Oh I'm sorry, Did I Break Your Conversation........Well Allow Me A Movie Thread by S&T

These are kind of generic complaints. The male best friends are shallow? That's a majority of comedies. Johansson is written that way on purpose, they don't present her as someone Jon has a deep emotional connection with, he even repeats.. "She's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen". Nothing about her personality, just her looks. He thinks she's the one or someone special, but she tries to change him quickly. Telling him to go to school, to meet his family and their friends, that he won't be cleaning his own apartment, etc. The sister breaks it down for Jon, all Scarlett wanted to do was change Jon into someone else.

It's not that he hasn't experienced good sex, it's that he doesn't "lose himself" in the other person, that's the whole point Moore makes to him. Jon has good sex, but he's missing the connection, that's why he's unsatisfied. The supporting characters weren't fully formed or fleshed out deeper, yeah that's an issue, but ehh.. it's an issue in a ton of movies. They served their purpose for the story at least. The overbearing mother who wants grandkids, the disinterested sister, the father who he fights with, nothing revolutionary but oh well.

I get it. I get it all. I get that he had never experienced "making love," and that's cool and all, but man it was dry.

I know ScarJo was written to be the complete and utter epitome of airhead, but I just hated it.

The supporting cast was awful. Every friend, family member, and passerby overacted to no end.

I know most films don't get it right, but that's no excuse when your film gets such rave reviews.

And my gripes go all the way down to JGL. Too many scenes recapping his sins of the week. Too many scenes of him debating whether to watch porn or not.

I just didn't like the way he was portraying the character.

Other than that, it was just okay. :lol
 
I fell asleep twice while watching Cloudy 2 never having watched the 1st one. Looking back I should've opted to watch Riddick or Rush or w/e else that's good in theaters. Only saw it cuz I was with some kids in DC.

I haven't seen Don Jon yet but your "criticisms" of it seem hollow and vapid JA. Nothing compelling to make me think it isn't good. I dunno maybe you should've been a bit more open minded like not letting an accent get to you despite it being a real thing and not artificial like you think. Just watch a romcom.

I've watched plenty of romcoms, and that's exactly why I think this film isn't much better than any of those. At least with films like Friends with Benefits, I can enjoy the characters performances, and you have supporting actors who actually put forth an emotional effort.

Don't get me wrong, the scenes that are really supposed to hit home work, but everything that leads upto it is dreadful.

50/50 was such a better film, and it had the same lead. I don't know if JGL penned this one or not, but if he did, I'm not surprised.

It's obvious to the viewer that JGL's character is about as shallow as they come. He's just as shallow as Scarlett is. Suddenly he has an epiphany when he hooks up with a middle-aged, pot-head widow. Cool, that doesn't excuse the first hour from being a complete drag. Valentine's Day did the same thing with Jessica Alba and Ashton. There was just no shocker at the end where suddenly he realizes what sex is supposed to be like.

The film is unbalanced. I found nothing entertaining or rivetting about any of the first sixty minutes of the feature. Just because it has a nice little ending doesn't make it a good film.
 
:lol

http://www.craveonline.com/film/int...ive-j-j-abrams-apologizes-for-his-lens-flares


Exclusive: J.J. Abrams Apologizes for His Lens Flares
September 12th, 2013 William Bibbiani

There's two things we know for sure about director J.J. Abrams: he won't tell you a damned thing about his movies, and he really loves lens flares. Lens flares are a photographic effect that create a haze in the motion picture image you see in films like Star Trek, Super 8 and Star Trek Into Darkness, and Abrams' love of the visual technique has been widely noticed, and often mocked, by fans of his movies.

So when CraveOnline cornered J.J. Abrams on the red carpet for the Star Trek Into Darkness Blu-ray release party, we had to ask him… What's up with those lens flares? His answer may be the most surprising thing he's done in years. He apologized.

"I know I get a lot of grief for that," says Abrams. "But I'll tell you, there are times when I'm working on a shot, I think, 'Oh this would be really cool… with a lens flare.' But I know it's too much, and I apologize. I'm so aware of it now. I was showing my wife an early cut of Star Trek Into Darkness and there was this one scene where she was literally like, 'I just can't see what's going on. I don't understand what that is.' I was like, 'Yeah, I went too nuts on this.'"

