Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the titleβs subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
I'm making this post to bring attention to original movies being released that people here might not have heard about. If it's recieved well, perhaps I'll make this a weekly series of posts about originals being released.
Okay, technically, A Working Man is based on a book, but for all intents and purposes, it's original.
It's what I like about him, you know exactly what you're getting with a statham movie.
That's my problem. Knowing is not fun. Being surprised is the fun part.
But some people only go to the movies to see something they know they will like, so there is a market for him.
I don't ever go to a movie unless I know I'll like it either (or at least expect to like it), I just know I won't like his movies, because they are just always so uninteresting because they are too absurd.
And absurd doesn't need to be a bad thing, but I feel like his movies don't admit or recognize their own absurdity and they take themselves too seriously. That's why it becomes cheesy.
π€·ββοΈ What can I say.
In that case go see a different movie, if you want something original or thought provoking you're not going to choose to watch a statham movie by accident. "Knowing is not fun 'for you'" there are plenty of people who do enjoy the familiar, otherwise he wouldn't be so successful.
Ii like them as a pallete cleanser, after watching too many mind fuck TV shows sometimes I need a break with some simple fun thoughtless action movie.
Indeed, I did say it was "my problem" π
I will definitely do that π Every single movie his characters are so cheesy and he's so overly macho it's just absurd and not believable at all. I feel like it caters to the lower end of the intelligence spectrum, a little bit.
But I am not one to take away someone else's fun, so I'll definitely not tell someone not to watch it. But I will never recommend one to anyone. π
There's a time for everything, is my personal take. Sometimes I want a film that will be original and challenge me, but I don't want that every day.
Sometimes it's relaxing to know there won't be any big surprises.
Sure. I'd never pay theater money for such an experience though. Like going to a restaurant. One day I don't want beef bourguignon, some days I want a pack of noodles. But I won't go to the ~~theaters~~ restaurant to get a pack of noodles.
That's fair, but the analogy is wrong, imo. In the sense that I can enjoy a good movie anywhere. I don't need to see the green book in a cinema to enjoy it, it's probably even better at home. I go to the cinema for the experience...the huge screen, the sound, etc. Which is why the only movies I've seen in cinemas in the past years are Avatar, Furiosa, Deadpool and into the spider verse, pretty much.
I don't understand how the analogy is wrong if you are describing exactly what I mean. I won't go to the theaters either if it's not something spectacular that is enhanced in the cinema in a way that can't be done at home. Exactly like those movies you mention. And that becomes increasingly difficult for the cinema when I have a 65" OLED with 5.1 surround sound at home. Especially considering the comfort (and price π΄ββ οΈ) of watching at home.
Only ever will I go to the cinema with my kids as an outing, or my wife as a date type of scenario. Otherwise it's just not worth it IMO. At home I can go to the loo, get a snack, talk all I want, sit on my phone during boring parts... List goes on. π
Well, I was just thinking that you can do the bourguignon at home, whereas you can't really have an IMAX at home. Maybe I was just overthinking it, my bad :D sorry
I can build an IMAX at home too (theoretically), but that's a very hypothetical situation that isn't really part of the analogy. π The implication was that the bourguignon is best at a fancy restaurant. π
Yeah, my bad, I focused too much on the specifics and should've just looked at the meaning itself. In my head theater = restaurant, home tv = home kitchen. Good movie = bourguignon, average movie = noodles. And I had an issue with the latter part. Because to me it's not about the quality of the movie, but the quality of the experience or at least getting something that you can't get at home, same as in a restaurant I'd usually order stuff that I can't make at home. Or that is too complicated to make at home.
Imo, noodles at restaurant are better cause of powerful gas stove which lets you actually fry stuff and not just steam it and gets you the wok hei, bourguignon at home or restaurant won't be that much different since it's just a stew and there's not much you can do in a restaurant to make it better.
So that's why I thought it wasn't a good analogy. But if you just look at the meaning behind it, as I should've done, it's a good analogy.
Fair :)
imagine him in a romantic comedy
We'll never know... Hey, he might be amazing in it, who knows.
Unless that movie is Snatch.
I wouldn't say Snatch was a 'statham movie' it's a 'Guy Ritchie movie'. Statham is just in it. Same with the movie Spy, although it is one of stathams best roles, playing an exaggerated version of all his other roles.