Follow Filmspotting on Twitter and Facebook
You Graduate haters can kiss my grits.
The Graduate - Mike Nichols, 1967I had high expectations for this classic (I love Nichols' Closer and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?). For the first half hour or so I was enthralled – Mrs. Robinson was dynamite, the dialogue was snappy and there were some great little scenes (through-the-leg shot was cool and I liked the one where the camera is in the bedroom watching Ben fumbling on the stairs, begging him to return to the bedroom). Their vapid relationship was set-up fantastically and was a great precursor to the necessary confrontation: “we’re going to have a conversation.” Angst creeps in, things are uneasy, how will this develop? Well ... it doesn’t, it just stops dead. Mrs. Robinson (the only interesting character) just disappears, the boring daughter comes in and consequently the movie just dies. With the departure of Mrs. Robinson, nobody says anything interesting and we are stuck watching a bunch of insipid fools. I don’t understand how something so good can go so bad. First 30 minutes: 9/10. The rest: 3/10.
Zombieland - dull
Quote from: matt the movie watcher on October 30, 2009, 12:33:48 PMYou Graduate haters can kiss my grits. Plastics.It's iconic!
Quote from: chardy999 on October 30, 2009, 08:46:26 AMThe Graduate - Mike Nichols, 1967I had high expectations for this classic (I love Nichols' Closer and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?). For the first half hour or so I was enthralled – Mrs. Robinson was dynamite, the dialogue was snappy and there were some great little scenes (through-the-leg shot was cool and I liked the one where the camera is in the bedroom watching Ben fumbling on the stairs, begging him to return to the bedroom). Their vapid relationship was set-up fantastically and was a great precursor to the necessary confrontation: “we’re going to have a conversation.” Angst creeps in, things are uneasy, how will this develop? Well ... it doesn’t, it just stops dead. Mrs. Robinson (the only interesting character) just disappears, the boring daughter comes in and consequently the movie just dies. With the departure of Mrs. Robinson, nobody says anything interesting and we are stuck watching a bunch of insipid fools. I don’t understand how something so good can go so bad. First 30 minutes: 9/10. The rest: 3/10.There's so much I love about this film, the awkward social situations, the slow crawl through time, the montages and the end. Wow. I can just watch the end and by itself and feel the full power of it. I think it perfectly captures that feeling of still being a child while being shoved into the adult world. There's so much that this film just conveys through the images that I find it a powerful and effective film.
Quote from: jbissell on October 30, 2009, 12:36:50 PMQuote from: matt the movie watcher on October 30, 2009, 12:33:48 PMYou Graduate haters can kiss my grits. Plastics.It's iconic!Damn strait it is. And don't you patronize me, monkey boy.
Quote from: Don't Mess With Wizard Cat on October 30, 2009, 11:03:12 AMQuote from: Clovis8 on October 30, 2009, 12:27:59 AMQuote from: Melvil on October 30, 2009, 12:24:53 AMNot all, most. CG was used in certain cases where models were too restrictive, and to tie things together, and do set extensions and the like. I'm all for traditional model work, but it's very ignorant to say all CG looks bad, especially when you're being fooled by it all the time.Ignorant or not CGI looks bad more often than not and the more there is the worse the movie looks. You may love it, but I hate it. I am fine with it being a minor addition but when it is the main tool it makes for a terrible looking movie.So much wrong with this post, especially when numerous examples have been given to you in the past that prove this to not be the case.You can give me all the examples you like and it wont change the fact that traditional effects look significantly better then CGI in nearly every case.
Quote from: Clovis8 on October 30, 2009, 12:27:59 AMQuote from: Melvil on October 30, 2009, 12:24:53 AMNot all, most. CG was used in certain cases where models were too restrictive, and to tie things together, and do set extensions and the like. I'm all for traditional model work, but it's very ignorant to say all CG looks bad, especially when you're being fooled by it all the time.Ignorant or not CGI looks bad more often than not and the more there is the worse the movie looks. You may love it, but I hate it. I am fine with it being a minor addition but when it is the main tool it makes for a terrible looking movie.So much wrong with this post, especially when numerous examples have been given to you in the past that prove this to not be the case.
Quote from: Melvil on October 30, 2009, 12:24:53 AMNot all, most. CG was used in certain cases where models were too restrictive, and to tie things together, and do set extensions and the like. I'm all for traditional model work, but it's very ignorant to say all CG looks bad, especially when you're being fooled by it all the time.Ignorant or not CGI looks bad more often than not and the more there is the worse the movie looks. You may love it, but I hate it. I am fine with it being a minor addition but when it is the main tool it makes for a terrible looking movie.
Not all, most. CG was used in certain cases where models were too restrictive, and to tie things together, and do set extensions and the like. I'm all for traditional model work, but it's very ignorant to say all CG looks bad, especially when you're being fooled by it all the time.
Repulsion - Roman Polanski, 1965Absolutely loved it. I would advise not reading anything about it - just come in fresh as I did. Polanski creates a wonderfully weird, creepy world full of reflections and skewed angles. I was shocked, aghast, mouth agape for pretty much the entire 100 minutes. 9/10.
Quote from: Clovis8 on October 30, 2009, 11:05:13 AMQuote from: Don't Mess With Wizard Cat on October 30, 2009, 11:03:12 AMQuote from: Clovis8 on October 30, 2009, 12:27:59 AMQuote from: Melvil on October 30, 2009, 12:24:53 AMNot all, most. CG was used in certain cases where models were too restrictive, and to tie things together, and do set extensions and the like. I'm all for traditional model work, but it's very ignorant to say all CG looks bad, especially when you're being fooled by it all the time.Ignorant or not CGI looks bad more often than not and the more there is the worse the movie looks. You may love it, but I hate it. I am fine with it being a minor addition but when it is the main tool it makes for a terrible looking movie.So much wrong with this post, especially when numerous examples have been given to you in the past that prove this to not be the case.You can give me all the examples you like and it wont change the fact that traditional effects look significantly better then CGI in nearly every case. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes v. Jurassic Park?