I turned this movie off halfway through because i was bored out of my skull. Then i come here and it's got a high rating. Granted, it's got a good storyline, good acting, nice cinematography, but somehow still managed to bore me to tears. That happens a lot too and those flicks have a high user rating. i know there are tons of wanna be movie buffs out there, and i'm sure they will respond to this, but seriously, why does boring always equal good?
share"why does boring always equal good"
It doesn't. Just read your own post - it's definitely boring and it's not good at all.
Last film watched:
American Gangster by Ridley Scott - 8/10
It was inevitable that this thread would just lead to back-and-forth insulting between two opposing camps. The original poster doesn't list why exactly the film is 'boring', instead he simply dismisses it having only watched half of the film. It's OK if you found what you watched of this film boring - perhaps it wasn't to your taste - but to start a debate having not seen the film in it's entirety just makes you seem ignorant... I happen to love this film by the way (8/10).
How can you trust a man that wears both a belt and suspenders? Man can't even trust his own pants.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
At the time/place in question, things were in fact, quite grim, and a lot of effort in writing, cinematography, music etc was put into conveying this. Much like Unforgiven, this movie forgoes the traditional Western style of a more upbeat and romanticized Wild West for a darker, more realistic one.
I would also agree that, visually, the colors of the movie could be called dull. I'm not an expert in photography, but if I recall, there were not much in the way of bright colors to be found here, clearly a measure aimed at complementing the aforementioned grimness.
"Depressing" would be your emotional reaction to all of this, which is certainly not something I would argue or criticize, as it's your right to react to things as you will. Personally I found the atmosphere/mood to be fascinating.
As to a previous post (from a different poster) about the characters being 2D, I couldn't disagree more. For me this film has some of the most wonderfully deep and complex characters you will ever find, and it's not just one or two folks given a more refined treatment while the rest wallow in obscurity. Pretty much each and every character that I can recall had their own unique personality, goals, fears, etc that were either presented to us directly or logically extrapolated with minimal effort.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Have to agree Brian, there's a whole half hour of boring as he goes across the expanse of the desert that could be edited out (I suspect this would improve the picture 5-fold). About as entertaining as Rabbit Proof Fence - not at all.
shareI'm bumping a fairly old thread, but I agree that the pacing is really slow. I skipped ~30 min of the entire running time of the movie (part of the middle and the ending) since it just got too slow for me. The ending is better than I expected, and I think I missed some important dialogue points. But there are way too many slow moments when the Captain is talking w/ his wife, or some dude is riding across the desert. I think the desert scenes could've been enhanced if they had more money for the filming (or just cut shorter).
I don't watch too many movies, and I don't even know if I have a favorite movie. When I'm watching movies, I tend to go for action, since I could be reading something serious if I were in the mood for slow and thoughtful.
The best thing I've ever watched is The Wire (on hindsight, it's possible I only stuck past the pilot since my friends raved on and on how great it was--which you only realize once you get settled in).
You say you probably missed some dialogue fast-forwarding? Oh, nigg@ phleeze!
The film's running time is only 104 minutes! I have to say that shows a certain lack of attention and patience.
Why fast-forward the first time you watch a film? Didn't you consider sticking with it, maybe thinking the director was trying to create a thoughtful mood in the viewer for that part of the film? It was only a few minutes!
I don't mind people saying a film is overlong (I often do), but you at least have to watch it first! I honestly think you'd benefit from watching certain films when in a more 'thoughtful' mood, it's really the only time a film can create a lasting impression!
I understand the impatient, 'getting on with it' frame of mind. When I was younger, I thought it was natural too, but in fact it was a very male, restless instinct which didn't want to be switched off. In that frame of mind I would generally take things at face value (not good on forums), and, being 'focussed', I would miss observing and understanding a hell of lot of what was actually going on.
Try 'Beneath Clouds' in a 'thoughtful' frame of mind!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295876/
Gosford Park was an American film by Robert Altman.
I take it you really want an answer, rather then just being provocative:
well, it goes like this –
In order to appreciate something, you have to take the time to understand wtf is going on and what direction a piece of art is going regardless of its pace or subject. Sometime that “movie buff” stuff only works AFTER you’ve seen something, when you realize that keep thinking about it, because it takes time to settle.
and you have to use YOUR brain to work it out. that takes time.
That opposes the quick-buck notion that something has to grab take you by the hand like a child. Sometime you have to make an effort to understand a piece of work, and mostly it pays off when you realize you understood it on a deeper level, that you actually GAINED something by watching it.
I mean “Indiana jones II” or “Die hard: whatever” do give a thrill, but they are *beep* movies nonetheless because ultimately they haven’t contributed to your mind or thinking, rather, they have turned you into an impatient prick.
It's forum threads like these that sum up just about everything that is wrong with our society. This movie is one of my favorite westerns.
shareI'm almost certain that noone is going to read this and care, but wtf.
The reason i would guess some people (like the OP) find this boring is because it doesn't lead you by the nose into each scene as the movie progresses. Yes, you can get a feel for what is likely to happen by the end of the flick, but the way the story unfolds is unpredictable and takes its time. I personally didn't think this film was too long, too slow or contained any unnecessary elements.
The relationship between Captain Stanley and Martha was my favourite aspect of the film. His character and his wife are the characters that you don't find in every other film of this sort, and that't why this film has a high rating - because it is not like every other film of it's type. It offers something new. And that is not boring.
Any film that can present something to me that is original or told in an original manner will get my respect, whether there was quality in its creation or not. Any film which is original and well-made (which i certainly think everyone on this thread has agreed with so far in terms of acting, cinematograpy etc) will get my respect and a high rating.
Honestly, I also hated this movie. I really wanted to like it as I'm a big fan of westerns, but I thought the plot was completely absurd, the dialogue was absolutely dreadful and helped create 2-D characters that you would only find a movie, as well as bad acting. Emily Watson particularly sucked in it, but considering the material she didn't have much of a chance.I know the film is praised for whatever reason, but I found it abysmal in pretty much all aspects except the cinematography.
shareI honestly bought it without knowing anything about it. I enjoyed it very much. 9/10
share[deleted]
Viewing your taste in film I think your choice for favorite movie sums you up, Idiocracy.
shareSPEERPIKE 2002 . . . I am in total agreement with you. Although, my favorite part (personally) was with Charlie Murphy and the bounty hunter in the bar or shack.
"We are white men . . . not beasts!"
I loved the Irish racism from John Hurt " For what is an Irishman, but a n*#!!! turned inside out." That line and some of the deathscenes are going to stick with me forever, I really liked this one. It was deep and sad.
On a side note, I like Charlie's reaction towards Arthur when he tells Art Mikey died. Arthur just looks at him and goes back to Samuels singing. In a way Arthur cost Charlie his little brother so Charlie takes Arthur's "little brother"It also kind of implies that Charlie was building towards killing Art, which would give another good reason to get away from him.
REWIND: Stanley attack-He shoots Arthur,
Lamb attack-He aims at Arthur,
Hopkins attack- He must have wacthed/thought of stopping Arthur
*beep* awesome movie. i dont understand how anyone couldnt like this. amongst the most beautiful imagery in any film ever, great dialogue, great acting, and i loved how all the characters interacted. this movie was a *beep* masterpiece and if you dont appreciate it you probably should go see wolverine instead cuz thats probly what your looking for. you bitch
share[deleted]