You didn't like "Kick ***"? Damnit, Kicky. I thought I liked you. Now I'll have to find someone else whose opinion I can trust. Maybe I'll put out the signal: It will be shaped like a giant ****.
Top movies of 2010
- Thread starter sirkickyass
- Start date
You didn't like "Kick ***"? Damnit, Kicky. I thought I liked you. Now I'll have to find someone else whose opinion I can trust. Maybe I'll put out the signal: It will be shaped like a giant ****.
DutchJazzer
Banned
PIRANHA 3d
Or...
It could be that Inception was poorly put together, had a weak *** Matrix-wannabe story line, piss poor acting, and was overly long. If I hadn't been with my wife, I would've gotten up and left the theater about half way through. (if I would've asked her, she would've gone too, dammit) But you're probably right, I just have to be EMO about the whole thing.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
The ten movies that I at least kind of liked this year:
1. Kick-***
2. Winter's Bone
3. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
4. Black Swan
5. Greenberg
6. The Social Network
7. Exit Through the Gift Shop
8. Hot Tub Time Machine
9. The Town
10. Wild Target
Honorable mentions: the other movies I almost liked:
11. Somewhere
12. "The Girl Who" series
The worst, maddeningly terrible, no-good movies of the year:
1. The Killer Inside Me
2. Twelve
3. Dinner for Schmucks
4. 8: The Mormon Proposition
5. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 1
The most overrated movies of the year:
1. "The Girl Who" series
2. The Town
3. Easy A
4. Inception
The movies I think I ought to see but haven't yet:
Tron: Legacy, True Grit, The Crazies, Let Me In, Love and Other Drugs, Micmacs, Get Low, A Prophet, Fish Tank, Waiting for Superman, Never Let Me Go, Blue Valentine, Countdown to Zero, The King's Speech, Red Hill, The Illusionist, Enter the Void, The Fighter, Meek's Cutoff
Disclaimer:
Opinions, we all have them...
1. Kick-***
2. Winter's Bone
3. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
4. Black Swan
5. Greenberg
6. The Social Network
7. Exit Through the Gift Shop
8. Hot Tub Time Machine
9. The Town
10. Wild Target
Honorable mentions: the other movies I almost liked:
11. Somewhere
12. "The Girl Who" series
The worst, maddeningly terrible, no-good movies of the year:
1. The Killer Inside Me
2. Twelve
3. Dinner for Schmucks
4. 8: The Mormon Proposition
5. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 1
The most overrated movies of the year:
1. "The Girl Who" series
2. The Town
3. Easy A
4. Inception
The movies I think I ought to see but haven't yet:
Tron: Legacy, True Grit, The Crazies, Let Me In, Love and Other Drugs, Micmacs, Get Low, A Prophet, Fish Tank, Waiting for Superman, Never Let Me Go, Blue Valentine, Countdown to Zero, The King's Speech, Red Hill, The Illusionist, Enter the Void, The Fighter, Meek's Cutoff
Disclaimer:
Opinions, we all have them...
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Stickler, not sure when The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo came out but I thought it was fantastic.
Opinions are what they are, weighted of course by depth and breadth of experience and level of thought brought to the project.
As to Inception, I'm pretty sure I wrote some exhaustively detailed posts about what I felt were its flaws in a thread at the time it came out. This is not an instance where I'm "hating" because it somehow makes me cooler. This is an instance where a movie is presently rated #6 of all time on the popular engine that is the IMDB 250 and was widely hailed as one of the best films several people on this board had ever seen while I didn't think it was one of the nine best movies of the year. By definition, that would make it my "most overrated" film of the year. Remember that overrated is simply a relative term rather than an absolute one.
A couple factors that cut against my enjoying Kick ***:
1) I frequent the actual Atomic Comics featured in the film whenever I'm in Phoenix and I had relentless advertising exposure for the film as a result.
2) Hated McLovin
3) Thought it tried way too hard to be "shocking" and relied on that as its primary vehicle for entertainment. Watching an 11 year old call a bunch of guys "*****" doesn't generate an automatic laugh from me and the transparent pandering to 15-year-olds of it cuts against my enjoyment of the film.
I am almost positive I didn't respond as well to this movie as everyone else simply because I was, at the time, completely in the thrall of "Breaking Bad" which also uses meth amphetamine as a plot device. Although I recognized the film was good, I kept wanting Walter White to blow up Tuco's lair with a bag of fulminated mercury and escape in his Pontiac Aztec.
Obviously, this is the most unfair criticism imaginable but the movie took me as I came.
Boondocksaint27
Active Member
I thought Inception was well done (in fact much more so then the Matrix series as a whole), I didn't notice any let-down in the acting, and I felt the time frame was appropriate. I was with my wife and she felt the same. Then again, we also enjoyed the Crazies (I know, right?), just not enough for me to put it on a list of ten. So take from that what you will.
DutchJazzer
Banned
what makes inception immersing is that they used real life stunts.
too much cgi cuts into my enjoyment of the movie.
now I know scertain things can only be achieved by cgi. and yes there is cgi/some cgi in inception(green screen, and some explosion).
but i can always tell the difference between cgi and real life stuns. and it cuts into my enjoyment cus the cgi gives me the this is fake feeling. for examples the rotating hallway with shifting gravity. is achieved with a real rotating hall of the hotel. it was so immersing and awesome,unlike the fake effects in "pocohontas in space" movie. if they think avatar is so awesome because of the cgi and great visuals why sint inception great for the real immersing stunts.
well thats my rent sure the story isnt 100% orriginal. but it is not a complete rippof of matrix. and matrix wasnt an original movie anyways was a rippof of some other movies.
too much cgi cuts into my enjoyment of the movie.
now I know scertain things can only be achieved by cgi. and yes there is cgi/some cgi in inception(green screen, and some explosion).
but i can always tell the difference between cgi and real life stuns. and it cuts into my enjoyment cus the cgi gives me the this is fake feeling. for examples the rotating hallway with shifting gravity. is achieved with a real rotating hall of the hotel. it was so immersing and awesome,unlike the fake effects in "pocohontas in space" movie. if they think avatar is so awesome because of the cgi and great visuals why sint inception great for the real immersing stunts.
well thats my rent sure the story isnt 100% orriginal. but it is not a complete rippof of matrix. and matrix wasnt an original movie anyways was a rippof of some other movies.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
bro, i'll be your sponsor.
1) Inception
2) The Fighter
3) Social Network
4) Cyrus
5) The Kids Are All Right
6) The Kings Speech
No other movies really should be in a top 10...I still need to see True Grit
Weak, Weak, VERY Weak year for comedies I think The Other Guys might have been the only movie I actually laughed at.
2) The Fighter
3) Social Network
4) Cyrus
5) The Kids Are All Right
6) The Kings Speech
No other movies really should be in a top 10...I still need to see True Grit
Weak, Weak, VERY Weak year for comedies I think The Other Guys might have been the only movie I actually laughed at.
I <3 Bill W.
unluckyseventeen
Well-Known Member
I don't know what else to say other than I completely disagree with every complaint you just listed. It's one thing if you just don't get it, which I've heard similar complaints from people about movies that are complex, complaining about them and saying they suck but not being able to describe what actually happened (not that I'm implying you're in this group, just an observation), but an idea as unique as Inception comes along once in a blue moon, the movie was entertaining, made you think and had a great cast + great direction.
I don't see how the Matrix's story line and Inception's are similar at all. That comparison makes no sense.
The only real complaint I can register about Inception is that it has too big and intricate of an idea to try to fit into a movie that everyone is going to understand and appreciate. I'd be lying if I said I walked out of the movie theater 100% clear about every detail within the movie. Still, it was entertaining and had some serious thought put into it, which I always appreciate. It was better than any other movie I've seen this year, outside of The Social Network, but I didn't see a ton.
Sirkickyass said:
So, what you're saying is that you can't make a top whatever list without including the opinions of other people? Was it a good movie or not? Shouldn't that be the basis of your opinion, rather than what everyone else thinks?
Nevermind the fact that people obsessively put that movie under the microscope rather than appreciate it for what it is. If you put any movie under the microscope just because people say it's so good, you're automatically going in with a negative attitude and thus will likely enjoy it less.
I don't think it's one of the greatest movies ever, but in a year like this, it's a stand-out in terms of original storywriting and storytelling, which, the last time I checked, are the reasons movies exist. A lot of people seem to think the point of watching a movie is to point out what's wrong with it.
DutchJazzer
Banned
DutchJazzer
Banned
thats what make a movie greta in my eyes if it is good for repeat viewing picking up on little things the second and 3rd time around. when i saw it the third time i released that maybe cobs totem isnt the spinning top(it was mal's right) so maybe his children faces is his totem. (just another theory ) but everytime you watch that movie you come up woith something else. thats also what makes it great but i guess haters are gonna hate. and neg rep my *** off again
Stickler
Well-Known Member
Inception had an intriguing concept (but not an especially original one), beautiful special effects, a nice cast, and great-looking clothes. After it was over, I turned to my friend and said, "Wow. I wish they had hired a writer. That could have been great."
