Recently viewed movie thread - Rental Edition (2 Viewers)

[Kenny Powers]

Goodfellas is the best gangster movie evah.....Some of you are nuts

 

[jdoggydogg]

Clash of the Titans (2010) was a bit of a disappointment. I was expecting much more out of the movie visually, but it failed. Heck, I thought Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief was better FX and visually.

I guess I had higher expectations than you because a disappointment would have been welcome compared to the insult I thought this movie delivered.One example:

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();Oh come on! Seriously?

Terrible movie.

I loved the original Clash. But I can't bring myself to watch this remake.

 

[jdoggydogg]

To re-quote Scooby's point: "too often content to just show himself as a great student of film history and technique." This implies that Scorsese isn't motivated to make a great movie, he's happy with simply paying homage. You can criticize Scorese's work all you want. But none of us has any idea what Scorsese's thinking when he makes a movie.

I saw Paul Simon live once. Fantastic show. A music critic wrote that Paul Simon looked bored. How could he possibly know what was going on in Simon's mind? Maybe what looked like boredom was really despair. We simply do not know.

To me, the proof is in the pudding. I don't think Scorsese's made a lot of great movies in the past 20 years. He's made a lot of well-made movies (although I don't even think The Departed reaches that level), but other than Kundun, nothing else really stays in my system. He's treated as the ultimate American auteur, but I think there's very little personal about his movies once he drove all the Catholic stuff out of them.

This goes to something I've said before: every artist has a period of about five to seven years where they produce their best work. That Scorsese enjoyed double that is the exception, not the rule. I think The Departed is a great movie, but I can totally understand if you think it's not as good as Scorsese's essential work. How many artists enjoy an entire lifetime of great art? I can only think of two: Miles Davis and Pablo Picasso.

 

[saintfool]

This goes to something I've said before: every artist has a period of about five to seven years where they produce their best work. That Scorsese enjoyed double that is the exception, not the rule. I think The Departed is a great movie, but I can totally understand if you think it's not as good as Scorsese's essential work. How many artists enjoy an entire lifetime of great art? I can only think of two: Miles Davis and Pablo Picasso.

that's because they were innovators pretty much throughout their careers. scorsese is more of an archivist and conservator of the highest caliber at this stage of his career.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Clash of the Titans (2010) was a bit of a disappointment. I was expecting much more out of the movie visually, but it failed. Heck, I thought Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief was better FX and visually.

I guess I had higher expectations than you because a disappointment would have been welcome compared to the insult I thought this movie delivered.One example:

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();Oh come on! Seriously?

Terrible movie.

This reminds me of a bit Zach Galifianakis did in his special Live at the Purple Onion (which is hilarious by the way)."I just watched Miss Congeniality 2. It wasn't as good as I thought it was going to be."

 

[Kenny Powers]

This goes to something I've said before: every artist has a period of about five to seven years where they produce their best work. That Scorsese enjoyed double that is the exception, not the rule. I think The Departed is a great movie, but I can totally understand if you think it's not as good as Scorsese's essential work. How many artists enjoy an entire lifetime of great art? I can only think of two: Miles Davis and Pablo Picasso.

Id assume most would say that 73-86 (Mean Streets-Color of Money) was Scorsese's best work period, but Id take 90-06 (Goodfellas-Departed) over it any day of the week.

 

[jdoggydogg]

This goes to something I've said before: every artist has a period of about five to seven years where they produce their best work. That Scorsese enjoyed double that is the exception, not the rule. I think The Departed is a great movie, but I can totally understand if you think it's not as good as Scorsese's essential work. How many artists enjoy an entire lifetime of great art? I can only think of two: Miles Davis and Pablo Picasso.

that's because they were innovators pretty much throughout their careers. scorsese is more of an archivist and conservator of the highest caliber at this stage of his career.

Yes. But you can use the argument "His new work doesn't compare to his classic work" to describe almost every artist that ever lived. I think that a great director, musician, and painter has value even after they've passed their peak. I know Gangs of New York isn't as good as Taxi Driver. But it's still better than most of the junk that we see on screen. I don't think it makes sense to constantly compare the great works to the new works when there is so little good work available. If I eat a cheap carnitas taco at a little taco truck, it makes no sense to say, "This isn't as good as that $50 Thai meal I had last night." Enjoy it and don't over-analyze it.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Clash of the Titans (2010) was a bit of a disappointment. I was expecting much more out of the movie visually, but it failed. Heck, I thought Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief was better FX and visually.

