Movie Talk (New Films, Old Films... doesn't matter) (62 Viewers)

[Bisco]

decided to watch a movie my cousin passed on to me a year ago as i had nothing better to do, that movie was " new years eve" the movie is 1hr 57 mins long, i could'nt ( despite trying ) go past the 30 min mark!! such a catastrophic movie, with the most amount of cliches a movie could ever have.

Edit: i think my cousin might be coming out soon

in my humble opinion i'm no expert like many who post in this thread but efron, bon jovi, russel peters, sarah jessica parker have no business in hollywood period. i'm shocked di niro agreed to be part of this shit, the same applies to michelle.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[GordoDeCentral]

First of all, it was technically brilliant when it comes to cinematography, the music and the acting. Second of all, I thought it was entertaining. Despite its length and pace, I wasn't bored at any second, and I enjoyed watching such a well-crafted movie about such an important subject. It's slow-paced for a reason, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

About the historical inaccuracies, this obviously isn't a documentary. It's a four months process boiled down to a 2,5 hours film. It's given that many things are simplified. Does this mean that the film isn't informative? Not at all, if you ask me. The film gives a good overview of the 13th amendment and the history behind it. Add to this, that it's still relevant today, and much can be learned from the film. I thought Spielberg managed to handle an important subject delicately. Should you learn history from this film alone? Of course not, but it's a great supplement.

Obviously.

i dont necessarily want to argue with you about the merits of the movie, but it seems the reasons you provide make little sense to me, if this has "brilliant" cinematography i dont know what life of pi is. As for score, did it even have one? I dont care if it is slow-paced but it is overly pretentious and lacks harmony.

And when i say "grossly inaccurate", i mean as in filled with lies and propaganda.

so once again if this historical piece is not educative nor entertaining what the heck is it?

 

[CaesarCod]

Zero Dark Thirty. Good.

 

[ALC]

Classics of what?

classics of what?!

 

[ZoSo]

they are classics. deny it if you want. you guys are kinda snobby with your selections. who the fuck watches french movies if they're not french?

yea

 

[Martin]

Zero Dark Thirty. Good.

speaking of lies and propaganda

 

[CaesarCod]

speaking of lies and propaganda

who cares?

 

[Nenz]

Just saw Gangster Squad.

Honestly its quite poorly written and put together. Its packed full of cliches and doesn't let on that its attempting to be facetious until almost half way through the film where there are a few funny moments. I love almost every actor in this film (not to mention I'm a sucker for gangster flicks) and they do their best with what they have but the attention to detail by the men behind the cameras is poor I could barely follow what was going on. Either that or i'm a fried potato. Its a reoccurring problem in movies I've been watching lately. Maybe its production companies pushing deadlines but new films I've been watching barely flow and little annoying screw ups in detail will piss me off and make it difficult to believe the story (no matter what the genre).

 

[Völler]

i dont necessarily want to argue with you about the merits of the movie, but it seems the reasons you provide make little sense to me, if this has "brilliant" cinematography i dont know what life of pi is. As for score, did it even have one?

My reasons don't make any sense?

1) The subject is very interesting - both from a historical and political point of view - as well as entertainment.
2) The story is told in an interesting way
3) The acting, cinematography, music, direction etc. are all great. It's overall technically brilliant.

Second of all, just because Lincoln might not be as good as Life of Pi when it comes to cinematography (which is debatable, but I'm inclined to agree), doesn't mean that Lincoln wasn't good in that aspect. That would be like calling Marchisio a bad footballer just because Pirlo is better. When it comes to score, it was indeed subtle which I absolutely loved having seen Spielberg's War Horse. But still, if you payed attention, it was impossible not to notice Williams brilliancy. His scored pushed the right buttons at the right times, but without pushing the score in your face.

I dont care if it is slow-paced but it is overly pretentious and lacks harmony.

It is overly pretentious? In what way? How does it lack harmony?

so once again if this historical piece is not educative nor entertaining what the heck is it?

Is this a serious question? I have already explained to you that I found the film entertaining. This is my point of view, and just because you didn't find it entertaining doesn't make that an universal fact.

And when i say "grossly inaccurate", i mean as in filled with lies and propaganda.

