FANTASTILICIOUS FUN FOR FILM FANS 089: your top 10's of 2020 and most anticipated films of 2021?

1272830323359

Comments

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Kevin Smith: who is he? Seriously, I don't know.

    (Back to Black Swan for a moment: Natalie is flawless, mesmerizing acting, and she is worth the entire film. Not a bad film anyway, but she is what makes it so watchable. She deserved those awards.)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,577
    @4EverBonded, He's Silent Bob. ;-)

    Kevin-Smith-Says-Clerks-3-Still-Happening-Reveals-Tusk-Poster.jpg

    Filmmaker responsible for Clerks, Clerks II, Dogma, Mallrats, Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back, Jersey Girl, Chasing Amy, Zack And Miri Make A Porno, ... :-)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Seriously, I saw Clerks when it came out on videotape (I worked managing a video store right next to a SevenEleven). We ran it continuously.
    I personally loved Dogma, and the man himself is a walking fan-geek encyclopedia.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Mallrats is and shall forever be my favorite Kevin Smith movie, unless Clerks III actually comes out and somehow blows me away.

    One of my favorite TV shows is the comic book version of Pawn Stars, also known as Comic Book Men. The man's a comic book fan like me, and he's a bearded fat guy, we're practically brothers.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited January 2015 Posts: 4,399
    I think he's one of the most underrated filmmakers of this generation, and probably doesn't get the credit for his work that he deserves at times.. i've often called him the John Hughes of this generation... granted, films like Red State and Tusk may be a bit dodgy, but Clerks, Clerks 2, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma - all are classics..

    but personally, i ran the gamut with Kevin Smith... i loved him - kind of hated/got annoyed by him - now i love him again, and he's become a major influence on me pursuing filmmaking.. i had reached a point recently (about a year ago) when I wasn't sure if i wanted to continue pursuing film as a potential career, because all i had done was 1 student film, a handful of shorts for my college and youtube, and i had just come off of two 48 Hour film projects that became more of hassle than they should've been, which led to me losing a friend because we both blew up on each other, to which my friend called me a "2 bit hack, and a worthless human being." - and on top of all that, i lost my job at the media production company i had been working at for 6 months....
    needless to say i was pretty down about everything, and i began second guessing everything that i had done over the past few years - was i just wasting my time? what is the point? i am going nowhere fast. I am 30 (or was going to be 30), and everyone else i know is well into their careers, have families, homes - and here i am, fat, unemployed, bordering 30 with nothing to show for myself..... - that sort of stuff....

    then something told me to re-watch "An Evening With Kevin Smith" his first Q&A video - forgot how funny it was - but then i watched one of his more recent ones (i can't remember the name of it) but i really paid attention to when he was talking about all the crap he went through, and how he started second guessing himself as well as a filmmaker.. and that's when he said something to the tune of "Don't let anyone tell you 'you can't do anything' or 'you can't be a filmmaker' - just go out and do it." - and he went on about how he reached a point in his life where he stopped giving a f### about what people thought of his films, and that he just wanted to make films that he liked - and if other people liked them, then great - if not, so be it, but he wasn't going to let it stand in way of him being creative..... and that really hit home for me, and i've used that as motivation for whenever i get down, to not give up chasing what i want to be, and as long as i keep moving forward, and keep putting stuff out there, something good will happen eventually.

    since then, i started a small local production crew last summer called Cosmic Octopus.. our first two 48 hour film projects "Domestic" and "Dog Fog" were both nominated for multiple awards in the competition, as well as being nominated for Audience Favourite awards. And we also produced a cheesy and fun low budget music video for a local nerdcore rap duo called 2D6.. but for 2015, we got a couple short films lined up, as well as the start of a web series - so things are moving forward :)
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 5,767
    chrisisall wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Actually, Serenity had some pretty amazing CGI in it...
    I´m not sure how ironic you are right now, I always was amazed how well the film flies despite its bad CGI ;-).
    Her first landing looked a bit off, but the whole rest of the movie looked great IMO. Why? What shots did you think were lacking?
    When they´re on some planet flying that kind of cargo lifter, that looked pretty pasted-in.




    I think I haven´t seen much Kevin Smith, except for his little part in Die Hard 4.0. I think Clerks might be interesting.

  • I think it's probably the best in CGI film making yeah. What Planet Of The Apes did really well (and which I prefer to Avatar's CGI enviroments) was have the people in mocap suits playing the apes in real sets/places interacting with real humans. Part of the reason the ape village in the second one was so awe inspiring was because it was a real set.