I guess I had higher expectations than you because a disappointment would have been welcome compared to the insult I thought this movie delivered.One example:

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***

");document.close();Oh come on! Seriously?

Terrible movie.

This reminds me of a bit Zach Galifianakis did in his special Live at the Purple Onion (which is hilarious by the way)."I just watched Miss Congeniality 2. It wasn't as good as I thought it was going to be."

Live at the Purple Onion is brilliant. Loved it.

 

[jdoggydogg]

This goes to something I've said before: every artist has a period of about five to seven years where they produce their best work. That Scorsese enjoyed double that is the exception, not the rule. I think The Departed is a great movie, but I can totally understand if you think it's not as good as Scorsese's essential work. How many artists enjoy an entire lifetime of great art? I can only think of two: Miles Davis and Pablo Picasso.

Id assume most would say that 73-86 (Mean Streets-Color of Money) was Scorsese's best work period, but Id take 90-06 (Goodfellas-Departed) over it any day of the week.

I think The Color of Money is terrible. The Departed and Gangs of New York are far better movies than Money.

 

[saintfool]

This goes to something I've said before: every artist has a period of about five to seven years where they produce their best work. That Scorsese enjoyed double that is the exception, not the rule. I think The Departed is a great movie, but I can totally understand if you think it's not as good as Scorsese's essential work. How many artists enjoy an entire lifetime of great art? I can only think of two: Miles Davis and Pablo Picasso.

Id assume most would say that 73-86 (Mean Streets-Color of Money) was Scorsese's best work period, but Id take 90-06 (Goodfellas-Departed) over it any day of the week.

i'd go with "Raging Bull" through "Age of Innocence". he kind of did it all through that string of movies...

 

[hooter311]

This goes to something I've said before: every artist has a period of about five to seven years where they produce their best work. That Scorsese enjoyed double that is the exception, not the rule. I think The Departed is a great movie, but I can totally understand if you think it's not as good as Scorsese's essential work. How many artists enjoy an entire lifetime of great art? I can only think of two: Miles Davis and Pablo Picasso.

Id assume most would say that 73-86 (Mean Streets-Color of Money) was Scorsese's best work period, but Id take 90-06 (Goodfellas-Departed) over it any day of the week.

I think The Color of Money is terrible. The Departed and Gangs of New York are far better movies than Money.

Werewolves of London..............AaaaaaaaHooooooooooo!!!!Love this flick, almost as much as the first one.

 

[McJose]

This goes to something I've said before: every artist has a period of about five to seven years where they produce their best work. That Scorsese enjoyed double that is the exception, not the rule. I think The Departed is a great movie, but I can totally understand if you think it's not as good as Scorsese's essential work. How many artists enjoy an entire lifetime of great art? I can only think of two: Miles Davis and Pablo Picasso.

Id assume most would say that 73-86 (Mean Streets-Color of Money) was Scorsese's best work period, but Id take 90-06 (Goodfellas-Departed) over it any day of the week.

I think The Color of Money is terrible. The Departed and Gangs of New York are far better movies than Money.

Wow. I only saw The Departed once and wasn't thrilled. Gangs of New York is a turd-fest. Color of Money is pretty damn good.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Gangs of New York is a turd-fest.

This is madness.

 

[Copeman]

Gangs of New York is a turd-fest.

This is madness.

DDL saves this movie, and saves it big time with his performance. If not for him, it would indeed have been a "turd-fest".

 

[Iraqi Information Minister]

Just watched Cronenberg's "The Fly" again.

I think this movie is all kinds of awesome. I even like the sequel.

 

[scoobygang]

This goes to something I've said before: every artist has a period of about five to seven years where they produce their best work. That Scorsese enjoyed double that is the exception, not the rule. I think The Departed is a great movie, but I can totally understand if you think it's not as good as Scorsese's essential work. How many artists enjoy an entire lifetime of great art? I can only think of two: Miles Davis and Pablo Picasso.

