What do you look for in movies?

One of talk, tits and expositions. Like my night with Ravenstone, except that there was no talk.

Film is very much a visual medium. But the overall effect of cinema depends on more than just image; it depends on the effect of cinema is born out of the unified force of multiple elements, such as sound and rhythm of editing. And, in truth, any discussion of cinema that fails to take into account the way that it deals with space and time is bound to be insufficient.

Sharky wrote:

One of talk, tits and expositions. Like my night with Ravenstone, except that there was no talk.

With me and Rave it was talk, tits and explosions. Mind you, she had had too much to drink.

Any more thoughts?

Truly ... it depends what mood I'm in.

I know that isn't a helpful answer at all but sometimes I'll got and watch teen-rom-com movies and utterly enjoy it despite knowing its trash. I've done that plenty of times. Sometimes I'll want to go and watch a pointless action flick - Transformers. I enjoyed that. Sure it was just explosion after explosion after explosion (just add a BOOM!) but I was very entertained.

Maybe that is something that attracts me ... seeing how people use CGI and special effects - just effects in general. How it comes to be created. I'm currently watching Peter Jackson's blog on filming the Hobbit and its fantastic to get a peek at how they are achieving the visuals for the film.

I like other worlds, things far-away from life. That is why I sometimes struggle with dramas. So I suppose I look for escapism, the ability to leave behind my life - that comes across strongly in my writing I've realised. I want adventure.

However besides that - good strong visuals (whoever said films were not a visual medium are idiots ... sorry but the visual composition, each shot ... is crucial), good strong characters and their development, quick snappy dialogue ... something that will reach me on a deeper level. The films that make me think, the ones where I leave the cinema truly considering what was shown to me and what that means to me as a person are also appealing.

A two hour holiday.

I look for personality.

Characters have personality.
Dialogue has personality.
Locations have personality.
The Music has personality.
The Actors have personality.

There's no distinct formula rnaking each in importance, but they need to bind together (with some other factors, naturally), but I need to be engrossed in the picture by its personality. I like the films for their boldness of script. Their perceptions on society, whether conformist or subversive. Whether its the big expensive extravaganza or the little film that could, its got to have a personality. A sense of wonder.

As for visuals, I just need it to be distinctive. It can be beautiful shots of Western vistas or the ugliness of poverty row noir, I always appreciate something ditinctive. But its got to mean something, and the personality gives it its meaning. Great films go beyond just visuals.

colly wrote:

Characters have personality.
Dialogue has personality.
Locations have personality.
The Music has personality.
The Actors have personality.

Sounds just like DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER to me.

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is like watching something like 4 FOR TEXAS or ROBIN AND THE 7 HOODS (neither of which I've ever actually finished) - trading on style and your cred isnt personality. And over the course of the film it just gets embarrassing.

I was just pointing out that DAF fulfills all of those criteria. Sure, it's pure style over substance, but it's very entertaining farce.

It's well known that I prize the story above all else. I believe that stories exist in a state of dynamic disequilibrium, and that good stories fit in with this.

The typical story model is the introduction-complication-reoslution. And this is a fairly basic model. it works, but it's not particularly sophisticated. I believe that in order to be a good story, something must change within the world of the story for good, and that the viewer must get to the end of the story feeling like they have gone somewhere. The best example I can give of why this is important is Red John's Footsteps, the finale for the first season of "The Mentalist". Up until this point, Simon Baker has spent twenty-two episodes chasing serial killer Red John, when he finally gets a lead on Red John's whereabouts. At the end of the episode, he confronts Red John - only to discover that it was Red John's partner, and he is shot, killing of the one lead. The effect of this is that Simon Baker is sent all the way back to square one. Or, in other words, the events of the previous twenty-two episodes and any development that went with them is completely invalidated.

Bah! The story is only the frame, the template. The film should be about more. A film must transcend its skeleton.

Sure, its a personality. Every movie's got a personality.

But as in life, you have friends, and enemies. And then the class clowns, who'll you'll laugh at initially, then occasionally, and then just make you cringe.

So you're saying j7wild is DAF?

colly wrote:

Sure, its a personality. Every movie's got a personality.

Disagree there. Many films lack a personality. i.e. nearly all of the POTTER flicks.

colly wrote:

But as in life, you have friends, and enemies. And then the class clowns, who'll you'll laugh at initially, then occasionally, and then just make you cringe.

Or standup comedians, who aren't to everyone's taste.

Sharky wrote:

colly wrote:

But as in life, you have friends, and enemies. And then the class clowns, who'll you'll laugh at initially, then occasionally, and then just make you cringe.

Or standup comedians, who aren't to everyone's taste.

Nothing's to everyone's taste, if we're going to start getting obvious, Sharky. ;)

And trying to put in the Potter flicks, whats the point? Did you even watch the last 4, given your hatred for David Yates?




...as a side note though, I find it rather cool that once you type "harry" in on IMDB, the first result is Harry Morgan. Class. 8)

My hatred for Yates didn't grow out of thin air.

The best thing that happened to the Potter films, apart from John Williams, is Mike Newell.

Sharky wrote:

Mike Newell.

Dare I ask why - because to my mind Cuaron in AZKABAN started the development from "magic" to "wizardry", and Yates in PHOENIX developed it a lot more than Newell did in GOBLET.

I don't know what you're on about. Magic to wizardry? I'm talking about visual style.

Sharky wrote:

Bah! The story is only the frame, the template. The film should be about more. A film must transcend its skeleton.

Well, yes - but no amount of transcending is going to save it if the story is rubbish.

Story is only a small part of the battle. Plot is more important again, and then it's got to mean something.

The Star Wars prequels, purely on a story level, are pretty compelling, a rich story of hubris, tragedy, Machiavellian scheming and subterfuge, misdirection, love, death, belief, blah blah blah, but it lives and dies on how well it is delivered in the plotting of three feature length films.

And in that case, it died.

These days, a decent score.

Very difficult to define what it is that makes a film work when more often than not it down to how individual components reinforce one another than their individual merit.

Overall raw entertainment has to be front and centre for me, if a film fails to entertain then great performances and great ideas really don't register as they should, ie I don't engage enough to appreciate other attributes till that is achieved etc. Looking at my favoured films it is probably a case that atmosphere/style/mood are disproportionately important factors - I tend to prefer film worlds that take the time to envelope you and draw you into a story, rather than those that expect a free pass from moment one, if something is important I want to feel it as real, just telling me about it won't wash.

One of the most acute problems I find with modern films is that I don't care about anyone or anything that happens..... Spielberg's 'War of the Worlds' has some great moments but the experiences of Mr Knob-head and his whiny, stupid and self centred family make them far less engaging than they should be, the first part of the film may speak to some but to me it seemed determined to distance me from the human characters, with families like that perhaps the Martians should wipe us out!. Similarly Casino Royale hinges on the relationship between Bond and Vesper, but there are too many disjointed distractions and there is no real time afforded that relationship - hasty verbal exposition is not a substitute - it doesn't work for me and the film pretty much falls apart as a result. I also feel that a lot of films are too self absorbed, too self aware the modern edict makes them insular and unreal to me.....if everything is contrived to be all about one person then the film universe it too restrictive and I feel excluded or even contemptuous... If that makes any sense!

I'd also echo Shark's comment about the score, the immersive effect of a great score can transform many a film, music seems to hold a greater sway on my emotional involvement than images do.