"This is how stupid it was," J.J. Abrams added. "I actually had to use ILM [Industrial Light & Magic] to remove lens flare in a couple of shots, which is, I know, moronic. But I think admitting you're an addict is the first step towards recovery."

We followed up with a question about the future of Star Trek on television, which, sadly, Abrams says there is no hope for. Watch the video to learn more.

Star Trek Into Darkness, lens flare and all, is now available on DVD and Blu-ray.
 
No man, if you want the ULTIMATE Brad Pitt as a scuz bucket, Kalifornia. He is freaking phenomenal in that movie. Absolutely brilliant.

Anyone who has not seen that, do so as soon as possible. Pitt at his finest.
 
No man, if you want the ULTIMATE Brad Pitt as a scuz bucket, Kalifornia. He is freaking phenomenal in that movie. Absolutely brilliant.

Anyone who has not seen that, do so as soon as possible. Pitt at his finest.






His turn in Burn After Reading was funny too...
 
Because I'm bored waiting for my phone to get fixed, here's a pic of writer/director John Landis shooting the $&@" with one of the techs at the Century City Apple Store. Seems like a cool guy. Just chopped it up with the Apple guy about movies while his computer was getting worked on.

400


Paul Abdul walked into the same store about 30 minutes later, but I wasn't about to take her picture. She looked very, um, tense. Probably would have come after me if she saw my pointing my phone at her.
 
Last edited:
Got passes to Runner Runner tomorrow night, but not sure I can make it. :{

I'm lookin forward to this one too, has a Wall Street vibe about it and I love love love Gemma. :o
 
Anybody see Rush yet? Hearing great things so far, probably will see it tonight after all these NFL games

saw it yesterday really really enjoyed it.

Ron Howard is amazing behind the camera.

Great plot, beautifully shot scenes...really intense
 
saw it yesterday really really enjoyed it.

Ron Howard is amazing behind the camera.

Great plot, beautifully shot scenes...really intense

Don't forget amazing acting.

It had me on the edge of my seat many times. Loved it.

To think Ron Howard almost didn't get to shoot any action scenes (the racing) because he didn't have the money at the time & yet studios are going to green light another Pirates of the Caribbean or some other schlock.

Good ol' Opie Cunningham...
 
I don't really get it.

Not to be offensive, but clearly man. :lol

All those complaints you have of shallow and annoying were intended by JGL to parody stereotypes in romance and "clubbing" today. He was making fun of them. And that's what it was all about. He's said that in interviews.
 
Not to be offensive, but clearly man. :lol

All those complaints you have of shallow and annoying were intended by JGL to parody stereotypes in romance and "clubbing" today. He was making fun of them. And that's what it was all about. He's said that in interviews.

Yeah but if you're going to annoy the audience in the process, what's the point? To have some stunning revelation in the end that isn't all that stunning? Is that the purpose of a parody? To annoy the audience for 75 minutes then drop a bomb (that isn't really a bomb), in the final fifteen?

The guy never experienced real love-making. Is that supposed to be enlightening? Was I not supposed to pick that up in the first ten seconds of the movie? "Oh, alright, this is a prototypical douchebag that's never had a good girl in his life." First thing that popped into my head.

I've never seen a parody that annoyed me. It's stupidity was on the level of Scary Movie. Yet because it has a cute little ending I'm supposed to succumb and label it a triumph?

No thanks.
 
Oh, and I watched Constantine for the first time yesterday.

While some of it was corny, I thought there were a lot of interesting pieces of dialogue and just an interesting take on the clouded afterlife. Obviously Sci-Fi, but there were a lot of references to scripture and many other things revolving around heaven, hell, and purgatory.

The guy that played Satan didn't look evil enough. :lol

The scene where the friend was trying to down the vodka in the store and it wasn't coming out. :eek as the guy who was "screwing up the balance" was walking around the liquor store in slow-mo watching him.