Id assume most would say that 73-86 (Mean Streets-Color of Money) was Scorsese's best work period, but Id take 90-06 (Goodfellas-Departed) over it any day of the week.

i'd go with "Raging Bull" through "Age of Innocence". he kind of did it all through that string of movies...

I should have given Age of Innocence a shout out. Much better DDL performance in a Scorsese movie than Gangs of New York.

 

[jdoggydogg]

This goes to something I've said before: every artist has a period of about five to seven years where they produce their best work. That Scorsese enjoyed double that is the exception, not the rule. I think The Departed is a great movie, but I can totally understand if you think it's not as good as Scorsese's essential work. How many artists enjoy an entire lifetime of great art? I can only think of two: Miles Davis and Pablo Picasso.

Id assume most would say that 73-86 (Mean Streets-Color of Money) was Scorsese's best work period, but Id take 90-06 (Goodfellas-Departed) over it any day of the week.

i'd go with "Raging Bull" through "Age of Innocence". he kind of did it all through that string of movies...

I should have given Age of Innocence a shout out. Much better DDL performance in a Scorsese movie than Gangs of New York.

Not a fan of Age of Innocence.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

For Scorcese, it's After Hours and then everything else.

 

[hooter311]

For Scorcese, it's After Hours and then everything else.

hmmm, I still need to see this. Guess it's time to finally bump it to the top of my queue.

 

[shake zula]

Back in the game...Just got netflix. This thing is amazing I can't believe how late to the game I am. Just watched:

Food Inc.

Pretty sweet documentary. 4.5 out of 5. Lossing a little for being a bit slow at times. I tend not care at all about the environment and I eat as much meat as my wife is willing to cook but this doc actually had me thinking how leveraged we are when it comes to food and food product. I've got king corn queued up.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Gangs of New York is a turd-fest.

This is madness.

DDL saves this movie, and saves it big time with his performance. If not for him, it would indeed have been a "turd-fest".

LOTR probably wouldve sucked if Frodo wasnt around to carry a ring across the planet too

 

[fsufan]

For the animation/comic geeks

Picked up Batman:Under the Red Hood because my 6 year old is into superheros and loves everything Batman. Then I noticed it was rated PG-13, so I thought I'd better check it out first before I let him watch. Good thing I did. This movie is violent. Holy crap. Batman doesn't kill (of course), but that doesn't stop everyone else from doing so. While you don't see the gore happen, you get some after effects. And scenes with the Joker? I think I'm going to wait another year or two before letting my son watch. He's familiar with death, etc, but I'm still trying to keep his exposure to brutal violence to a minimum.

As for the movie itself: all kinds of awesome. Good story, great action, execellent animation. Just top notch from start to finish. I don't know if the story was first a comic/graphic novel, but I remember the 'Death in the Family' books from way back, dealing with the brutal murder of the second Robin, and this movie starts off with that sequence.

4.5/5

glad to here this is good

 

[Kenny Powers]

This goes to something I've said before: every artist has a period of about five to seven years where they produce their best work. That Scorsese enjoyed double that is the exception, not the rule. I think The Departed is a great movie, but I can totally understand if you think it's not as good as Scorsese's essential work. How many artists enjoy an entire lifetime of great art? I can only think of two: Miles Davis and Pablo Picasso.

Id assume most would say that 73-86 (Mean Streets-Color of Money) was Scorsese's best work period, but Id take 90-06 (Goodfellas-Departed) over it any day of the week.

I think The Color of Money is terrible. The Departed and Gangs of New York are far better movies than Money.

I think The Color of Money is very good, but that wasnt really what I was trying to say. Make it 73-85 then (Mean Streets-After Hours) in your case.My point was that while most would say "classic" Scorsese was better, I prefer "modern" Scorsese, Goodfellas through The Departed. 5 of my 6 Favorite Scorsese movies are in the latter most likely.

 

[Chaka]

Gangs of New York is a turd-fest.

This is madness.

DDL saves this movie, and saves it big time with his performance. If not for him, it would indeed have been a "turd-fest".

LOTR probably wouldve sucked if Frodo wasnt around to carry a ring across the planet too

I love the LOTR trilogy but this bit from The Editing Room (best site ever) pretty much sums up my feelings about Elija Wood's performance as Frodo.

