| Author |
 Topic  |
|
rabid kazook 
"Pushing the antelope"
|
 Posted - 03/12/2007 : 15:05:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
That's a fascinating system, Sean, but I know I couldn't implicitly trust it because I know there are films that aren't that highly regarded by the masses which I think are great - to quote big Bill - "pleased not the million; 'twas caviare to the general"
I'm not using IMDb as a referential instrument at all, because I think it's quite bad. Why? Well because there's a gigantic sample of voters there that are "weekend moviegoers" and I don't trust those. Also there's a range of voters (I'm thinking of the younger folk here) that get influenced by IMDb grades, and then vote the same themselves. I personally see, anticipate movies which have a director I like, sound good..., and then also check out critics lists and also lists of movie buffs I share opinions with, for more movies... many times we part ways in opinions here though... but it's all good.
Of the movies, demonic, you mentioned I like: Eyes Wide Shut, The Last Boy Scout, Deep Blue Sea, for the pleasures of campiness andwhatnot... but don't like Wrong Turn, First Knight, We Were Soldiers, Underworld, Silent Hill, U-571, The Matrix Revolutions, Police Academy...
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
There are also loads of films further down the scale that are bad enough to be good - definitely worth watching for the experience of a truly bad film...
Indeed, hence the best movie fight of all time. 
|
Edited by - rabid kazook on 03/12/2007 15:09:14 |
 |
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 15:30:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
Indeed, hence the best movie fight of all time.
 but man those guys are built |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 16:31:08
|
I wouldn't call Hostel tame. Not at all. But I do get where Benj is going with this. Hostel is gory and ugly, but the violence in it doesn't have the snap of Wolf Creek or Saw III. It's kind of dulling and depressing instead of brain-meltingly terrifying.
More than that, it's really dumb. I've seen the superior Csbin Fever, and I think that Eli Roth is a guy who likes to punish his characters for very specific sins. In Hostel, the characters are punished for being dumbass Ugly American tourists (or, in the case of their companion, dumb Eurotrash tourists), nothing better to do than travel the world trolling for booty. They bang prostitutes and don't see women beyond pieces of meat, and then they get their just desserts by having other people treat THEM like pieces of meat.
Well, I'm sorry, but those aren't the same things. Not at all. I think you could if they were Bangkok tourists, but in the heavily regulated Amsterdam sex trade, there is much less comparison. Furthermore, if that's what he was going for, he should have let the more assholish guy die and made the nice guy the hero. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 00:07:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
I'm not using IMDb as a referential instrument at all, because I think it's quite bad. Why? Well because there's a gigantic sample of voters there that are "weekend moviegoers" and I don't trust those.
Me neither, but they're probably consistent, so it doesn't matter.quote:
Also there's a range of voters (I'm thinking of the younger folk here) that get influenced by IMDb grades, and then vote the same themselves.
Same again, their votes won't change anything. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 00:10:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
If anyone (Sean, maybe) is still wondering whether to watch it, take note of the following, from IMDb (trivia):
This film knocked The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) off the top spot both at the box office, and when it was released on DVD. The production budget of "The Chronicles of Narnia" is nearly 50 times the $4 million dollar production budget of Hostel (2005), which earned $20 million dollars in its opening weekend alone.
That means nothing to me at all. Opening weekend popularity reflects the success of the marketing campaign, and to my knowledge doesn't say anything about the quality of a film. |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 00:16:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
Indeed, hence the best movie fight of all time.
Boy, that guy sure doesn't have much luck with his eyes  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 01:11:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Can you explain more why you use the IMDB ratings so faithfully?
OK, here goes:-
I always score a movie at fwfr and IMDb after I've watched it. I worked out a while ago that my score seldom varied from the IMDb score by more than a point, so I concluded they could generally be trusted. I also worked out the following categories from IMDb scores:-
8.0+ - excellent movies. There are only 160 or so movies above this level (with enough votes for IMDb to consider it significant), and only 2 above (marginally) 9. This is the pinnacle of movie-making, they are un-missable.
7.5 - 8.0 - very good to excellent movies. I would see any movie of any age from any genre from any director from any country in any language that's above 7.5, as I just know it's got to be worth seeing if it's got over 7.5. I will exclude only a very, very few movies if the subject matter isn't to my liking, e.g., something that's likely to be totally depressing etc.
