance EVER.
7. FALLEN. Way overrated. All the plot elements were done before and better. And the ending is dumb.
8. DANGEROUS LIAISONS. I just can't get into John Malkovich and Glenn Close as desirable lovers. Sorry.
9. STEPMOM. Why does anyone like this movie? I don't understaaaaaaaaaand. (That was in my best "stepwhine" voice.)
10. THE PILLOW BOOK. Huh? Wha?? Ummmm. Peter Greenaway is a weirdo.
Lisa
The first 2 Superman flicks were corny, but entertaining. (Why is it that Marvel characters translate to film =so= much better than DC characters?) But SUPERMAN 3...utterly contemptable. I went to the theater expecting good old Supes to do great things. Never would have expected a mockery of the whole Superman mythos. A wretched piece of work.