ELIJAH stares at the ring. As he does so, his face contorts to an expression of limitless fear. His eyes widen and his mouth gapes slightly open with shock and terror. This expression never leaves his face again – ever.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I love the LOTR trilogy but this bit from The Editing Room (best site ever) pretty much sums up my feelings about Elija Wood's performance as Frodo.

ELIJAH stares at the ring. As he does so, his face contorts to an expression of limitless fear. His eyes widen and his mouth gapes slightly open with shock and terror. This expression never leaves his face again – ever.

I was being sarcastic. I think its stupid to say "_____ movie wouldve sucked if he/she wasnt it, this/that didnt happen". Well that actor was in the movie, and that did happen, so why even say something like that.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

can't even imagine Gangs of New York with another actor in the DDL role.

 

[Copeman]

I love the LOTR trilogy but this bit from The Editing Room (best site ever) pretty much sums up my feelings about Elija Wood's performance as Frodo.

ELIJAH stares at the ring. As he does so, his face contorts to an expression of limitless fear. His eyes widen and his mouth gapes slightly open with shock and terror. This expression never leaves his face again – ever.

I was being sarcastic. I think its stupid to say "_____ movie wouldve sucked if he/she wasnt it, this/that didnt happen". Well that actor was in the movie, and that did happen, so why even say something like that.

Might want to actually comprehend what I write next time. I said his "performance". Anyone could have played that role, but it wouldn't have been nearly as good as how DDL portrayed the character.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I love the LOTR trilogy but this bit from The Editing Room (best site ever) pretty much sums up my feelings about Elija Wood's performance as Frodo.

ELIJAH stares at the ring. As he does so, his face contorts to an expression of limitless fear. His eyes widen and his mouth gapes slightly open with shock and terror. This expression never leaves his face again – ever.

I was being sarcastic. I think its stupid to say "_____ movie wouldve sucked if he/she wasnt it, this/that didnt happen". Well that actor was in the movie, and that did happen, so why even say something like that.

Might want to actually comprehend what I write next time. I said his "performance". Anyone could have played that role, but it wouldn't have been nearly as good as how DDL portrayed the character.

But DDL did play that character

ETA: It still wouldve been solid and far from a "turd-fest" if someone else played the Butcher, but clearly DDL elevated the film.

 

[Copeman]

I love the LOTR trilogy but this bit from The Editing Room (best site ever) pretty much sums up my feelings about Elija Wood's performance as Frodo.

ELIJAH stares at the ring. As he does so, his face contorts to an expression of limitless fear. His eyes widen and his mouth gapes slightly open with shock and terror. This expression never leaves his face again – ever.

I was being sarcastic. I think its stupid to say "_____ movie wouldve sucked if he/she wasnt it, this/that didnt happen". Well that actor was in the movie, and that did happen, so why even say something like that.

Might want to actually comprehend what I write next time. I said his "performance". Anyone could have played that role, but it wouldn't have been nearly as good as how DDL portrayed the character.

But DDL did play that character

ETA: It still wouldve been solid and far from a "turd-fest" if someone else played the Butcher, but clearly DDL elevated the film.

I don't think you're following along here......IMO, the movie would not have been very good had it not been for DDL's performance as Bill the Butcher. With him in it (and again, his PERFORMANCE), it elevates the movie by alot. I feel it was one of Leo's worst performances over the past ten years, and Cameron Diaz was horribly miscast. Some of the lesser roles did well, like John C Reilly and Liam Neeson, but as far as the major characters, DDL's performance was the only noteworthy one IMO. Without his performance, the movie would have been "meh". Instead, I look forward to watching the movie any time it's on because of him.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don't know why it didn't sink in until now, but the movie had another big thing working against it for me - voice over. I was getting used to Liotta's narration and then his wife starting piping up. I know it might be silly, but for the most it will start ruining a movie for me when you tell me what's going on.

The first rules of screenwriting are don't use flashbacks and don't use voiceovers. I agree for the most part, but some of my favorite lines in film history are from narration.I think this is kind of the double edge sword when it comes to adapting a novel. There is stuff so good in the source material that you try to fit in, or that you just can't convey on screen. The same Goodfellas film could have been done without V.O. but it would have been 5 hours longer. At the time, I think Marty was just trying to pack in as much material as possible into the final product.