6.5 - 7.5 - probably pretty good, or at worst ordinary, but mostly worth watching. I'm almost never disappointed even if I pick movies at random from within this range.
5.5 - 6.5 - starting to be selective here, I don't believe there are any excellent movies in this range, many that are quite watchable but also forgettable. Usually better than staring at the wall, but perhaps not. I take genre into account within this range (see next paragraph).
I've also noted that voters are tougher or more liberal in certain genres. You could also explain this as me being easier or harder to please in certain genres. E.g., I think horror-movie watchers are harder to please, if it doesn't make them jump or have enough gore then they'll vote harshly. And I think voters are more liberal in romantic dramas, particularly if certain actors are present. E.g., the Freaky Friday remake gets a higher score than Ju-On: The Grudge.  I take this into account. So, I would possibly see a horror that scores 5.5 (I watched The Eye 2 at 5.6 and it was worth watching, but not very good, certainly not scary), but would certainly not watch a romantic drama at 6.3. But if a romantic drama gets 7.5 then it falls into the non-negotiable "see at all costs" category and I'll definitely watch it - I found Fucking �m�l (7.8) that way, I had never heard of the director or any of the cast, but it's now one of my favourite movies ever, and the only criteria I used when deciding to watch it was the IMDb score.
Sure, there are exceptions (they are always movies that are rated too highly for some reason), I could probably count these on the fingers of one hand. These tend to be "cult movies", e.g., Serenity has die-hard TV-series followers who are going to rate the movie 10/10 even before they've seen it. It gets 8.0 so should be excellent, but is run-of-the-mill sci-fi at best, I gave it 5.0.
I never read movie reviews, I don't see the point reading other people's waffle or interpretation. All I need to know is the outcome of a two-way decision:- Do I see it.... or not. The IMDb score gives me that outcome.
An example:- People have commented on Hostel in this thread. Nobody has raved about it, nobody has said it's total shite, some have expressed disappointment, some have said it was OK and a fair use of time. So, it's pretty ordinary, nothing memorable, see it if you want something to do but don't expect much. All of this can be summed up with a number:- 5.8 .
Edit: It's worth pointing out that for me, most watchable movies fall inside the range 6.0 - 8.0, i.e., a very tight range. Few movies ever end up above 8, and very little below 6 is watchable. Hence the need for creating the ranges I did above. |
Edited by - Sean on 03/13/2007 01:55:39 |
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 16:52:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
Indeed, hence the best movie fight of all time.
Thank you for that - that is absolutely wonderful...
"Huh! Yeah! See Ya!" |
|
|
|
rabid kazook
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 19:47:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
but man those guys are built
Ya, like of rubber... how only could that punches bounce of that way...
HOSTEL SPOILERS
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
More than that, it's really dumb. I've seen the superior Csbin Fever, and I think that Eli Roth is a guy who likes to punish his characters for very specific sins. In Hostel, the characters are punished for being dumbass Ugly American tourists (or, in the case of their companion, dumb Eurotrash tourists), nothing better to do than travel the world trolling for booty. They bang prostitutes and don't see women beyond pieces of meat, and then they get their just desserts by having other people treat THEM like pieces of meat.
Well, I'm sorry, but those aren't the same things. Not at all. I think you could if they were Bangkok tourists, but in the heavily regulated Amsterdam sex trade, there is much less comparison. Furthermore, if that's what he was going for, he should have let the more assholish guy die and made the nice guy the hero.
Wasn't that what happened? The nicer guy...
Anyhow, I agree that it's dumb. Also I think a load of other horror directors did the "punishing their characters for their sins" pop. |
|
|
|
rabid kazook
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 19:50:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Thank you for that - that is absolutely wonderful...
"Huh! Yeah! See Ya!"
I kinda feel sorry for the guy... such a charismatic bad person...  |
Edited by - rabid kazook on 03/13/2007 19:50:44 |
|
|
|
Koli 
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 23:03:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
If anyone (Sean, maybe) is still wondering whether to watch it, take note of the following, from IMDb (trivia):
This film knocked The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) off the top spot both at the box office, and when it was released on DVD. The production budget of "The Chronicles of Narnia" is nearly 50 times the $4 million dollar production budget of Hostel (2005), which earned $20 million dollars in its opening weekend alone.
