Hot Heart Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 Obviously, but if they're supposed to be who you empathise with it helps not to make them annoying. I've not seen Black Swan so couldn't comment on that specifically, although I'm aware Nina is the main character. It's all a bit subjective though anyway. Plenty of people like or dislike certain actors regardless of the film, whereas others have different opinions on characters in a film. But, you know, you carry on complaining... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 I think my point went over your head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 I actually think you missed W. Phallus' point but, oh well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 I'm rubber and you're glue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr W Phallus Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Like HH said, the protagonist of a film (or novel or play) is usually someone you empathise, or at least sympathise with. Beyond that however, there is a difference between a character the audience is meant to dislike and a character who gets on your nerves. In the case of Black Swan it was because I think Aronofsky overplayed the fragility and frigidity of Nina's character early on in the film a little bit too much (which links back to the lack of subtlety I mentioned). She spends so much time on the verge of tears that the character becomes one dimensional, like she only has one reaction to everything. And like I said in the first place, that didn't stop it from being very watchable. If the other elements of the film hadn't been for the most part very good, then the fact the protagonist was a bit annoying could have been a problem. Edited July 10, 2011 by Mr W Phallus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 10, 2011 Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 It was just a jab at Shyamalan. I still think he's to blame. man I should really check the OT more often . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) Just got back from seeing Harry Potter Part Deux. We had quite the audience alongside us: 1. Zombie Dobby (Some girl wearing elf ears and a bag covered in blood stains) 2. Some dude with fairy wings 3. Loads of people wearing dress shirts under sweaters to mimic the school look, swinging wands around and screaming spells 4. Some teenager walking around holding three wands, asking what side we were on. He knighted anyone who said they were with the good guys. I said I was on Team Jacob. He didn't appreciate that. 5. By luck of the draw, the fucking potheads from my Transformers 3 outing landed into my theater. OUT OF 20 THEATERS, THEY FIND THEIR WAY INTO MINE. The movie itself was rather well-done (save for the very, very end, but since that was also fucked in the book, I knew they would have to go through with it). Dan Rad got his chance to flex more of his acting muscles (with varying results), and Hans Gruber once again killed it as Professor Snape. Oh, and Helena Bonham Carter was Helena Bonham Carter. I can't even tell her characters apart anymore. Overall, I'd recommend it to people who have watched Part 1. A fitting end to a great series... until Rowling releases Pottermore, and I end up buying every book again on eBook formats and re-reading them. EDIT: Forgot to add that when people screamed "MISCHIEF MANAGED" when the credits rolled, I wanted to punch someone. I'm a nerd, and I respect nerdy things, but even I have my limits. Especially when it's 3 in the goddamn morning. Edited July 15, 2011 by DukeOfPwn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted July 15, 2011 Report Share Posted July 15, 2011 EDIT: Forgot to add that when people screamed "MISCHIEF MANAGED" when the credits rolled... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted July 16, 2011 Report Share Posted July 16, 2011 Is that a blowjob or pussy-eatin' going down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Watched Harry Potter last night. It was both good and bad. And I feel the main issue with the film was that the final parts of the book sucked too. One scene in particular was a bit crappy in the book, and in the film was even more just not meshing right. Oh as well as "psst, Dean, the screens dirty". (if you've seen the film you know the scene) However it did the scene just before that with Snapes memories brilliantly. But that was a brilliant moment in the book too. I do feel it managed to get the light heartedness in there quite well too. Otherwise it would be an extremely dark and depressing film. I think that's what wore it down, just how dark n depressing it was. Also it did give us a new level of hover hand. Ralph Fiennes was pretty brilliant in this. You can tell by now he's really getting into voldermorts skin. Along with the hug, the laugh was pretty good too The film was good end-of-an-era stuff. But it was hugely anti-climatic and would have been quite a bit better film if it hadn't been based on a book. Also a certain Weasley battle which I was really hoping to see just wasn't as well fleshed out as I'd hoped. edit: Then we got back n watched Fifth Element, my thoughts of which are some where in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Watched Harry Potter last night. It was both good and bad. And I feel the main issue with the film was that the final parts of the book sucked too. One scene in particular was a bit crappy in the book, and in the film was even more just not meshing right. Oh as well as "psst, Dean, the screens dirty". (if you've seen the film you know the scene) However it did the scene just before that with Snapes memories brilliantly. But that was a brilliant moment in the book too. I do feel it managed to get the light heartedness in there quite well too. Otherwise