Thought the demons could've been done better, they seemed like bigger versions of the things in Are You Afraid of the Dark.

Film was from 2005, Keanu Reeves was trying to follow up on his Matrix franchise, and he pretty much played the same ******g guy. Neo :lol No versatility with this guy :lol But we all knew that.

Shia LeBeouf still has baby fat. :rollin

Really interesting plot though. Eternal damnation for attempting to kill himself at Age 15, knowing he would go to Hell in the end eventually, diagnosed with lung cancer, has to do something quick.

6/10. Good for a one time viewing.
 
The guy never experienced real love-making.

And he did in the end. That was the point. The enligtening part is that everyone wants to get that DIME, that hot girl, and if they happen to get her it's supposed to be rainbows and dum-dum suckers from then on out. You remember how often JGL was telling people "She's perfect" "She's perfect" etc.? Was she? Absolutely not, and we knew that. The best part is when the sister that didn't say a word throughout the whole movie was the one to break it to him.

The message was you don't have to go after the 10, go after the girl who makes you experience that rush, go after LOVE, not beauty. And as we saw near the end, it was where he least expected it. Moore even asked him, "Have you ever jacked off without porn?" And think about that? His view of women is PURE sexuality, and nothing else. He is the example of many people in their 20s today. And that's the real truth behind it all.

I'm not arguing that this is a superb movie or anything, but I thought the message behind it was fantastic and if you realize what JGL is doing throughout the movie it's quite enjoyable.
 
Last edited:
I got every bit of that from the beginning. But when you don't care about the characters, what's the point?

The tropes annoy me, through and through. I can stand a horror parody because I enjoy the genre. I am entertained by what they parody. But when it's just arrogance and chauvinism through the first 75 minutes, it's tiresome.

Moore's character was fine. It was JGL that annoyed me.

If the purpose of film today is to aggravate the viewer for the majority of film, to have a cutesy ending, and that's a good film? Maybe I don't get it.

Y'all are eating it up like its fried chicken.
 
I get what you're saying, but it sounds like you went throughout the whole film thinking the arrogance was supposed to be "real and cool" and realized at the END what they were doing. My guess is, if you had been aware of the message throughout the whole film you would've enjoyed it a bit more. Because you notice so many stereotypes that are prevalent in today's culture.

I'm not eating it up, but JGL's debut as a director was mainly underlying messages, and those that didn't notice might be victims of it.

To each their own though! You don't have to like it, I'm just arguing that the annoying nature of the characters was deliberate.
 
I get what you're saying, but it sounds like you went throughout the whole film thinking the arrogance was supposed to be "real and cool" and realized at the END what they were doing. My guess is, if you had been aware of the message throughout the whole film you would've enjoyed it a bit more. Because you notice so many stereotypes that are prevalent in today's culture.

I'm not eating it up, but JGL's debut as a director was mainly underlying messages, and those that didn't notice might be victims of it.

To each their own though! You don't have to like it, I'm just arguing that the annoying nature of the characters was deliberate.

I never have liked films where you have a payoff at the end that's supposed to have silver lining about the true meaning of ________. I just didn't feel like the payoff could excuse the rest of the film. Was it a good payoff? Yeah, but I just didn't jive with the beginning of the film. I know it was all intentional, but it's not a brand of comedy/parody that I subscribe to.
 
Got passes to Runner Runner tomorrow night, but not sure I can make it.
mean.gif


I'm lookin forward to this one too, has a Wall Street vibe about it and I love love love Gemma.
embarassed.gif
this man knows.

307868_original.jpg


embarassed.gif
 
That's totally fair.

I didn't mean to come of as harsh as I first did, I was frustrated I didn't like it. I wanted to, it's just not my cup of tea.

That said, for as disappointed I was with Don Jon, I was as surprised with both Prisoners and Rush.
 
IDC, one of my favorite scenes from any movie is in Along Came Polly when Phillip Seymour Hoffman gets on a crowded elevator any says, out loud, "ugggghhh, I am so friggin horney!" Gets me every time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom