quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
I have two 2007 movies that I believe are over-rated:

No Country for Old Men. The fascination of the apparently amoral, emotionaless bad guy has people overlooking that technical problems of this movie.

I am Legend. The dazzling New York overgrowth as people looking on in awe instead of the storyline that is strewn with wild cliches like weeds.

Technical problems? I have no idea what this means.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:

quote:

rgautam
Participant
Posted 29 December 2007 06:40 PM

also i saw your earlier post y did u think 'no country for old men' was overrated?

I assume I'm one of the few people who feel that No Country for Old Men was over-rated. I have a long list of cinematic problems with this movie that I won't go into unless one really wants to discuss this movie in-depth over a long period of time, more appropriately on a thread devoted exclusively to this movie. But just one example and that was the very first part of the movie with the scene of the character Anton being arrested and being held by a local small town law enforcement officer - so predictable, like a low-budget movie - as what happens from there it was mostly downhill from there as similar cinematic plot flaws continued all the way through the movie.

I'm sorry, but what was the predictable part? Was it that he escaped? Wouldn't of been much of a movie if he hadn't.

quote:

fanatic Apprentice Guru
Posted 09 February 2008 08:32 AM

quote:
Originally posted by tabuno:

quote:
rgautam
Participant
Posted 29 December 2007 06:40 PM

also i saw your earlier post y did u think 'no country for old men' was overrated?


I assume I'm one of the few people who feel that No Country for Old Men was over-rated. I have a long list of cinematic problems with this movie that I won't go into unless one really wants to discuss this movie in-depth over a long period of time, more appropriately on a thread devoted exclusively to this movie. But just one example and that was the very first part of the movie with the scene of the character Anton being arrested and being held by a local small town law enforcement officer - so predictable, like a low-budget movie - as what happens from there it was mostly downhill from there as similar cinematic plot flaws continued all the way through the movie.

I'm sorry, but what was the predictable part? Was it that he escaped? Wouldn't of been much of a movie if he hadn't.

The opening scene of this supposedly classic movie uses a scene that is so riddled with clique of an escape. Yes if one uses this scene than sure Javier needs to escape, but why use it then? Let's have something more interesting and original? So what if it's in the source material which I haven't read. Leave it out and adapt the beginning scene that is more suited to a movie-going audience that surprises us not bores us with predictable escape. The every first scene puts Javier's character on a "dumb" footing which in my mind Javier's character appears to be. He really doesn't seem to be all that intelligent and that somewhat his ability is mostly one of faith, random chance, and luck. I wasn't impressed by this character at all. I was bored by his performance. I wasn't convinced. I wasn't scared. I wasn't challenged by him. There was little in the way of showing why he should be such a dangerous adversary. His only strength was what the scriptwriter allowed him to come out on top, necessarily because otherwise there wouldn't have been a movie as you implied. There wasn't any evidence in the movie itself that he could have actually been able to continue to carry out what he did without something going terribly wrong.

quote:

musicfanatic Apprentice Guru
Posted 09 February 2008 08:28 AM

quote:
Originally posted by tabuno:
I have two 2007 movies that I believe are over-rated:

No Country for Old Men. The fascination of the apparently amoral, emotionaless bad guy has people overlooking that technical problems of this movie.

I am Legend. The dazzling New York overgrowth as people looking on in awe instead of the storyline that is strewn with wild cliches like weeds.

Technical problems? I have no idea what this means.

One technical issue I have with this movie is the scene with all the bodies lying around where there had been a shoot out. I noticed that the dead bodies were laid out as if by some design, not realistic, choatic shoot-out. Most of the bodies lay in similar positions, curled up, their wounds in similar parts of their bodies. There were no bodies I could see that we blown away backwards. Somehow the technical authenticity of this scene seemed have been overlooked. This was no shootout. This was a scene where somebody came in and placed the bodies in some ordered fashion without consideration of how the shoot-out actually occurred.

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PaddyG:
I wouldn't consider it overrated because really, did anyone really expect it to be a hard-hitting, thought-provoking sci-fi thriller?

A similar question can be asked of "300". Who was expecting a movie advertised with the promise of violence to be more than it was? The only real disappointment for me was that the big, fat monster with sword-hands was only seen as much as he was in the trailer! I thought he was gonna fight.