I disagree on this. I don't need Liotta to tell me he wanted to be a gangster - show him looking out the window at them a couple times (he was during the voice over anyway), maybe one scene of him as a kid trying to dress up like them or "playing" gangster. Don't tell me why his dad was mad at him - that could be taken care of with 30secs of conversation or his dad finding a gangster's roll of money. I don't need his wife to tell me in a VO why she was attracted to him - it's obvious - he's cool, has money, etc.. Some of her other thoughts could have been taken care of with short scene talking with one of the other wives, etc.. Very rarely do I think it is needed or is done well, and this movie was no exception.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I don't think you're following along here......

IMO, the movie would not have been very good had it not been for DDL's performance as Bill the Butcher. With him in it (and again, his PERFORMANCE), it elevates the movie by alot. I feel it was one of Leo's worst performances over the past ten years, and Cameron Diaz was horribly miscast. Some of the lesser roles did well, like John C Reilly and Liam Neeson, but as far as the major characters, DDL's performance was the only noteworthy one IMO. Without his performance, the movie would have been "meh". Instead, I look forward to watching the movie any time it's on because of him.

I am following along, and I agree with you for the most part, although I still think it wouldve been better than average without DDL.Everybody knows DDL elevated the movie, it just strikes me as pointless to contemplate the movie as if he hadnt been in it. He was.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I don't know why it didn't sink in until now, but the movie had another big thing working against it for me - voice over. I was getting used to Liotta's narration and then his wife starting piping up. I know it might be silly, but for the most it will start ruining a movie for me when you tell me what's going on.

The first rules of screenwriting are don't use flashbacks and don't use voiceovers. I agree for the most part, but some of my favorite lines in film history are from narration.I think this is kind of the double edge sword when it comes to adapting a novel. There is stuff so good in the source material that you try to fit in, or that you just can't convey on screen. The same Goodfellas film could have been done without V.O. but it would have been 5 hours longer. At the time, I think Marty was just trying to pack in as much material as possible into the final product.

I disagree on this. I don't need Liotta to tell me he wanted to be a gangster - show him looking out the window at them a couple times (he was during the voice over anyway), maybe one scene of him as a kid trying to dress up like them or "playing" gangster. Don't tell me why his dad was mad at him - that could be taken care of with 30secs of conversation or his dad finding a gangster's roll of money. I don't need his wife to tell me in a VO why she was attracted to him - it's obvious - he's cool, has money, etc.. Some of her other thoughts could have been taken care of with short scene talking with one of the other wives, etc.. Very rarely do I think it is needed or is done well, and this movie was no exception.

Agreed, but I love the VO in Goodfellas case

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don't know why it didn't sink in until now, but the movie had another big thing working against it for me - voice over. I was getting used to Liotta's narration and then his wife starting piping up. I know it might be silly, but for the most it will start ruining a movie for me when you tell me what's going on.

The first rules of screenwriting are don't use flashbacks and don't use voiceovers. I agree for the most part, but some of my favorite lines in film history are from narration.I think this is kind of the double edge sword when it comes to adapting a novel. There is stuff so good in the source material that you try to fit in, or that you just can't convey on screen. The same Goodfellas film could have been done without V.O. but it would have been 5 hours longer. At the time, I think Marty was just trying to pack in as much material as possible into the final product.

I disagree on this. I don't need Liotta to tell me he wanted to be a gangster - show him looking out the window at them a couple times (he was during the voice over anyway), maybe one scene of him as a kid trying to dress up like them or "playing" gangster. Don't tell me why his dad was mad at him - that could be taken care of with 30secs of conversation or his dad finding a gangster's roll of money. I don't need his wife to tell me in a VO why she was attracted to him - it's obvious - he's cool, has money, etc.. Some of her other thoughts could have been taken care of with short scene talking with one of the other wives, etc.. Very rarely do I think it is needed or is done well, and this movie was no exception.

Agreed, but I love the VO in Goodfellas case

Huh. Didn't peg you for a lazy movie watcher who needed obvious things pointed out to him.

 

[videoguy505]

The mere inclusion of voiceover does not disqualify a film from greatness.

 

[Bojang0301]

The mere inclusion of voiceover does not disqualify a film from greatness.