    With Avatar though the whole thing was mocap/CGI. The enviroments, the people (not just the aliens), everything. So I think in terms of CGI film making Avatar hasn't been beaten yet. I prefer the Planet Of The Apes way of doing things though (or preferably, no CGI at all, although I understand with stuff like Avatar and Apes it is needed).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited January 2015 Posts: 17,691
    boldfinger wrote: »
    When they´re on some planet flying that kind of cargo lifter, that looked pretty pasted-in.
    That was 100% shot practical, the tires underneath it were CGI'd out for wide shots though.

    See Clerks at all costs!

  • Posts: 3,336
    Love Clerks and like Clerks 2, those are the only Kevin Smith movies i've seen
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,577
    @haserot, that's a pretty cool post man, thanks. :) Congrats on your upcoming film career. :-) Now you go out there and you make us a Bond film, baby. ;-)
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @haserot, that's a pretty cool post man, thanks. :) Congrats on your upcoming film career. :-) Now you go out there and you make us a Bond film, baby. ;-)

    i would have to be then (unless someone else beats me to it) the first american director to do a Bond movie... not sure everyone here would be comfortable with that - might make some enemies real quick lol
  • Posts: 1,107
    I love his podcast Fat Man on Batman :)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,577
    Just put the PTS back where it belongs and people will shower you with compliments and invitations to private parties with lots of wodka martinis and topless waitresses. ;-)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,577
    <center><font color=#E9AB17 size=6><b>046
    </b>"Old movies": boring, charming or superior?</font>

    Obviously, you decide when a film is to be called 'old'. ;-)
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    "Old" to me means around my parents' time and earlier, so 1950s, 60s, and earlier than those. I can enjoy these movies very much, but the plot is what makes a movie "superior" to me, and I don't always find film plots from that era as superior than some today.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Old means movies made before I turned 20.
    Mostly they are superior in that they *had* to rely on the writing because CGI wasn't around to WOW us into a false sense of event. Plus lack of obligatory ultra-violence (80's), PC (90's) or gritty (now) led to more varied ways of telling stories IMO.
    Just compare the first Bond to the most recent to see what I mean- Which has better writing? Which is more charming? Which is less a manufactured event and more an actual tale of intrigue & suspense?
    Give me the likes of The Wizard Of Oz, The Man In The White Suit, Dr. Strangelove, From Russia With Love, 2001, Jesus Christ Superstar & Superman over most of the stuff that followed...
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Just compare the first Bond to the most recent to see what I mean- Which has better writing? Which is more charming? Which is less a manufactured event and more an actual tale of intrigue & suspense?

    2006's Casino Royale.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    2006's Casino Royale.
    CR, sir, is no DN.
    :))
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    chrisisall wrote: »
    2006's Casino Royale.
    CR, sir, is no DN.
    :))

    I dunno... I got everything I wanted out of Casino Royale... Dr. No and his hands were just a little... I don't know the right words to express what I mean here.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,577
    Like many kids, I watched a lot of older movies when I was young: black-and-white Sunday afternoon films or some coloured 60s adventure movies, you name it. Growing a little bit older (late 80s, early 90s), I began to develop a taste for more modern films featuring generally better special effects, music much more to my liking and the benefit of, well, natural colours. In fact, I went through this phase where I rejected most older films with a few exceptions like Ben-Hur, Gone With The Wind and of course the Bonds.

    But unlike my peers in school, I soon found new love for the cinema of decades long gone. Even as a 14 or 15 year old, I showed particular interest in films that most of my classmates considered downright unwatchable. The best example is Gone With The Wind. Four hours of it and not a single minute of boredom. Yet everybody else on the playground thought Titanic the epitome of romance.

    Yet despite this love for older films at an unlikely age, my affection for them grew only stronger and stronger. By the age of 20, I had developed an almost academic interest in film in general, meaning I would deliberately watch a film I didn't feel very passionate about just because it felt like mandatory viewing if I was ever to call myself a film expert (which I still don't think I am). So I began to explore the silent films of the 20s, the Universal monster movies of the 30s and 40s, the cinema noir of the 40s and 50s, ...

    And lo and behold, I didn't merely broaden my interest in, but my love for movies from my grandparents' youth too. I actually think it's simple to evaluate older movies: like all other movies, some are boring, others aren't. But I certainly wouldn't say that all older movies are by definition boring. Many are charming. But are they superior? There may have been a time when I would have said yes, if only to act 'cool' by pretending that modern stuff is worthless (an act I have been putting on for music though). But I'm smarter than that now; many films made today are of an exceptionally high quality too. I guess every decade sits well with me; it just depends on the movie itself, though preferably watched in a time capsule, i.e. I can't evaluate Metropolis with the same criteria I use to evaluate Inception for example. That would be quite unfair.

    Still, I do know a few people who feel that modern filmmaking is worthless compared to old Hollywood and that modern films are all about making money and nothing else. I believe both statements to be wrong. Firstly, "bad" old movies have mostly been forgotten. You'd be surprised how many of them are lost, never made it to VHS, Beta, laser disc, DVD or BR. Collections of old movies usually contain the ones that by some consensus are absolutely worth seeing. So if you randomly buy 20 old movies and 20 modern movies on DVD, chances are the overall quality of the old movies is higher because they went through some selection. To put it differently, the average Uwe Boll film may not have been in existence any more at this point had it been made in the 1930s.
    Secondly, Hollywood was always about money. Read about the old studio system; how to make money fast and easy has always been a driving force behind the movie business. To pretend that cheap commercialism is a sickness of our times only would be fairly naive.

    So to summarize, I watch a lot - A LOT - of old movies, sometimes out of interest or because I feel I should given their reputation and such, often because I quite simply think they are very good movies. But I'm not so pretentious as to claim that modern films belong in the sewer. I do feel it's essential though to judge every film by reasonable parameters; you can't say "M" is a bad film because it lacks colour, nor can you say The Birds is bad because it lacks CGI.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    I don't know the right words to express what I mean here.
    They were melodramatic and somewhat theatrical, more akin to pulp fiction than reality.
    Right?
    Bond.
    :)>-
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I don't know the right words to express what I mean here.
    They were melodramatic and somewhat theatrical, more akin to pulp fiction than reality.
    Right?
    Bond.
    :)>-

    Nah. Not sure those were it... I mean, I love Dr. No, it's a wonderful film, and I don't think it being an older film puts it at a disadvantage to other, more recent films, but I love plenty of old movies and recent movies side-by-side. I don't judge them on their technical issues, on their use or disuse of CGI, I just judge them on "Did I enjoy the movie I just watched?". The answer can be yes or the answer can be no.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Yeah, okay, let's take the recent CGI-fest Iron Man.
    Great movie. Floored me.
    So yeah, still happens. <:-P
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 2,081
    "Old movies"? Right. :) Irrespective what that would be for me (or anyone else), the answer to the question is still impossible (for me) to give. Some of them - before my parents were born, or before I was born, or when I was a kid - I'd consider boring and some charming, and some just fantastic. I couldn't possibly lump "old" movies together anymore than I could lump "new" movies together and define them by one adjective. "Superior" is a difficult word here as well - some of my favorite movies were made decades ago (therefore, I suppose, "old"), some more or less recently, and some, I'm sure, are yet to be made. And apparently the older I become, and the more movies I see, the more I love movies. I'm more of a movie fan now than I was 20 years ago or 5 years ago.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Movies are such corporate committee-based business these days that truly original small works of art are fewer and farther between than ever before. Still, some gems slip through the cracks...
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited January 2015 Posts: 4,399
    it really depends on the film itself for me.. i try not to be "elitest" and say all films back in the day were much better than the ones now... because i can look at a film like North By Northwest and love it just as much as Gone Girl...

    at the end of the day, regardless of what technological advances are made, at the heart of every great film is a great story - it doesn't matter if it's old or new, has loads of flashy effects or is a static black and white shot. If you have a lousy story, all the special effects in the world wont be able to bail your film out (Transformers).. but if you've created a compelling story, with interesting characters that people buy into - then they could watch them sitting down talking about nothing in a static shot for an hour and a half and love every second (Clerks).
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Tuulia wrote: »
    I couldn't possibly lump "old" movies together anymore than I could lump "new" movies together and define them by one adjective.
    Agreed. I'd prefer not to stereotype an entire generation of film history. If I had to pick one of these options I'd go with charming though.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 5,767
    Old movies like they made in the 80s, sure, nothing beats them. Mad Max, Blade Runner, Die Hard. Go ahead and try to make something better.

    I can´t quite put my finger on it, but many films I enjoyed in my childhood don´t fit to my requirements anymore. Doesn´t mean there are none such films. Early Bond was always fast-paced and still contains its urgency. I´m sure there also older films I will find very interesting, but I still have to get the drive to find them. So far, I have worked my way back from Das Boot, via Jaws, to All the President´s Men.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,577
    <center><font color=#E9AB17 size=6><b>047
    </b>Wes Craven: "Master Of Horror" or lousy filmmaker?</font>
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The latter, man.
Sign In or Register to comment.