17 minutes in, nothing's happened and I'm bored to death
-
-
SunCanyonRoad — 10 years ago(October 14, 2015 07:35 AM)
Character development Yes, I know most of today's films lack that, they just insert an explosion. That's the thing with those who are easily entertained, they are also easily bored.
"I don't want your watch, man. I want your friendship!" - Lightfoot -
A_Race_Car_in_the_Red — 10 years ago(October 18, 2015 08:38 AM)
I'm left awestruck by this post's idiocy and baffled by the poster's ignorance of quality cinema.
Even someone with severe ADHD wouldn't be bored by the first 17 minutes of this film, because so much happens within the first 17 minutes.
This one post is overflowing with an abundance of asininity and arrogance equivalent to ten cretins of a lesser caliber all trying to conceive of something analogous to this display of foolishness.
In fact, since your post has post has bored me so profusely, i'm going to respond to every atrocious sentence.
Why is this in the top250
Same way every other movie got on the top 250, a certain amount of people voted on it, and it has a rating over 8.1.
and don't tell me it gets good
It doesn't need to, it was good start to finish.
and if a film has the audacity to bore you for 17 minutes
Then it is challenging the masses to do something other than stare mindlessly at a screen and anticipate the next explosion.
the director deserves a slap in the face.
and Michael Bay deserves a pat on the back?
"I'll show you the life of the mind!" -
Deicidium — 10 years ago(October 20, 2015 11:59 PM)
"Same way every other movie got on the top 250, a certain amount of people voted on it, and it has a rating over 8.1. "
Let me rephrase that for you so that you can understand. Why did people enjoy something so much where nothing happens in the first 17 minutes. Were they dozing off or at the toilet?
Then it is challenging the masses to do something other than stare mindlessly at a screen and anticipate the next explosion.
That is an assumption and an exceedingly farcical way to defend beep
All these references to Micheal Bay are just strawman arguments. Take the first 17 minutes of any other film in the top 250 and compare. -
A_Race_Car_in_the_Red — 10 years ago(October 21, 2015 07:12 AM)
Let me rephrase that for you so that you can understand. Why did people enjoy something so much where nothing happens in the first 17 minutes. Were they dozing off or at the toilet?
I'm already trying to explain a lot to you, don't make me have to explain humor.
That is an assumption and an exceedingly farcical way to defend beep
Nope, it's a generalization, and in most cases it actually rings true. Most films that move at an extremely fast pace are merely trying to subdue the short attention span of the audience. Whereas films that move at a slower pace, often use this to filter out Joe average moviegoer, and bring in a more fitting audience. Think of how ridiculous Citizen Kane would be if it moved at the pace of Transformers, and vice-versa.
All these references to Micheal Bay are just strawman arguments.
Michael Bay is an extreme example, but you seem to be looking for something with the fast pace and instant gratification of a half-assed action movie.
Take the first 17 minutes of any other film in the top 250 and compare.
Fight Club- The Narrator just talks about Ikea furniture, and goes to various support groups, meeting Marla. Stops going to support groups, talks about his job, travels for his job, and eventually meets Tyler Durden. I would have to re-watch it to be sure, but I don't remember much happening until The Narrator gets off the plane.
Reservoir Dogs- Table conversation (pointless, but fun), entire heist happens and is explained, Mr. Orange is shot and dying, Mr. White and Mr. Pink discover that one of them is a rat, we get Mr. White's backstory.
Finding a film with a more cluttered 17 minutes, isn't effective evidence of this film's failure, it is just an exhibition of how pace and plot setup is used differently by different artists.
Note: I think Fight Club is great, and the first 17 minutes are used very well to establish the main character's personality and the film's societal message.
"I'll show you the life of the mind!" -
eeriebass — 10 years ago(October 27, 2015 07:16 AM)
This has to be a joke. 17 minutes into the film and you instantly have to jump on IMDb and tell everyone how stupid they are for liking it. You should make your own film! It should be 17 minutes long, I'll pitch some ideas to get you started. Open with an explosion, then have a guy covered with blood wielding a chainsaw run at the explosion and try and kill it: But OH NO! The explosion has a AK-47 and shoots the chainsaw man, who explodes from too many bullets. Then there is a bunch of boobs, fade to black.
That's some top250 beep right there! Git-R-Done!! -
preachcaleb — 10 years ago(November 05, 2015 09:00 AM)
Maybe you shouldn't be on the internet 17 minutes into a movie.
don't tell me it gets good because to watch a film you have to watch the first 17 minutes and if a film has the audacity to bore you for 17 minutes then the director deserves a slap in the face.
Not at all. The movie doesn't "get good." The movie starts off good.
Can't stop the signal. -
thektroll — 10 years ago(November 26, 2015 08:15 PM)
Isn't the whole thing with Dogs how the opening credits stop and you are brought up close and personal with a guy who has been shot and dying a traumatic death?
Lol what a joke of a post for many reasons. -
Iberian_Wolf — 10 years ago(November 30, 2015 06:35 AM)
lol what?
after the restaurant/waitress scene
Mr. Orange is already bleeding
on the whole friggin car.
let me guess, you only let the phone ring twice, after that you quite, right?
Sean Bean has not died from Lightsaber related issues yetjust saying