The Shoutbox - Movie Forums

According to my imdb ratings, I have seen 6,741 films.

[quote=Allaby]According to my imdb ratings, I have seen 6,741 films.[/quote]

ynwtf 04-09-24

a fish.

[quote=ynwtf]a fish.[/quote]

ynwtf 04-09-24

i could be a fish. i mean, if i really want to.

perhaps i am already a fish. a fish in a glass bowl with extraordinary technology at my disposal. my human could be an engineer, constructing ways of eye motion tracking. i could be like your scientist, now passed, identifying letters with my eyes and body twitching to slowly tap out messages from an ordered string of word options.

[quote=ynwtf]i could be a fish. i mean, if i really want to.

perhaps i am already a fish. a fish in a glass bowl with extraordinary technology at my disposal. my human could be an engineer, constructing ways of eye motion tracking. i could be like your scientist, now passed, identifying letters with my eyes and body twitching to slowly tap out messages from an ordered string of word options.[/quote]

Act III 04-09-24

I have no liquor but if I lose enough sleep I can achieve the same effect.

[quote=Act III]I have no liquor but if I lose enough sleep I can achieve the same effect.[/quote]

John McClane 04-09-24

Minio took his chill pill today with a fifth of vodka.

[quote=John McClane]Minio took his chill pill today with a fifth of vodka.[/quote]

Act III 04-09-24

I think maybe at most I've seen about 1500-2000 different films over my lifetime. Didn't start counting till a couple years ago. Never mattered much to me. But my opinions are to be taken lightly at best and I don't much like discussing film on a professional level, because it isn't my profession. The only reason I gave any thoughts on them was to display what it looks like when I try and review something, and to right some wrong opinions about me. No need to really do it anymore.

[quote=Act III]I think maybe at most I've seen about 1500-2000 different films over my lifetime.  Didn't start counting till a couple years ago.  Never mattered much to me.  But my opinions are to be taken lightly at best and I don't much like discussing film on a professional level, because it isn't my profession.  The only reason I gave any thoughts on them was to display what it looks like when I try and review something, and to right some wrong opinions about me.  No need to really do it anymore.[/quote]

Allaby 04-09-24

I've seen more than 5000 films so that means all my opinions are right!

[quote=Allaby]I've seen more than 5000 films so that means all my opinions are right![/quote]

Mr Minio 04-09-24

Unpopular opinion: Anybody who's seen less than 5000 films (and in a less stringent version 2000 films) has very limited capabilities of film quality assessment because they've probably been exposed to way too many masterpieces due to the 'early cinephile selection bias'. This leads to underrating great films because you can only compare stuff to what you know. And what you know is (or at the very least should be!) some of the best cinema there is.

[quote=Mr Minio]Unpopular opinion: Anybody who's seen less than 5000 films (and in a less stringent version 2000 films) has very limited capabilities of film quality assessment because they've probably been exposed to way too many masterpieces due to the 'early cinephile selection bias'. This leads to underrating great films because you can only compare stuff to what you know. And what you know is (or at the very least should be!) some of the best cinema there is.[/quote]

FilmBuff 04-09-24

Originally Posted by Allaby

I've seen all three of Alex Garland's previous films and liked them all, so I am hopeful this one will be good too.

This one might be the best of them all!

[quote=FilmBuff][quote=Allaby]I've seen all three of Alex Garland's previous films and liked them all, so I am hopeful this one will be good too.[/quote]

This one might be the best of them all![/quote]

Allaby 04-09-24

Interesting. I actually thought Men was strangely beautiful in a striking and bizarre way.

[quote=Allaby]Interesting.  I actually thought Men was strangely beautiful in a striking and bizarre way.[/quote]

Mr Minio 04-09-24

Here's what I wrote after watching Men:

Oh man. compared to Alex Garland, Jordan Peele is an auteur. I disliked Garland's two previous efforts. Ex Machina was a half-assed attempt at meaningful sci-fi, while Annihilation was Tarkovsky's Stalker for popcorn eaters. But those two films were somewhat watchable, acceptable, passable. Now, Men is something else. It's one of the most in-your-face predictable and obvious films I've seen. Also, it's just so ugly. It's been a while since I've seen a film as ugly as this one. There's not one aesthetic shot in the entire film, and those shots that aim to look good are just so off. I don't know what Garland's deal is, but his films just look so flat and uninteresting. Also, the only worthwhile little thing about the movie is the on-the-nose symbology of Gaia and whatnot. But these attempts at making Men partly a Folk Horror fail.

[quote=Mr Minio]Here's what I wrote after watching [i]Men[/i]:

[quote]Oh man. compared to Alex Garland, Jordan Peele is an auteur. I disliked Garland's two previous efforts. Ex Machina was a half-assed attempt at meaningful sci-fi, while Annihilation was Tarkovsky's Stalker for popcorn eaters. But those two films were somewhat watchable, acceptable, passable. Now, Men is something else. It's one of the most in-your-face predictable and obvious films I've seen. Also, it's just so ugly. It's been a while since I've seen a film as ugly as this one. There's not one aesthetic shot in the entire film, and those shots that aim to look good are just so off. I don't know what Garland's deal is, but his films just look so flat and uninteresting. Also, the only worthwhile little thing about the movie is the on-the-nose symbology of Gaia and whatnot. But these attempts at making Men partly a Folk Horror fail.[/quote][/quote]

Shoutistics

Leaderboard