Are you batshit crazy? That monster almost ruined the movie for me. It wasn't intimidating whatsoever. I know i know, 300 wasn'tsupposed to be realistic, but there is a certain point where you just need to realize it's ridiculous

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
One technical issue I have with this movie is the scene with all the bodies lying around where there had been a shoot out. I noticed that the dead bodies were laid out as if by some design, not realistic, choatic shoot-out. Most of the bodies lay in similar positions, curled up, their wounds in similar parts of their bodies. There were no bodies I could see that we blown away backwards. Somehow the technical authenticity of this scene seemed have been overlooked. This was no shootout. This was a scene where somebody came in and placed the bodies in some ordered fashion without consideration of how the shoot-out actually occurred.

Wow, you're really noticing the dust on the table. Not many movies stand up to that level of scrutiny, and I'm not even sure you're right (ever heard of rigor mortis?). The vast majority of people are not concerned with those kinds of details when they watch a movie. I've never seen the point of playing "Gotcha!" that way.

I think it was a very good movie, certainly worthy of some oscar nominations.

quote:

Originally posted by Commontone:

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
One technical issue I have with this movie is the scene with all the bodies lying around where there had been a shoot out. I noticed that the dead bodies were laid out as if by some design, not realistic, choatic shoot-out. Most of the bodies lay in similar positions, curled up, their wounds in similar parts of their bodies. There were no bodies I could see that we blown away backwards. Somehow the technical authenticity of this scene seemed have been overlooked. This was no shootout. This was a scene where somebody came in and placed the bodies in some ordered fashion without consideration of how the shoot-out actually occurred.

Wow, you're really noticing the dust on the table. Not many movies stand up to that level of scrutiny, and I'm not even sure you're right (ever heard of rigor mortis?). The vast majority of people are not concerned with those kinds of details when they watch a movie. I've never seen the point of playing "Gotcha!" that way.

I think it was a very good movie, certainly worthy of some oscar nominations.

Tabuno, thanks for explaining what you meant. But I agree with Commontone. Are you this detailed with every movie you see? Are you saying you didn't find technical problems with I Know Who Killed Me, a movie you seemed to enjoy quite a bit?

quote:

Commontone Apprentice Guru
Posted 10 February 2008 11:54 AM

quote:
Originally posted by tabuno:
One technical issue I have with this movie is the scene with all the bodies lying around where there had been a shoot out. I noticed that the dead bodies were laid out as if by some design, not realistic, choatic shoot-out. Most of the bodies lay in similar positions, curled up, their wounds in similar parts of their bodies. There were no bodies I could see that we blown away backwards. Somehow the technical authenticity of this scene seemed have been overlooked. This was no shootout. This was a scene where somebody came in and placed the bodies in some ordered fashion without consideration of how the shoot-out actually occurred.


Wow, you're really noticing the dust on the table. Not many movies stand up to that level of scrutiny, and I'm not even sure you're right (ever heard of rigor mortis?). The vast majority of people are not concerned with those kinds of details when they watch a movie. I've never seen the point of playing "Gotcha!" that way.

I went into this movie not wanting to like and I paid careful attention to everything I could that made me not like this movie. Now before you comment on how bias and prejudice this position is, please note that I went to see There Will Be Blood, with the very same attitude looking for everything I could not to like that movie and well, I did find some minor problems with it, but that's it. The movie was so good, th storyline, the acting performances outshone the problems that I went in looking for that I found. But with No Country for Old Men, the problems, technical and otherwise just kept piling up and up and up and nothing in the movie made the problems fade away like There Will Be Blood.

Another technical problem I had with the opening sequences and one that was close to the shoot out scene was Josh Brolin's one instance in the entire movie of talking himself (while in fact it appears that he was directed by the script to provide the audience with an unnecessary narrative of what his is doing in the search for the money box). It's been argued that people talk to himself. Yes people do, but in this case, in this movie, it's never established that Josh Brolin's character is that sort that talks to himself and under what conditions. If this character was a person who talked to himself alot, then great, let's as see a character who does. If he doesn't then well, what is his character doing supposedly talking to himself when it's more obviously a lazy approach to letting the audience understand what he's thinking, this is a weak cinematic ploy that only serves to continue to diminish the strength of this movie. A quality film should not have to depend on clique openings, people unnecessarily talking to themselves, and people being blow away that really aren't really blow away, just staged...this is supposed to be an intelligent, carefully crafted film - one of mystery, clues, and belief? For me, the film failed pretty miserably for me as more and more problems piled up throughout this movie.