That means nothing to me at all. Opening weekend popularity reflects the success of the marketing campaign, and to my knowledge doesn't say anything about the quality of a film.
Ah. Well I didn't mean that the first weekend's takings are a good guide to a film's quality. I meant that it deserves kudos for knocking a big-budget blockbuster off the top spot.
There are lots of other little nuggets in the trivia on IMDb for Hostel.
Some is endearing:
1. Eli Roth hired real street kids to play the Bubble Gum Gang.
2. Eli Roth wrote the role of Oli for Eythor Gudjonsson after he met him doing press for Cabin Fever (2002) in Iceland. Roth was so taken with Eythor's charisma and charm, he promised he'd make put him in a movie one day. Eythor was surprised when he saw that Roth had followed through with his promise, and happily accepted the role.
3. The porn film the guard at the factory watches on the DVD player is Sex Fever (2003) (V), the X-rated parody of Roth's first film Cabin Fever (2002). [However, IMDb trivia doesn't mention that a film on TV in the hostel is Pulp Fiction, directed by Hostel producer Quentin Tarentino.]
4. Eli Roth asked the President of Iceland for an official pardon for making Icelanders look like drunken sex maniacs with the character of Oli. The president laughed and gave Roth the pardon, saying it represented a side of Icelanders not shown in movies. Roth also issued a formal apology to the Icelandic Minister of Culture, for all the damage Hostel (2005) may cause to Iceland's reputation.
5. Eli Roth wanted to have the world premiere of the finished film at the 2005 Iceland Film Festival. During the festival, Roth and Quentin Tarantino were made honorary Vikings at Viking Village, in a ceremony arranged by Eythor Gudjonsson. Roth's Icelandic name is Eli Sheldonsson, and Tarantino's Icelandic name is Quentin Conniesson.
Some is I suppose a kind of measure of goriness: Over 150 gallons of blood were used in the making of the movie, nearly three times the amount used on Eli Roth's first film Cabin Fever (2002).
Some is quite revealing: In the German dub, the German torturer is Spanish, and Paxton speaks Spanish instead of German to him.
Some suggest that the crew had a lot of fun making it, and show that it was a team effort: Eli Roth put nearly every single crew member in the film, including production accountant Mark Bakunas, who appears on a poster in the background of three different scenes for his fictional rock band, 'Bakunas and the Essential Elements.' The other members of the band on the poster are producers Mike Fleiss and Chris Briggs, Co-Producer Daniel S. Frisch, Production and Costume Designer Franco-Giacomo Carbone, and Roth. Milda Jedi Havlas, the movie's production assistant, can be seen as the male desk clerk at the Slovakian hostel. He played the part to replace an actor who dropped out shortly before his scenes were to be filmed.
And some show that it's appreciated by public and reviewers alike:
1. The #1 Scariest Movie of All Time on Bravo's TV Special "100 Scariest Movie Moments: Even Scarier Moments."
2. Le Monde named this as one of its ten best films of 2006. Only two other American films made the list: Terrence Malick's The New World (2005) and Martin Scorsese's The Departed (2006). |
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 23:11:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I wouldn't call Hostel tame. Not at all. But I do get where Benj is going with this. Hostel is gory and ugly, but the violence in it doesn't have the snap of Wolf Creek or Saw III. It's kind of dulling and depressing instead of brain-meltingly terrifying.
SPOILERS AHEAD
It reminded me of Wolf Creek but I found it chilling in a different way. In WC the victims are isolated and you're pretty sure that no one is close enough to help them. In Hostel one of the chilling things is the extent of the conspiracy and you get the feeling that anyone who might normally be able to help (e.g. the police) is on the side of the crooks. I felt genuinely shaken after watching Hostel, much as I did after watching WC. |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 23:14:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
but man those guys are built
Ya, like of rubber... how only could that punches bounce of that way...
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/14/2007 : 00:33:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
And some show that it's appreciated by public and reviewers alike:
1. The #1 Scariest Movie of All Time on Bravo's TV Special "100 Scariest Movie Moments: Even Scarier Moments."
Hmmm... which is more likely, I wonder... (a). that the scariest movie of all time was made the same year Bravo TV made it's special, or (b). the average voter has the memory (and appreciation of good horror) of a goldfish and can only remember the most recent horror film they saw? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hostel - gender contrast