It was terribly paced. As beautiful as the special effects were, it was primarily a talking heads movie. There were about twenty minutes of spectacular visuals and about 60 of people explaining the plot to each other while using extremely stiff, lifeless, uninvested dialogue. There was barely a conflict. There were barely characters; these people had no personalities. They were barely distinct from each other. They had no inner lives. The whole business about his wife was hack Hollywood "moral conflict" formula ********. If it had been removed entirely from the movie, there is not a single audience member who would have felt differently about the movie when it was over. Nobody walked out of that movie going, "Man, I'm glad they gave him that dead wife to pontificate about for a third of the movie. It gave the film a strong emotional core." It was just painfully boring. I'd bet ten thousand dollars that Leonardo's dead wife was inserted after a note from a studio executive looking for a way to make the story more "human."
Inception had some neat things. I really liked the Joseph Gordon Levitt in the hotel sequence. I liked the city folding over itself.
But it's not some intellectual masterpiece. It's a pretty dumb movie. For instance, dreams don't work that way. The reason time is slowed down in dreams is because your brain fires hundreds of images at you in a short period of time. Your mind then tries to sort out and make a narrative out of the images, which causes the impression of a slowing effect. The notion that anything that happened in Inception is even slightly plausible (even suspending disbelief for the sci fi gadgetry involved) is silly. Dreams just don't work that way.
It's a fun movie to watch once, I think, but it's not exactly Kubrick.
Just my opinion.
One of the things a real writer would have done, by the way, is they would have figured out a way to explain all those things that everybody stood around explaining to each other in the context of an unfolding story, as action, instead of as people standing around talking to each other, and most likely they would have caused that action to show off the character and conflict going on in the inner lives of the people in the story. (Action = something occurring.)
It was terribly paced. As beautiful as the special effects were, it was primarily a talking heads movie. There were about twenty minutes of spectacular visuals and about 60 of people explaining the plot to each other while using extremely stiff, lifeless, uninvested dialogue. There was barely a conflict. There were barely characters; these people had no personalities. They were barely distinct from each other. They had no inner lives. The whole business about his wife was hack Hollywood "moral conflict" formula ********. If it had been removed entirely from the movie, there is not a single audience member who would have felt differently about the movie when it was over. Nobody walked out of that movie going, "Man, I'm glad they gave him that dead wife to pontificate about for a third of the movie. It gave the film a strong emotional core." It was just painfully boring. I'd bet ten thousand dollars that Leonardo's dead wife was inserted after a note from a studio executive looking for a way to make the story more "human."
Inception had some neat things. I really liked the Joseph Gordon Levitt in the hotel sequence. I liked the city folding over itself.
But it's not some intellectual masterpiece. It's a pretty dumb movie. For instance, dreams don't work that way. The reason time is slowed down in dreams is because your brain fires hundreds of images at you in a short period of time. Your mind then tries to sort out and make a narrative out of the images, which causes the impression of a slowing effect. The notion that anything that happened in Inception is even slightly plausible (even suspending disbelief for the sci fi gadgetry involved) is silly. Dreams just don't work that way.
It's a fun movie to watch once, I think, but it's not exactly Kubrick.
Just my opinion.
One of the things a real writer would have done, by the way, is they would have figured out a way to explain all those things that everybody stood around explaining to each other in the context of an unfolding story, as action, instead of as people standing around talking to each other, and most likely they would have caused that action to show off the character and conflict going on in the inner lives of the people in the story. (Action = something occurring.)
Cry harder, woog. I didn't mean to poke your feel-bads about your favorite movie.
candrew
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure that was the director's intention.
Agree by the way - very good movie.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
I saw two movies today. Tron: Legacy was special effects porn. Soulless, black glass crap. Fortunately, it's never boring to watch Olivia Wilde. They really overreached with those CGI Jeff Bridgeses. Looked like they belonged in a Shrek movie. So fake-looking. Spectacular soundtrack.
True Grit was almost perfect. Could have done without the older Mattie Ross narration and ending. Actively disliked that. But it wasn't enough to ruin the movie. Insert it at #3 on my top ten list.
True Grit was almost perfect. Could have done without the older Mattie Ross narration and ending. Actively disliked that. But it wasn't enough to ruin the movie. Insert it at #3 on my top ten list.