Suggest your favourite movies that people may have overlooked.

[hot rod]

Not really an argument, more or less a gentleman's debate on the movie.

Besides your opinion means nothing to me since you obviously haven't seen it.

Edited March 19, 2011 by hot rod

[LL!]

If I read a script, can I judge a movie?

[hot rod]

absolutely, as long as you've seen the movie. Not seeing a movie and giving an opinion on it, is like saying a song sucks without even listening to it.

[livid]

What's more impressive? Seeing a movie and saying it sucks or not seeing a movie and knowing it sucks? Because Meacon was right, Daybreakers was booooooooorrrrrrrinnnggggggggggg and pretty bad.

[LL!]

Wait. Reading a script isn't seeing a movie, though. If I'm told every concept of a movie to where I know what the gist is, then I am by all means allowed to judge a movie based on my tastes. You can't just refute someone's opinions based on the fact that they haven't actually seen the movie if they know exactly what happens in it.

[hot rod]

um, I said absolutely as long as you've seen the movie. You can read the script, but there is still more to judge in a movie other than the story and whats written out on paper.

[LL!]

Wrong. You can judge a movie based on the story because, ultimately, that's what makes a movie entertaining. You can have all the visual effects you want, but if there's no substance... Nothing to keep you interested? Then what's the point? Movies tell stories. That's the point. If the story is shit, then the movie is shit.

[Kaney]

I dunno. I wouldn't say the story in The Fighter was gobsmackingly amazing or even particularly original, but seeing the performance by Bale etc made it worth watching. You can have bad concepts saved by good acting, just like having bad acting can ruin a good concept.

[LL!]

I wouldn't see it that way. If it's bad on paper, it's going to take a very good actor (AND director) to pull something out of his ass and make something watchable. I was talking to a friend the other day that Gary Oldman, when given free reign, can make the worst movie watchable. But does that make that movie interesting? Or particularly good? Not really.

If you go into a movie and say "That was good only because Bale's performance." Then there's something wrong. And later on you'll realize that you probably won't want to see that movie again.

[hot rod]

obviously the story is the bigger part of judging a movie. But a movie can have the best story EVAR OMGZ~! but still be pretty horrible because of bad acting, bad CGI, and plenty of others things. Diary of the Dead had a pretty good concept in story but the bad acting ruined it. And there are plenty of other examples of a plot being pretty good but other things hold the film back from being good. Personally, I was entertained by Daybreakers, it may have a few plot holes here and there, but I was entertained enough by it.

[the machine]

Ugh this argument is stupid.

More movies to recommend:

Gone Baby Gone. The Town got some positive attention this past year, but it's only the 2nd best Ben Affleck directed movie set in South Boston.

Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is another great film that works on more than one level, and it's shot by Roger Deakins, longtime Coen Bros collaborator, so it isn't a surprise that it looks great.

And there's beyond countless examples of movies that don't look great on paper that are great. Movies are stories told via moving pictures, which works differently then passively reading something.

[Heroin Bob]

Ed Wood and SLC Punk.

SLC Punk is my absolute favorite movie and I can probably recite any line from it, it's a shame barely anyone knows about it.