I didn't mind it veering from the book - yes it does so in a way that "Hollywoodizes" the story in unfortunate ways (despite how successfully grim and uncompromising it is on the surface).

But preposterous, Hollywoodised films that are bastardisations of subtler work can still be fantastic on their own terms. Ultimately I just thought it didn't hold together well in its own right, overall.

It was fantastically shot, the soundtrack was great, the acting was excellent, and there really are some scenes for the ages. When the tanks first appear, and you don't need one line of dialogue to communicate how absolutely alien a threat they are, that can hold up to any horror sequence in any film. So there's no shortage of talent on this project.

But the movie frequently dragged and seemed interminable... and not in the trenches under artillery fire, which would have been appropriate. It felt like it didn't quite know how to structure or focus itself and the scenes with high command were very thin.

Both 1931 and 79 are much better films.

They were widely recognised as such as soon as they were released and the reception hasn't changed.

Who believes this?

Loved it. It's funny and full of heart.

The remake had strong performances but was really ugly. I lean towards liking it, the script is solid and the characters work. Not a patch on the original though.

I don't think you understand what either me or yourself are saying. Editing is used as an analogy that illustrates why your argument doesn't make sense. You're not right, you have decided that you have to be right but are unable to articulate your position coherently and have it withstand any scrutiny, and this is frustrating you. Have a nice day.

>I didnt disagree with how themes are explored affect quality. I disagreed that themes affect quality.

I disagree that this is a meaningful distinction, let alone one that I proved. You said you're not sure themes are important - bad movies have the same basic themes as good movies, after all! My contention is that they are, and that bad movies have them too is a bad argument.

Bad movies often have the same basic editing or plotting as good movies too, but this doesn't mean editing or plotting are unimportant, that's a bad argument. Editing, plotting - and themes - and getting them right in the execution of a movie - are crucially important. Even if they're not the tangible things that jump out to you as why you liked the movie, they are crucially important factors that resulted in that end.

Same only applies here in the absolute broadest strokes (like plot, lots of good and bad films with the same basic plots). How they develop and explore that theme is tremendously important to the film you get, in virtually every aspect of the film, and there are also other variables as well as theme.

Replace the basic themes in Blade Runner and you simply don't get Blade Runner. You get something completely different.

A lot of shit films have the same type of editing as good movies too, that's just a fact too. Doesn't mean editing isn't critically important to the movies you like working as they do.

That's tangible vs less tangible details. I never though about the editing in Bloody Sunday or Being There but those films wouldn't work without masterful editing.

The filmmakers commitment to themes determines so much of the mise en scene, editing, plot focus and motion, characterisation, acting choices, and more. You take the theme out of your favourite movies and you simply won't have the same movie at all.

What a film makes you feel and the parts that jump out to you as what you liked, and what made it work that way, are two very different angles.

Because it has constant jokes

Leo's just babyfaced. This is not an actual change in cinema or generations. It's not like we haven't had James Cagney or Mickey Rooney.

Super Mario Bros. That had a lot of interesting choices. A lifelike dinosaur for Yoshi? A grimy cyberpunk world? Dennis Hopper?

But your post makes no sense as sarcasm lol

The Guest. So much style, with its tongue devilishly in cheek, and the namesake of the title is one of the great characters in the genre.

The trick of Equilibrium's gunplay was to sell something every bit as if not more unrealistic than John Woo's shootouts, as something that feels sciency and clinically realistic. It's great style and it works but it is entirely unrealistic.

Unless you're watching stuff more than 15 years old, where almost everything sounds clear and comprehensible on regular home sound systens.

Nowadays if you sit in the wrong seat in the wrong theatre, well then it's your fault you couldn't hear half the dialogue in the latest Nolan movie.

You need really deft and assured storytelling for jumping around like that to really work.