The Movie House - Part 4

David Bordwell is probably the most regarded in film theory on this subject.

Plot = Explicitly presented events.
Story = Presumed and inferred events.

@ElGunner. Was more directed at Adit, but I commented on your post because it gave a good option to comment rather than his did. I know you haven't watched it yet, and I'm disappointed

Next week brah

RedOranje wrote:A simple plot does not equate to lacking a story. To be fair, you're far from the first or most prominent person to imply or suggest as much; I've seen fairly major reviewers follow that same line. However, a well executed but simple plot can still provide a compelling and engaging story, particularly if it contains strong unique characters who develop and evolve throughout the film. Fury Road pulled this off magnificently and certainly was not lacking a story.

Your review?

Wow.

RealGunner wrote:

RedOranje wrote:A simple plot does not equate to lacking a story. To be fair, you're far from the first or most prominent person to imply or suggest as much; I've seen fairly major reviewers follow that same line. However, a well executed but simple plot can still provide a compelling and engaging story, particularly if it contains strong unique characters who develop and evolve throughout the film. Fury Road pulled this off magnificently and certainly was not lacking a story.

Your review?

Short version: "Wow"

Long(er) version: Fantastically crafted and well acted tour de force of practical effects and spectacle as a story-telling device. Not necessarily, in my opinion, the "greatest action film of the decade" or "one of the greatest action films of all time" as some have proclaimed, but a thoroughly enjoyable and extraordinarily well-made film nonetheless. Further, I personally felt there was more depth to it than some give it credit for and, ironically, some surprising opponents of it actually highlight some of the great (and overlooked) aspects of the films characters and themes.

That said, the scenes directly dealing with Max's breakdown/psychoses felt a bit out of place and there were a couple of surprising and disappointing moments where they clearly pandered to 3D. That the latter events were so rare so as to be surprising in the type of film that has recently had just about one such event every 15 minutes is a positive though.

Yep, had the same 'wow' feeling while walking out. Still can't believe how amazing the stunts were. Agreed about the depth. At no point it felt hollow or weak.

I'd still insist that this was one of the best directed film in a long long time.

I just can't believe it was made at all. Not even Spielberg gets a 150m budget with complete creative freedom, and when we consider that Max was not even the protagonist, or main decision maker, and that George Miller had only made 3 children's movies in the past 20 years, it just seems like an incredibly rare thing. Oh, and it was successful too, which also seemed unlikely.

Apparently George Miller has been developing the idea since 1998. And he originally wanted heath ledger to play mad max.

Hope this film makes enough for a sequel.

Miller already has a script ready for the sequel. Mad Max: The Wasteland

Yea, but he won't get the go ahead unless fury road makes a good enough profit.

Unbelievable how much of the movie was not CGI

One of those 6/10 films

Basically Chuck for stoners, but without Yvone.

Would rather watch Chuck.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Unbelievable how much of the movie was not CGI

Where was the shooting location? Nevada?

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Basically Chuck for stoners, but without Yvone.

Would rather watch Chuck.

Max Landis wrote it, so I'll prob watch though. He did great work with Chronicle.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Unbelievable how much of the movie was not CGI

Wow, I know. Completely shocked at how much of it was actually real stunts and not CGI

El Shaarawy wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Unbelievable how much of the movie was not CGI

Where was the shooting location? Nevada?

Namibia

Meh San Andreas is getting shit reviews. Was hoping a epic disaster film would finally be good.

lol saw the trailer before mad max. It looked terrible. Cheesy lines everywhere.

RealGunner wrote:lol saw the trailer before mad max. It looked terrible. Cheesy lines everywhere.

The Rock getting a white daughter seemes weird

Will watch when it's available for Daddario and Gugino

Watched Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior. Actually pretty good.
Rating: 4/5
The buzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Next week plzzzzzzzzzzz

Just back from San Andreas



2/10

Daddario is fit like m8 innit, only reason it's getting a 2.

Dozed off a few times as well. It's '2012' mk. II.

Don't waste your money unless you are bored out of your mind and want to watch some buildings fall get destroyed with CGI.

btw best movie of the century so far

Spoiler:

After watching Inception the first time when it came out I was, like everyone else, blown away by the film and also confused at the ending. And my main question was did the top fall or not? Because I thought that was the only ambiguity left for me to ponder upon, and I thought that would tell me whether Cobb escaped the dream or not.

Second time watching I focused much more on the film and the subtle clues and realized some sloppiness that made the film less convincing. It felt sloppy and I thought of it as more of an action heist flick with the brilliant notion of dreaming that Nolan haphazardly implemented which had some plot holes (specifically with the aging of Saito and levels of dreaming and how limbo worked). But I was still interpreted the film, as the plot unveiled itself, as a heist by the group trying to incept an idea into Fisher.

Third time watching my understanding of the film completely changed. This was also helped by the fact that I did some reading on the ending of the film and took some other peoples wild ideas into account about the movie and one interpretation that really caught my attention was the "It's all a dream' interpretation. All the sloppiness and the plot holes that kind of degraded the film in my eyes after the second watch completely flipped on their heads and looked like pieces of genius in a work of art that created pure masterpiece. Now I was sold on the 'it's all a dream' interpretation and it felt like I was watching a completely different movie because all the subtle clues pointing to a story that I was completely blind to previously. Yet still after changing my perception of how I saw the film, I was left puzzled as to how on earth could all this make sense that all of Cobb's reality is actually a dream.

The 4th time watching the film this past weekend is, I believe, when I finally understand the whole movie and comprehend just how masterful of a film this is. It's pure brilliance and YES while the movie is ambiguous and left to the audience to decide for ourselves which ending we feel best suits it, I am completely team 'It's all a dream".

This man explains it better than I could possibly hope to so please give it a watch, I know it's long but it's worth it if you still believe the scenario that the heist and reality was actually real. It's best if you actually rewatch film again and then watch this.

Well the top spinning never mattered since it wasn't his token. His token was the wedding ring.

Love inception.

Yep, it was his wife's (Mal's?) token, like Freeza said