Films recommended by people who work in videoclubs

[gumonstro]

It´s scary. 90% of them always recommend me Butterfly Effect and Big Fish.

[spencer]

Is videoclub another word for like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video?

Yeah, they may work there, but they definately don't have good taste in movies for the most part. Same with theaters themselves.

I work at a theater with about 50 or so people there, and I've only met two other people that actually like movies as more than a superficial quick fix of entertainment. I remember all throughout winter my coworkers were talking about how GREAT a movie The Ringer was, and one guy even called Kong a "waste of three hours" just because it was too long.

Lame.

[eliotbaring]

One thing i have learned is never listen to the recommendations from your local video store clerk. The other days a customer asked the clerk to recommend a horror film and she seemed to think the remake of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was the top of the heat.

[David Jimerson]

I worked at a Blockbuster once. My recommendations were GOLD.

No one followed them, though. One can only try.

BTW, King Kong IS way too long.

[spencer]

I for one did not think so, but even still, you can't chastise a movie for it's length only, can you? I mean, if Kill Bill was put into one movie instead of two, would people have been like "it's too long" and say nothing about the rest?

That's what I'm working with here. He didn't mention the graphics on kong were good, tehre were some fun action scenes, but there were also pacing problems. He just didn't wanna sit through a three hour movie. If he had something other than "it was just too long" I'd respect his opinion more.

[David Jimerson]

It's as valid a criticism as any. Bloated storytelling is just plain bad.

[Ought2bCommitted]

I would recommend the new Chainsaw. It had some impressive moments. It did not have the impact the original had and is not going to be as influencial, but so what? It was a fun horror movie and better than most of the recent cream of the crap.

[angrynerdrock07]

Yeah they could have easily scrapped 30 minutes from that film. Don't get me wrong, I loved the film. However, I felt like it was dragging along in several parts. Especially the skull island section.

[Ought2bCommitted]

The whole movie was the skull island section. They come back to NYC and its over before you know it, which was good because I didn't want to see a drawn out let's kill Kong sequence. Shooting him in the back was bad enough.

[spencer]

It's as valid a criticism as any. Bloated storytelling is just plain bad.

Would you have liked to see either a three hour Kill Bill put together or a scrapped 1 and a half hour kill bill?

I mean, it's not the same movie, but that's how I like to think of it. I go to movies to get into them, not just watch them. I really like establishing a link to their world where I feel like I'm in the picture. Seeing all the stuff on the boat and other slow moments made me love the film all the more. I liked the side story with Hayes and the boy. The actor character's little gags in parts were fun. And when that stuff wasn't happening, there was plenty of action and excitement to go around. I didn't think of it as bloated story-telling because I was way into it. I thought that this was how things would normally go. I don't wanna see a gorilla tear the shit out of everything in it's path.... Well, I do... but do you really think that they should cut out the parts where he emotes? The scene in the snow, or when Watts does her vaudeville routine? those are the moments that made the beast real, not just a piece of effects.

If it were another movie, I suppose I'd be inclined to agree with you. But movies like Kong and Kill Bill can tell me a three hour story with some slow times as long as they put me into the movie. I never once got bored with the movie, and I was working on zero hours of sleep when watching it. I even saw it again after the initial viewing with only three hours of sleep over two days, and I was still into every second of it.

Maybe I'm just more easily entertained--I'll spend days watching the same film over and over again and marvel at every little part. Hell, ask my brother; I had Shaun of the Dead pretty much on repeat in my house for a week, and when he asked me to turn it off, I asked why. He replied "well, it's all good, but I just don't like people screaming at each other and all this death and stuff happening for the last half hour." I didn't even see it that way. I was too into the movie to actually think that there would be an alternative to this yelling and drama.

Anyways, I will have to kindly disagree with your opinion sir. But though I do not agree with it, I'll defend to the death your right to think it... IS that how it goes?

[surf]

Is videoclub another word for like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video?

Yeah, they may work there, but they definately don't have good taste in movies for the most part. Same with theaters themselves.

I work at a theater with about 50 or so people there, and I've only met two other people that actually like movies as more than a superficial quick fix of entertainment. I remember all throughout winter my coworkers were talking about how GREAT a movie The Ringer was, and one guy even called Kong a "waste of three hours" just because it was too long.

Lame.
I agree with this

[angrynerdrock07]

I go to movies to get into them, not just watch them. I really like establishing a link to their world where I feel like I'm in the picture. Seeing all the stuff on the boat and other slow moments made me love the film all the more. I liked the side story with Hayes and the boy.

I actually liked the character development as well. My biggest concern with the length was that it felt like there were too many arbitrary action sequences. Like Peter Jackson had to make a certain "action scene" quota. I'm all for lengthy films, especially if we are really going to connect with the characters on a deeper level. But when so much time is taken up with action scene after action scene I find myself asking why. That was my only gripe with the movie. I thought it was a great homage to the original, and actually surpassed it in many ways.

[Ought2bCommitted]

I actually liked the character development as well. My biggest concern with the length was that it felt like there were too many arbitrary action sequences. Like Peter Jackson had to make a certain "action scene" quota. I'm all for lengthy films, especially if we are really going to connect with the characters on a deeper level. But when so much time is taken up with action scene after action scene I find myself asking why. That was my only gripe with the movie. I thought it was a great homage to the original, and actually surpassed it in many ways.

It was and it did surpass the original in many ways. But you are right in saying that many of the action sequences felt unnecessary. It was like, okay here we go...bugs now.....ok, dinosaurs......

[spencer]

Yeah, I would've liked trimmer action sequences, but that was definately not the part the person in question was addressing length wise.