I had my share of problems with No Country For Old Men, but the stuff you're picking on seems like such minor stuff. I mean, "a guy who was shot wouldn't fall like that" or "it's never been established that this is the sort of guy who talks to himself"? Not exactly gaping plot holes.

quote:

EricG75 "Forum Moderator" Jedi
Posted 10 February 2008 05:54 PM

I had my share of problems with No Country For Old Men, but the stuff you're picking on seems like such minor stuff. I mean, "a guy who was shot wouldn't fall like that" or "it's never been established that this is the sort of guy who talks to himself"? Not exactly gaping plot holes.

-----
We want our film to be beautiful, not realistic.

www.last.fm/user/ericg75/

I believe there is some tipping point whereby the number and size of problems in a movie outweigh the overall production value of the movie and once that point is passed, it's like there's no getting it back. A great movie can be overlooked for some minor flaws I agree. But in No Country for Old Men, I could only turn away so many times before the movie began to collapse on itself like a deck of cards. The movie itself didn't seem to really have much of a point in terms of character development, the almost separate story threads seem to be woven loosely together but did not build on the movie so much as drift apart. The mystery element seemed to be pretty straight forward and singular (though there were admittedly some great Hitchcockian sequences). But while this movie while had the feel of intelligence, didn't actually contain intelligence (like the Emperor who wears no clothes but everyone is afraid to say so). Woody Harrelson's character is probably one of the most suspect characters in the movie, supposedly a suitable foil to both Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem, but his promises, his words are hollow and empty like Javier Bardem's character and Tommy Lee Jones' fade into retirement.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
I went into this movie not wanting to like and I paid careful attention to everything I could that made me not like this movie.

I don't understand and maybe it's just me but why would you go into a film with this attitude anyways? It's just doesn't make sense. You pretty much disvalue whatever credibility you had (well, The Nanny Diaries already did that) when you state that you purposely went to see one of the best films of the year with intentions not to like it.

quote:

FragileKidA "Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted 10 February 2008 10:41 PM

quote:
Originally posted by tabuno:
I went into this movie not wanting to like and I paid careful attention to everything I could that made me not like this movie.
I don't understand and maybe it's just me but why would you go into a film with this attitude anyways? It's just doesn't make sense. You pretty much disvalue whatever credibility you had (well, The Nanny Diaries already did that) when you state that you purposely went to see one of the best films of the year with intentions not to like it.

It was the trailer, I believe, for No Country for Old Men that turned me off the movie immediately as soon as I saw it. There was something about Javier Bardem's character that repulsed me. I wouldn't have gone to see this movie until the numerous critical reviews started pouring in and a knew that if I was to be fair about discussing a movie I had better have seen it. As I mentioned before I am able to work past my prejudices at times such as with There Will Be Blood with which I had similar reservations from seeing its trailer. But as much as I tried to dislike There Will Be Blood, I ended up with immense admiration for the movie, for its characters, its storyline, and performances were excellent. It's my belief that it's important to be able to respect one's own feelings about a movie, to be able to describe why a movie works and doesn't work. It's rather interesting though that in most cases I provide reasons for not liking a movie and then supply further evidence that piles up on a movie and yet very few people respond to the evidence so much as have to resort to phrases as "credibility" and when I again earlier was able to say that with There Will Be Blood I was able to retain a credible sense of value regarding that movie. Perhaps its not so much the problem of the credibility of the reviewer of the movie than as much as perhaps it's the credibility of a movie that so many people appear to be hypnotized into loving by something they themselves don't understand and are overlooking. Nobody so far has made a strong push in moving my pile of "shit" as some may view it or what I consider my pile of technical and cinematic observations that betray the flaws in this movie.

The Nanny Dairies, on the otherhand, is so easy to dismiss on some many levels I gather because its just one of those brainless family comedies. However, I didn't go to see this movie with any intention other to enjoy it, not to discover that this little gem of a movie conveys a much more subtle, stronger presence and relevance to today's contemporary social issues under the guise of a comedy, but really is a family drama that most people may have overlooked. The movie is played straight, its humor isn't dumb humor is only supportive of the drama that unfolds. There are relational elements in this movie that resonant more loudly than No Country for Old Men. From an intuitive, emotional connection standpoint, The Nanny Diaires actually has an intelligent story to tell and is an important theatrical piece of work that has something meaningful to say about families. Unless, movie critics have forgotten that movies are also a reflection of the human drama and sometimes are valued for what they offer to the human condition than simply mirror the human condition.