How is it grossly inaccurate and filled with lies and propaganda? Here is what different historians say about Lincoln:

Academic historians have been more ambivalent in their reaction than movie critics. Eric Foner (Columbia University), a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of the period, claims in a letter to the New York Times that the movie “grossly exaggerates” its main points about the choices at stake in the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment (November 26, 2012).[59] Kate Masur (Northwestern University) accuses the film of oversimplifying the role of blacks in abolition and dismisses the effort as “an opportunity squandered” in an op-ed for the New York Times (November 12, 2012).[60] Harold Holzer, co-chair of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation and author of more than 40 books, served as a consultant to the film and praises it but also observes that there is “no shortage of small historical bloopers in the movie” in a piece for The Daily Beast (November 22, 2012).[61] Allen Guelzo (Gettysburg College), also writing for The Daily Beast has some plot criticism, but disagrees with Holzer, arguing that, “The pains that have been taken in the name of historical authenticity in this movie are worth hailing just on their own terms” (November 27, 2012).[62] David Stewart, independent historical author, writing for History News Network, describes Spielberg’s work as “reasonably solid history” and tells readers of HNN, “go see it with a clear conscience” (November 20, 2012).[63] Lincoln Biographer Ronald White also admired the film, though he noted a few mistakes and pointed out in an interview with NPR, “Is every word true? No.” (November 23, 2012).[64] Historian Joshua M. Zeitz, writing in The Atlantic, noted some minor mistakes, but concluded "Lincoln is not a perfect film, but it is an important film."[65] Following a screening during the film's opening weekend, the Minnesota Civil War Commemoration Task Force held a panel discussion in which Dr. David Woodard of Concordia University remarked, "I always look at these films to see if a regular person who wasn't a 'Lincoln nut' would want to read a book about it after they watched the movie. I get the impression that most people who are not history buffs will now want to read something about Lincoln."[66]

Generally, it simplifies and exaggerates a lot of things - just like a 2,5 hour movie has to do in order to deliver its message. Does the film still give a fair view of the whole case about the 13th amendment? In my opinion, yes. Is it very educating (in a good way) when it comes to politics in the 19th century to people who aren't expert in the field? Without a doubt. Most of the historians in my quote are generally also praising the film. Sure, it has flaws, but overall it was a good viewing experience.

 

[Martin]

who cares?

I do, if you must know.

 

[Fint]

Saw Django last night, loved everything about it, especially Christopher Waltz and his his horse fritz

 

[GordoDeCentral]

My reasons don't make any sense?

1) The subject is very interesting - both from a historical and political point of view - as well as entertainment.
2) The story is told in an interesting way
3) The acting, cinematography, music, direction etc. are all great. It's overall technically brilliant.

Second of all, just because Lincoln might not be as good as Life of Pi when it comes to cinematography (which is debatable, but I'm inclined to agree), doesn't mean that Lincoln wasn't good in that aspect. That would be like calling Marchisio a bad footballer just because Pirlo is better. When it comes to score, it was indeed subtle which I absolutely loved having seen Spielberg's War Horse. But still, if you payed attention, it was impossible not to notice Williams brilliancy. His scored pushed the right buttons at the right times, but without pushing the score in your face.



It is overly pretentious? In what way? How does it lack harmony?



Is this a serious question? I have already explained to you that I found the film entertaining. This is my point of view, and just because you didn't find it entertaining doesn't make that an universal fact.



How is it grossly inaccurate and filled with lies and propaganda? Here is what different historians say about Lincoln:



Generally, it simplifies and exaggerates a lot of things - just like a 2,5 hour movie has to do in order to deliver its message. Does the film still give a fair view of the whole case about the 13th amendment? In my opinion, yes. Is it very educating (in a good way) when it comes to politics in the 19th century to people who aren't expert in the field? Without a doubt. Most of the historians in my quote are generally also praising the film. Sure, it has flaws, but overall it was a good viewing experience.

