Help me understand human nature

[Colon™]

You should write movie reviews

He should not.

[Elok]

Lost in Translation was about that intangible muffled desperation/melancholy that sometimes permeates life and about how two people who at first glance don't share that much could be emotionally identical in some respects.
It was a good film I thought.

I think the mark of a really great film or book is the ability to be about something deep or profound while actually telling a story. A merely good film at least tells an entertaining story. Meditating on people's emotions while nothing of any great or lasting consequence occurs is simple onanism, and there's an annoying modern trend of mistaking this onanistic tendency for "high art" or what-have-you. Like my college creative writing prof who wanted us to write "character-centered fiction." Took a while before I realized that meant fiction about characters who were self-centered; basically Harry Potter 5, but without all the magic stuff.

Anyway, if you're not going to have a story, you should at least have the decency to let people know from the start not to expect one. I remember watching that whole movie, expecting the plot to establish itself any minute, and then the credits rolled. Eh. I suppose it all comes down to tastes, like everything else, but crikey, that was pointless. Maybe it's different for non-aspies, who can watch people act awkwardly adrift for two hours and not feel like they're watching their own social lives?

[Sava]

BTW, anyone who likes Lost in Translation has absolutely zero moral standing when referring to molly bloom as pretentious.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I watch far better pretentious movies (such as Terrence Malick films)

[Bereta_Eder]

Aw... what's the matter Elok? Not enough explosions for you?
No neatly defined baddies for captain america to fight?

I'm joking with you

Actually I was surprised when you described Lost in Translation as a deeply artsy film. It is a good film but I wouldn't give it that description.
That's fine, you didn't "get it".

[Elok]

I watch far better pretentious movies (such as Terrence Malick films)

You have also expressed approval for Star Wars Episode III.

[Imran Siddiqui]

EVERYONE SHOULD

[Sava]

EVERYONE SHOULD

Eps II and III are decent when you skip past all the Padme and Anakin scenes.

[Lorizael]

The duel between Anakin/Vader and Obiwan is excellent right up until Anakin screams "FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE JEDI ARE MEAN TO ME."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Eps II and III are decent when you skip past all the Padme and Anakin scenes.

[Lorizael]

Eps II and III are decent when you skip past all the Padme and Anakin scenes.

II is atrocious and has almost no redeeming qualities. I rate TPM above it, so long as you ignore all the Jar Jar crap.

[regexcellent]

The prequels should have been about obi-wan and not anakin.

The droid robots were stupid.

The clones should have been the bad guys.

[Sava]

And I'll be real here... Empire is my favorite movie (of Star Wars, maybe top 5 overall), but I can't stand the Dagobah scenes or the scenes when they are in the asteroid.

I think Ep 4 is the only one I can stand to watch beginning to end.

[Sava]

II is atrocious and has almost no redeeming qualities. I rate TPM above it, so long as you ignore all the Jar Jar crap.

No.

[Elok]

Read an article on Cracked (yeah, I know, there went my "good taste" cred, assuming I even had any) that said Topher Grace taught himself to edit by taking the three prequels and condensing them into one not-crappy movie where Jar Jar never appears. Sadly, it is not available for the general public to view.