Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
invariably are those that I cannot finish, and regret even starting. Tonight's example is: "Three billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri". On the advertising poster the movie has four or five of those awards-in-a-wreath. Because of past experience, I was leery about this one but I read the short description and saw who was in it and decided to give it a try. Nope - stupid, cliched movie where local police are worthless, uncaring, and condone torture of black people. All males that are masculine in any way are abusive, crude, foul-mouthed, brutes. About religion? Typical Hollywood - the Catholic priest is a compassionless busybody who because he's part of a gang (the Church) is culpable for all the child molestations by priests. Of course all these bad people (all men, by the way) are stood up to and put in their place by the smart, tough, woman - supported by her female and feminine male friends. You go girl! Even though you're white, you tell those evil white males how evil they are because they don't do everything you want them to, when you want them to, and because they have negative opinions of you - a foul-mouthed, illogical, man-hating harpy. And that was just in the first 20 minutes. I gave it 15 more minutes than I should have. | ||
|
| Member |
I really enjoyed Three Billboards. I'm not sure if you went in looking for the negatives, but I didn't see most of what you're negatives are. In the end, really, the ONLY person who could be considered a "good person", was the Sheriff. He explained why the PD was unable to find the culprit, and ultimately was the only one who dabbled in a gray area (and that is up to our interpretation), but was the only one who didn't resort to vigilante justice, murder, torture, or other questionable acts. No one came out clean in this movie, which is what I found ultimately sort of refreshing. There was no knight in shining armor, there was no happy ending. It ended with two people who had hated each other going off to decide if they were going to complete their fall during a shared cause or redeem themselves somewhat, and we the audience never find out which. My girlfriend and I talked about it for several days after we saw it. It was the sort of movie that made you think after it was over, and wasn't something you could half-watch, or take at face value. There were a lot of nuances to it. ---------- The first 100 people to make it out alive...get to live. | |||
|
| california tumbles into the sea |
almost the worst i've seen this year. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
Different people like different kinds of movies. If you like explosions and car chases, you won't be interested in "wreath" movies. (Thanks for the new term.) I like all sorts of movies. I've liked wreath movies, and I've like a lot of westerns, too. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Oh stewardess, I speak jive.  |
Festival winners (wreath movies) are movies that movie nerds liked. No more, no less. Some years it's a Tarantino film, other years it's Little Miss Sunshine (which is anything but sunny, and sort of hard to watch, but an excellent film just the same). I haven't seen this one, but I'll check it out. Thanks.  | |||
|
| Member |
Explosions and car chases are like the circus - seen one, seen 'em all (for the most part). A realistic well done war movie, though, is in a different realm. Westerns - loved 'em since I was a kid, and still do. Dramas, mysteries, biographies, documentaries, etc., etc., etc., - like those too. I like most any type of decently done film/series/show except... - Movies considered artsy/quirky (a.k.a. "wreath" movies). These always come across as if the producers, directors, and cast are full of themselves because they're so artsy/quirky, and they tend towards the Samuel L. Jackson school of acting - just say "Fuck" a lot - except these artsy/quirky movies lack Mr. Jackson's eloquent and nuanced use of the word so it's over-use in the artsy/quirky movie, instead of adding color and substance, weakens the already thin fabric of the film and just seems altogether inappropriate. Now give me my fucking wreath for this artsy/quirky write-up. | |||
|
| Administrator |
They're called laurels and any contest, no matter how small, can give them out. They look good on posters and if you get one for your film, you'll put it on the poster because it's a seal of approval, even if you have to make the text of who gave it to you really, really small. | |||
|
| Member |
No, I did not go into it looking for negatives. From the short description I read about the movie I had the perception it was based on a true story. Thankfully, it's just made-up, clichéd, fiction. And yes, after not watching the rest of the movie I went and read the Wiki synopsis to see if I really did miss something special. From Wiki's and your information, I did not. Think about this - if this had been a real-life incident and you read about it in the paper, what would you're reaction be? Mine would be that these people are idiots who I wish I'd never heard about, and don't wish to hear of ever again. To me, watching this movie would be a waste of time because there was nothing to come away with (after the clichés) other than everybody was fucked up in some way. I get enough of that in real-life, with some of the clichés of the movie added as well. It's unnecessary to spend any more time than one has to on such things. As far as not seeing what I saw, at least about the negative treatment of religion in the film, I don't know how one couldn't see as they made it so obvious. The scene with the priest, as I mentioned, and the scene with the Sheriff at the dinner table, at mealtime, with his wife and little children, on Easter Sunday - blowing up and yelling "goddamn" multiple times because he got a phone call from one of his deputies, then gives a flippant, "Sorry kids.". I guess that might be humorous to some. To me it was jarring because it was so unnecessary and the message was obvious. Although some movies are depressing, I'll watch them because they have a redeeming story or character ("Schindler's List" comes to mind). Others, like this Three billboards movie are depressing and have neither a story or character that offers anything positive. I try to avoid people and situations like that in real life so I don't see the point in spending time or money to watch such in a film production. | |||
|
| Member |
That's it - laurels. Thanks. I've noticed that these "laurels" also seem to go to movies that are not only negative, depressing, anti-military, anti-religion, anti-white male (unless you have white guilt), etc., but also those that tend towards long names. Laurels; uselessly long movie title; and any review in which the term "quirky" is used to describe the film; are criteria that has been helpful to me in not wasting more time and money than I already do. I thought this 3 billboards movie was based on true events from the short description I read which is the only reason I ignored my avoidance criteria. | |||
|
| Rail-less and Tail-less |
I liked 3 billboards. I thought both Harrelson and Rockwell were excellent. The fact that it wasn’t tied up in a pretty bow at the end was great. The Shape of Water is next on my list. _______________________________________________ Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes. | |||
|
| Rail-less and Tail-less |
So you don’t think people like that exist? Priests the butt their noses in and cops who curse at the dinner table? Everyone is flawed...this movie points that out. I think expecting otherwise is naive. _______________________________________________ Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes. | |||
|
| Member |
Did you even read my posts? The answer to your question has already been given. | |||
|
| Rail-less and Tail-less |
I did. If you want fairy tales you have to watch Disney movies. _______________________________________________ Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes. | |||
|
| Member |
Then you read my words and chose to ignore what was written. That's either arrogance or ignorance on your part. The result, though, is the same. | |||
|
| california tumbles into the sea |
to see where the sigforum rubber meets the road, you'd need a top 10 list for the year. anything else is like throwing out ingredients one or two at a time and trying to figure out the recipe. then, and only then, can see where members are coming from. | |||
|
| Member |
f2 - I don't understand. What do you mean? | |||
|
| california tumbles into the sea |
knowing a person's top ten list, you can compare preferences. and if it compares favorably, you'll find new films to try / watch. | |||
|
| Member |
I see. | |||
|
| california tumbles into the sea |
it's the same all over when reading threads about movies. some random person pops in and says i'll never see that. with no context, what is the value of a comment like that? or someone says i hated it. no context. if you knew what they liked, comparted to others you have seen, a piece of the puzzle is at hand. | |||
|
| Member |
I explained why I didn't like this movie in particular, and wreath movies in general. There is no confusion or lack of context for anyone who read my posts. The people that are upset with my posts have the arrogance to equate my dislike for these movies to a reduced intellectual capacity to understand the message(s) these flicks are trying to get across. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024