Movie Recommendations

[Antonis]

Cheers!  Yes, I enjoyed it.  Don't know how available it is nowadays.

[/quote]

One of the perks of keeping you old video-tape device.
My father had a vast collection of tapes, so I kept most of it(I discarded some old soviet advertising crap, which were there only for collecting reasons). Generally, at least here in Greece, if a film was played in TV, you expected to find it some time later on video-tape.

It seems someone has not seen Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter (2001).  Thank me later.

Kung-Fu Action / Comedy / Horror / Musical about the second coming.

 

[QuailLover]

Not exactly a movie, but since World of Darkness was mentioned:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115232/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Ignores some of the WoD rules and stuff, but a good decent show.

PS: the pilot is ****.

 

[PoisonCourtesan]

Not exactly a movie, but since World of Darkness was mentioned:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115232/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Why watch something that's never going to be finished? It's pointless if the plot is never to advance.

 

[QuailLover]

Oh, it has it's moments.

I still want the Clan Saga series made into a show.

 

[PoisonCourtesan]

Gonna be watching Threesome and Byzantium next.
I hope at least one of them won't bore me to death.

You know something's okay when you lead a far more interesting life than in most movies

 

[Weaver]

Just watched The Man from Earth. Found it highly entertaining.

 

[havoc]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - The Place Beyond the Pines.

 

[Wulfburk]

Just watched Interstellar, OMFG go watch it nooooooooooooooooooow

 

[VictorSwamp]

Is it basically a Michael Bay's movie with some look-how-intelectual ideas and dialogues to make sure people know it ain't a cinny for everybody?

 

[Antonis]

I agree. Such a let-down.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Never been a fan of the SFX-based space disaster movie. The last good one was Apollo 13 and that was only because of Tom Hanks. Gravity was also ridiculously overrated, and I didn't expect Interstellar to be any different fundamentally. I was slightly wrong, because instead of just sticking with the SFX they also tossed in a half-assed pseudo-intellectual plot that's a bad rip-off of 2010: Odyssey Two (which is itself bad, as a book and as a movie) in parts.

 

[Wulfburk]

Gravity is way overrated, but Interstellar, from all the reviews im reading, is greatly underrated. Must be because everyone is joining the Nolan is overrated bandwagon.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

It may be a bandwagon but it still doesn't negate from the fact that nolan films lack all humanity. Even michael bay films feel a bit more human. Admittedly i haven't watched interstellar and don't intend to (the typically nolanic generic title teels me absolutely nothing about the film besides scifi), but i can't stomach the man's films. He somehow manages to produce dialogue that zombifies even the best actors.

 

[havoc]

Shut your filth holes please. The Prestige is ****ing awesome.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

It may be a bandwagon but it still doesn't negate from the fact that nolan films lack all humanity. Even michael bay films feel a bit more human. Admittedly i haven't watched interstellar and don't intend to (the typically nolanic generic title teels me absolutely nothing about the film besides scifi), but i can't stomach the man's films. He somehow manages to produce dialogue that zombifies even the best actors.

I very much disagree with you on that one, the Dark Knight trilogy "lacked" humanity only in the main character (intentionally, or at least that's how I saw it), and past the woefully generic first installment was continually better up until the end, and Inception was an incredibly "human" movie - could you perhaps define what "human" means to you and why Nolan's films lack that?

 

[Wulfburk]

Lol wat. I cant see how the dark knight trilogy lacks the humanity.... actually, i'd say that it is one of the most "human" movies out there. The hero isnt blowing up bad guys and doing **** just because he wants to have fun, the hero (which turns out a martyr) has a motive. Not only him, but actually every villain in the trilogy has a motive too.

And Interstellar i'd say its one of the movies that really "touched" me, last time that happened was with 12 years a slave.

And the generic title, oh well when you pick against something you always find room to bash it. Star Wars is generic, star trek too. Oh and i bet all the movies on your top 10 list have got generic titles too.

