Movies you never bothered to finish watching...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dizaster

The other night I hired 5 movies from the store, and one of them i'd been meaning to see since it was out at Cinema's...

That was "Public Enemy" with Johnny Depp... He is usually a seal of guarantee that a movie is going to be great, or at least watchable... And this movie looked alright...


But this was just awful... THE most boring movie I have watched in a LONNNNNG time... It was like a boring, wooden documentary with absolutely zero entertainment value... I got about 35 minutes into it and literally had not enjoyed a single minute of it yet... So I turned it off and didn't bother watching the other hour that it had left..

Sorry to anyone who really liked this movie...

Anyway, can you guys recall any movies you started watching and didn't finish?? Or at least any that you watched, and by the end thought you shouldn't have bothered? I don't just mean the real stinkers that you actually couldn't take your eyes off for some reason.... I mean, just boring where you felt like you'd just watched paint dry...

---

Public Enemies could have been sooo much better. I think the major issue I have with it is that it was filmed on digital cameras and not on actual film. It makes the movie look shallow and there's just no depth to the picture at all everything looks very flat and humdrum, very bland.

Also I read the book and it was waaaaay better than the movie, too much action in the book to fit in 1 movie. HBO could have done a much better job doing a series out of it.

I can watch damn near any movie, I can't remember ever walking out on one. I do remember being greatly disappointed in "The Road to Perdition"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

Wow :o

The Road, Inception, LOTR, Boardwalk Empire, The Unforgiven....those are all classics. And then Public Enemies is a good movie.

Master and Commander is the movie for me though, just never watched it because it was too dark on my old LCD tv.

---

Im weird though in the way that certain types of movie appeal to me more. You know, if a stupid B movie sci fi or horror comes online even if it gets terrible reviews i will download and watch instantly. Also a lot of comedies, even sometimes chick flicks I'll watch first as they are somehow easier and require less effort.

The other day I started watching Inception and turned it off after about 10 minutes and put some Catherine Zita Jones flick on called the Rebound instead. Actually was a very funny film.

---

Whoa....

:homo2:

Digital is fine there are plenty of movies that look spectacular in digital, it's more about the cinematographer. Fantastic Mr. Fox and Zodiac were both digital and were two of the more visually pleasing movies. It's a big debate but I just think to much is made of it. Miami Vice was Michael Mann directed too and that was anything but bland. It's more down to the cinematographer then anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

Digital is fine there are plenty of movies that look spectacular in digital, it's more about the cinematographer. Fantastic Mr. Fox and Zodiac were both digital and were two of the more visually pleasing movies. It's a big debate but I just think to much is made of it. Miami Vice was Michael Mann directed too and that was anything but bland. It's more down to the cinematographer then anything.

---

Eh, I just think it looks grainy and flat, just my opinion. Kubrick wouldn't have done any work in digital I know that.

It's an opinion a lot of people have but I think it's the cinematographer is good enough it won't happen. It's just like the snobby photography enthusiasts who take bad examples of photography and claim it is because of the equipment being used. In reality, there is no way anyone could notice immediately the difference between an SLR and a D-SLR but it remains a giant talking point. What Kubrick would have done doesn't have much bearing :\ Edgar Allan Poe probably couldn't imagine not dipping his pen in ink. The reality is that particular scenes have been filmed in digital for years with no one being able to tell the difference but only recently (last 5 years) have more movies been filmed completely in digital. Soon it will be a novelty to use film and not many will notice the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Public Enemies could have been sooo much better. I think the major issue I have with it is that it was filmed on digital cameras and not on actual film. It makes the movie look shallow and there's just no depth to the picture at all everything looks very flat and humdrum, very bland.

---

Michael Mann does that alot for some reason.

Ali
Collateral
Miami Vice

All not filmed in traditional 35mm.

He's produced films and let other Directors do whatever they wanted but seems like whenever he's been the Director (this side of the 21st century), his preference has been to shoot in HD.





To be honest, I haven't seen Public Enimies but I do like the gritty feel that his films give off.
They seem less... American... And thus less Hollywood.
Both drastic stereotypes I agree but (for example) my eyes are trained to view NTSC as more fantasia than PAL (:p) therefore I'm inclined to be drawn to the humble, less self assuming aura that Michael Mann films give off.
Which actually is a very good thing if your watching a film about one of the most broadcast/ discussed/ famous sports personalities on the planet!