1) The subject is very interesting: it would be if it wasnt so fictional
2) The story is told in an interesting way: fictionalized? to each his own i guess
3) The acting, cinematography, music, direction etc. are all great. It's overall technically brilliant.: you cant just put everything in a bag and call it brilliant

why is it pretentious: have you listened to the dull constantly circumlocutory dialogue?
lacks harmony: it is a essentially a snippet from this guys life with no context with plenty of unnecessary fluff(first scene of the movie comes to mind). It moves between days and weeks leaving the viewer guessing most of the time.

As for the quoted piece, when i called it lies and propaganda it didnt relate to how authentic was the reproduction of the desk in his office. It would be kind to call it "grossly exaggerated" when stances are amplified to the point of turning this man into the mythic figure of great emancipator. Not to forget the timing of the movie, in no way coincidental, consecrating a lobbying and constitution circumventing president of the past to justify the actions of the one in office now.

 

[Völler]

1) The subject is very interesting: it would be if it wasnt so fictional
2) The story is told in an interesting way: fictionalized? to each his own i guess
3) The acting, cinematography, music, direction etc. are all great. It's overall technically brilliant.: you cant just put everything in a bag and call it brilliant

1) Good. We agree that the subject is interesting - at least in theory.
2) To each his own, indeed.
3) When I'm mentioning these things, it's because they all add to my overall view of the film. It's difficult not enjoying Daniel Day-Lewis amazing portrayal of Lincoln - even if you thought the film was boring. How can you not think that Tommy Lee Jones' character was interesting and by the way totally awesome? Hell, even if you didn't like the film, you can certainly enjoy the amazing pictures that made you jump right into the 19th century? It's quite an accomplishment if you ask me. Of course these things don't make a great film alone, but they all add to the overall view of the film.

why is it pretentious: have you listened to the dull constantly circumlocutory dialogue?

Yes, it's called 19th century. Quote from The New Yorker:

If some of the dialogue “sounds written” rather than spoken, that is because so much of it is drawn directly from letters, memoirs, and speeches.

lacks harmony: it is a essentially a snippet from this guys life with no context with plenty of unnecessary fluff(first scene of the movie comes to mind). It moves between days and weeks leaving the viewer guessing most of the time.

It's a film about the 13th amendment, not about Lincoln. So of course it only shows a snippet of Lincoln's life. The first scene is in no way unnecessary. It shows how much power Lincoln has, and how much the people actually admire him. Furthermore, it's a good introduction to the him and his character. Before the black soldiers (or is after, I can't remember), we also shortly see the realities of the war.

Yes, it movies between days and weeks, and again, so does basically every film that's taking place over months. Maybe you don't know exactly what the date is as a viewer, but you still have a good understanding of time. At least I wasn't confused, and I'm pretty sure the film mentions somewhere how many months it takes for them to get the 13th amendment through.

As for the quoted piece, when i called it lies and propaganda it didnt relate to how authentic was the reproduction of the desk in his office. It would be kind to call it "grossly exaggerated" when stances are amplified to the point of turning this man into the mythic figure of great emancipator. Not to forget the timing of the movie, in no way coincidental, consecrating a lobbying and constitution circumventing president of the past to justify the actions of the one in office now.

Calling it propaganda, to me, is going too far. The film showed that Lincoln had flaws. He basically bought some of his votes and did some unethical films in order to get the necessary votes in time. Lincoln also basically lied about not having a piece offer from the Confederates. Spielberg clearly shows all this, and while the film obviously isn't one big criticism of Lincoln, I don't think it's fair to say that it isn't critical of him either.

Regarding the timing, sure you might have a point, but you should look at the film separately.

 

[Marty]

@Foeller and @X sitting in a tree, K I S S I N G!

 

[Marty]

Sorry, forgot the mention thing doesn't work for you X

 

[Völler]

@Foeller and @X sitting in a tree, K I S S I N G!

LOL, someone didn't read the conversation.

 

[Marty]

LOL, someone didn't read the conversation.

I did read it actually, you argue like a married couple

 

[Völler]

I did read it actually, you argue like a married couple

He's the wife then, right?

- - - Updated - - -
@Marty

 

[Klovn]

@Foeller and @X sitting in a tree, K I S S I N G!

Behave Marty.

 

[Völler]

I see X is looking in this thread. Not sure I can handle writing another long reply today.