 

[Antonis]

Oh, please. If we're going to get to that, most(if not all) movies have generic titles. Examples of some good, mediocre or bad movies:
The Life of Others(Das Leben des anderes)
Gravity
Yes, Interstellar is pretty generic for a title who surprisingly(sarcasm) has space involved
Star Wars or Star Trek, yes
Batman Begins. Seriously, that's a title? It'd be better if they said Batman 1 or sth.

The list is literally endless. And the Dark Knight Trilogy is lacking humanity, like it or not. And Joker never had any real purpose(in the comics), apart from raising(or ruling) Gotham, tormenting Batman just for the lolz, cause general mayem and such.
My point is that we cannot or should not judje a movie(or anything, come to that) from the title, but some movies lately justs feel like they rip us off. Pseudo-intellectuaity, the current star that shines(McConaughey, for example) and cheap plot that "symbolizes"...stuff.
And some people, like Nolan is overrated, that's a fact. I like Nolan, most of his movies(except Interstellar, that sucks) and I even like the Dark Knight rises. But he is overrated. He is a very good director, very good, but only one of many.

And then, we go to this:

And Interstellar i'd say its one of the movies that really "touched" me, last time that happened was with 12 years a slave.

The thing you say, that the movie touched you, while true, is something personal. Just because you were moved by a movie, don't expect me to be moved as well.

 

[VictorSwamp]

It may be a bandwagon but it still doesn't negate from the fact that nolan films lack all humanity. Even michael bay films feel a bit more human. Admittedly i haven't watched interstellar and don't intend to (the typically nolanic generic title teels me absolutely nothing about the film besides scifi), but i can't stomach the man's films. He somehow manages to produce dialogue that zombifies even the best actors.

I agree with your every word.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Could you perhaps define what "human" means to you and why Nolan's films lack that?

"Human" implies that the audience, in some respect, believes the characters to be real and not primary school piterary devices. I can lose myself in certian parts of the phantom menace more than i can the dark knight or inception, because in those films the characters do nothing beside exposite and make "profound" speeches right out of the GCSE syllabus.

On a deeper level Nolan's films are unsettling because of how distancing the characters behave. Hardly any emotions, no subtle character traits or even laughter. It's just mumbling or shouting for the whole film, with hans zimmers mediocre buzzing made obnoxious by being played throughout the whole film, non-stop.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Could you perhaps define what "human" means to you and why Nolan's films lack that?

"Human" implies that the audience, in some respect, believes the characters to be real and not primary school piterary devices. I can lose myself in certian parts of the phantom menace more than i can the dark knight or inception, because in those films the characters do nothing beside exposite and make "profound" speeches right out of the GCSE syllabus.

On a deeper level Nolan's films are unsettling because of how distancing the characters behave. Hardly any emotions, no subtle character traits or even laughter. It's just mumbling or shouting for the whole film, with hans zimmers mediocre buzzing made obnoxious by being played throughout the whole film, non-stop.

I guess I'll just have to disagree then, while there is a tendency for dramatic speech-making, the draw, I think, to the characters in Nolan's movies (and I'll be primarily using Inception for this) is that they don't go around tossing emotions everywhere, but those emotions are still present and able to be read in their actions and motivations throughout the film. You don't get to see Cobb expressing sorrow or regret on the same level as, say, Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan does. But that doesn't mean those emotions are absent. His interactions with his late wife, along with some of the other symbolism in the movie makes it abundantly clear that those emotions are there and are affecting him deeply - he just doesn't externalize it.

In this sense I think Nolan's movies (or at least Inception) have incredibly "human" characters - real humans, in my experience at least, don't go around blatantly displaying their emotional trauma for everyone to see, for the most part. The emotions are still there, though, and the pervasiveness with which they can be seen in the actions and dialogue and subtle movements of the characters makes them even more potent to the audience, as it shows how affected they are despite the facade they try to keep up. This, in my opinion, makes those emotions more "valuable" and realistic than a character merely having an outburst, and it makes it so that when a character does have an outburst one knows precisely the magnitude of emotion which produced that reaction.

I might be reading too much into it but that's how I see his movies, for the most part.