it would be an extremely dark and depressing film. I think that's what wore it down, just how dark n depressing it was. Also it did give us a new level of hover hand. Ralph Fiennes was pretty brilliant in this. You can tell by now he's really getting into voldermorts skin. Along with the hug, the laugh was pretty good too The film was good end-of-an-era stuff. But it was hugely anti-climatic and would have been quite a bit better film if it hadn't been based on a book. Also a certain Weasley battle which I was really hoping to see just wasn't as well fleshed out as I'd hoped. I feel like the part that I didn't like all had to do with the very, very end. It looked like faces were superimposed onto bodies using CG. Also, it's a bad ending in the book, and it's a bad ending in the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 hah. The end was bad. I'd heard they'd "aged" them but I didn't realise that given the massive CGI and efects everywhere else that their idea of "aging" them was to put them in old mans clothes and change their hairstyle a bit. It was sooo bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strangelove Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 I saw Wrestling With Shadows the other night. Its a great wrestling documentaries. Im not a wrestling fan anymore, but the documentaries are still entertaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyit Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 Saw Harry Potter tonight, it was pretty good... It pulled off doing quite a few scenes very well. What didn't work was basically anything that didn't work in the book. I heard they refilmed that ending scene because pictures leaked of how they looked in their intial run, and they got horrible fan reactions. I doubt this is much better than the first attempt though. Regardless, good movie and the entire series is a great accomplishment, historic/groundbreaking even. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 Whenever I talk to diehard fans of Harry Potter, they can never admit to the epilogue basically amounting to horrible fan fiction. Really, it was like Rowling wanted to please fans to the point she began researching all the non-erotic fanfics online about Harry & Co.'s "future." It's the only explanation for those horrible names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyit Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 Agreed. I'm a pretty diehard fan... well sort of. I love the books read all of them from 4 onwards on the day of release and have been following the movies closely. When I read it the first time it didn't seem all that bad... but honestly it's pretty horrible. Yes. Especially the names. Not sure if I should bother putting this under spoilers cause we've sorta stated what it is already but ill keep up the etiquette and do so anyways I like the general idea of ending the series with the next generation heading off to Hogwarts, to end it in a position where everything's settled again and all is cheery. But honestly Rowling could have just as well ended it with the chapter just before it with some bitter sweetness to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Is that a blowjob or pussy-eatin' going down? Only if one of them is a dwarf, otherwise there would have to be knee prints, not foot prints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 To indulge, feet arranged in that manner have been associated with sex. One pair spread apart and one pair lined in the middle. Of course, it could be a couple making out. Some dude all up in that face and... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 To indulge, feet arranged in that manner have been associated with sex. One pair spread apart and one pair lined in the middle. Of course, it could be a couple making out. Some dude all up in that face and... Quite. That said... sex, with your shoes on? Let's go with making out. It's more PG-13. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Winnie the Pooh. SHAMELESS PLUG, GO! http://wp.me/p1C1NO-q Yeah, I loved the shit out of it. It's only an hour, but it's the most adorable hour you'll ever experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 An hour?! /Google Actually, that makes sense. It is Winnie the Pooh, so an hour should be long enough to tell the stories. I imagine the credits and title are counted, so yeah, it's a little over an hour. A nice break from the ton of 100+ minute movies of late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Just got back from HPATDH. It was pretty good. I wish it was a little happier at the end to make up for all the hours of darkness and glumness. Could have used a longer epilogue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 On Netflix I watched Rugrats Go Wild, a.k.a. Rugrats meet The Wild Thornberrys. I'm putting it in "Good" because it's very nostalgic, but of course it's a kids movie with a soundtrack I had to tolerate. I mean, why did they need Rugrats characters singing?! Not to mention the odd assortment of copyright songs. Still, it was a hoot to hear Tim Curry as Nigel Thornberry. "Ghaashdgddgfgr..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I'd consider 90minutes to be the minimum for a movie. 60 minutes seems way to short a time. It's the 150+ minute ones I'd be on the watch out for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Basically when it comes to film length anything that is 45 minutes and below is a short. 45-60 minutes is the weird space and 60 minutes plus is a feature. Sure it maybe short but it is a feature classification. Also any film between 20 minutes and 45 minutes - good luck with screening that anywhere. It's an odd time frame and very hard to actually air even at festivals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.