I don't know what the deal is with people on this thread just downright hating on narration. Shawshank had it, as did Magnolia. I believe Kane had some aspects of voice-overs (news reel broadcast). The Assassination of Jesse James had it too. What gives? I agree with not explaining the movie in gory detail but I can't even imagine the movies I mentioned (except Kane as I'm not even sure on that one) without the narration/off screen voice they had.

 

[videoguy505]

The mere inclusion of voiceover does not disqualify a film from greatness.

I don't know what the deal is with people on this thread just downright hating on narration. Shawshank had it, as did Magnolia. I believe Kane had some aspects of voice-overs (news reel broadcast). The Assassination of Jesse James had it too. What gives? I agree with not explaining the movie in gory detail but I can't even imagine the movies I mentioned (except Kane as I'm not even sure on that one) without the narration/off screen voice they had.

Kane, IIRC, had a faceless lackey reciting all the exposition in the screening scene.

 

[KarmaPolice]

The mere inclusion of voiceover does not disqualify a film from greatness.

No it doesn't. Some of my favorite movies have it - Fight Club, American Beauty, Shawshank, etc.. However, I think when it is used too much it comes off as lazy writing/film making. I just thought Goodfellas used it too much and definitely didn't need any from the wife. Got to the level of distraction for me when I was watching it last night.

 

[KarmaPolice]

The mere inclusion of voiceover does not disqualify a film from greatness.

I don't know what the deal is with people on this thread just downright hating on narration. Shawshank had it, as did Magnolia. I believe Kane had some aspects of voice-overs (news reel broadcast). The Assassination of Jesse James had it too. What gives? I agree with not explaining the movie in gory detail but I can't even imagine the movies I mentioned (except Kane as I'm not even sure on that one) without the narration/off screen voice they had.

I am probably the only one 'hating' on it. As somebody pointed out, I think a lot of the movies that employ the technique are based on books and might be trying to convey some thoughts that are hard to get across in a scene. A good use is Shawshank - Red telling us what he thought of Andy at first and what they are betting on. Would be out of place for them to have a conversation about what they are betting on when they know - there's not really any new person to tell the game to. Also it would seem out of character for him to talk about what he thought about Andy if that's basically what they were betting on.

 

[Bojang0301]

The mere inclusion of voiceover does not disqualify a film from greatness.

I don't know what the deal is with people on this thread just downright hating on narration. Shawshank had it, as did Magnolia. I believe Kane had some aspects of voice-overs (news reel broadcast). The Assassination of Jesse James had it too. What gives? I agree with not explaining the movie in gory detail but I can't even imagine the movies I mentioned (except Kane as I'm not even sure on that one) without the narration/off screen voice they had.

I am probably the only one 'hating' on it. As somebody pointed out, I think a lot of the movies that employ the technique are based on books and might be trying to convey some thoughts that are hard to get across in a scene. A good use is Shawshank - Red telling us what he thought of Andy at first and what they are betting on. Would be out of place for them to have a conversation about what they are betting on when they know - there's not really any new person to tell the game to. Also it would seem out of character for him to talk about what he thought about Andy if that's basically what they were betting on.

It's not just you. A lot of people have pretty much stated that they begin to judge a movie when they hear words off screen. To me, for the most part, it's absurd.

 

[KarmaPolice]

The mere inclusion of voiceover does not disqualify a film from greatness.

I don't know what the deal is with people on this thread just downright hating on narration. Shawshank had it, as did Magnolia. I believe Kane had some aspects of voice-overs (news reel broadcast). The Assassination of Jesse James had it too. What gives? I agree with not explaining the movie in gory detail but I can't even imagine the movies I mentioned (except Kane as I'm not even sure on that one) without the narration/off screen voice they had.

I am probably the only one 'hating' on it. As somebody pointed out, I think a lot of the movies that employ the technique are based on books and might be trying to convey some thoughts that are hard to get across in a scene.

A good use is Shawshank - Red telling us what he thought of Andy at first and what they are betting on. Would be out of place for them to have a conversation about what they are betting on when they know - there's not really any new person to tell the game to. Also it would seem out of character for him to talk about what he thought about Andy if that's basically what they were betting on.

It's not just you. A lot of people have pretty much stated that they begin to judge a movie when they hear words off screen. To me, for the most part, it's absurd.

Don't know why it's absurd. The director and screenwriter's medium for their art is on the screen. IMO you should be able to relay what is going on with the story with your dialogue and camera work. So it annoys me if a VO states "I walked into the bar and looked for the killer" because: 1. it's overkill because they just did that onscreen 2. I feel like they are treating the audience (me) like morons who aren't able to get what's going on.

So good VO is used sparingly and for a purpose (Spacey's character telling us he's going to be dead in a year in American Beauty or Red telling us about the first time he saw Andy), and usually just from one person. I can't think of any other movie offhand that had 2 characters doing VO. When you are using the technique throughout the whole movie I feel like my hand is being held and it starts to annoy me.

To me this is the same as us #####ing about bad acting, directing, overuse of F/X, or anything else we fell takes away from a great movie.

 

[gump]

The mere inclusion of voiceover does not disqualify a film from greatness.

I don't know what the deal is with people on this thread just downright hating on narration. Shawshank had it, as did Magnolia. I believe Kane had some aspects of voice-overs (news reel broadcast). The Assassination of Jesse James had it too. What gives? I agree with not explaining the movie in gory detail but I can't even imagine the movies I mentioned (except Kane as I'm not even sure on that one) without the narration/off screen voice they had.

Don't forget about Apocalypse Now.

 

[KarmaPolice]

The mere inclusion of voiceover does not disqualify a film from greatness.

I don't know what the deal is with people on this thread just downright hating on narration. Shawshank had it, as did Magnolia. I believe Kane had some aspects of voice-overs (news reel broadcast). The Assassination of Jesse James had it too. What gives? I agree with not explaining the movie in gory detail but I can't even imagine the movies I mentioned (except Kane as I'm not even sure on that one) without the narration/off screen voice they had.

Don't forget about Apocalypse Now.

The question isn't how many movies use it, it's why they used it and if VO was needed.

 

[hooter311]

Kick ###

Wow, it was actually as good as everyone else says it was. Very compelling story for a comic book movie and much more than I was expecting. Not nearly as much of the self indulgent, ultra violet action scenes as I expected, and what they did have worked well. Awesome soundtrack. Reminded me of a Tarintino-light production and it worked almost flawlessly.

4.5/5

 

[KarmaPolice]

Kick ###

Wow, it was actually as good as everyone else says it was. Very compelling story for a comic book movie and much more than I was expecting. Not nearly as much of the self indulgent, ultra violet action scenes as I expected, and what they did have worked well. Awesome soundtrack. Reminded me of a Tarintino-light production and it worked almost flawlessly.

4.5/5

This has been getting decent reviews. Might have to put aside my annoyance for Mr. Cage and try this movie out soon.

 

[saintfool]

For Scorcese, it's After Hours and then everything else.

what "after hours" does right, few films have ever approached. the ending is completely and totally wonderful.

 

[hooter311]

Kick ###

Wow, it was actually as good as everyone else says it was. Very compelling story for a comic book movie and much more than I was expecting. Not nearly as much of the self indulgent, ultra violet action scenes as I expected, and what they did have worked well. Awesome soundtrack. Reminded me of a Tarintino-light production and it worked almost flawlessly.

4.5/5

This has been getting decent reviews. Might have to put aside my annoyance for Mr. Cage and try this movie out soon.

He had a much smaller role than I assumed. He's only a supporting character, still has all the usual Cagism's though, including his best dork laugh. (you know the one I'm referring to)

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Kick ### was very good.

Green Zone was solid.

Synechdoche, New York was very weird but I dug it.

Not really sure how I feel about Tetro, but I think I liked it.

 

[shake zula]

King Corn, pretty solid. Not as good as food inc. but definitely educational and watchable.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Kick ###

Wow, it was actually as good as everyone else says it was. Very compelling story for a comic book movie and much more than I was expecting. Not nearly as much of the self indulgent, ultra violet action scenes as I expected, and what they did have worked well. Awesome soundtrack. Reminded me of a Tarintino-light production and it worked almost flawlessly.

4.5/5

It made me laugh and the action, well, kicked ###.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Not really sure how I feel about Tetro, but I think I liked it.

This movie is not going to please a lot of viewers. But I'm glad I saw it.