Reading books and watching movies

Post Reply New Topic

Ilove reading and movies, anything which i can loose myself in... and escape from the real world. I tend to read mostly fiction too, though its usually fantasy, sci fi or horror. Genre stuff where the rules are clearly defind. Reading is in essence one of my obsessions and i've allways read, since i was very small. Inface a lot of my childhood was spent reading, often for days on end....given half the chance.
I write novels and plan to get published, reading is very important for learing how to improve your writing.
As for movies, i've always like them too....again genre stuff, action or sci fi, things like that.
Actually i have a thing for high drama, anything with over the top emotions. Real life stuff (books and movies) really bores me. But anything with disasters, angst or tramua...bring it on!!

I think maybe because i am so logical and sensible in myself, i really enjoy experiancing the louder, crazier emotions through someone else. All the while being able to take a step back myself.

I read - a lot!! I love reading about all kinds of stuff.

I never go to the movies, gives me a headache, but I see a lot of film on tv.

I love books and movies...read and watch them all the time.

-Giggle-
-Snort-

Okay, I totally respect someone's right to have an opinion that disagrees with mine, but..."deep and emotional plot"? HAH! Please. I've seen Hollywood action movies with more plot than that! I mean, if it actually HAD much of a plot I might not have hated it so much.

Here's how I saw the "Lost in Translation" plot:

-Bill Murray goes to Tokyo
-Bill Murray is bored out of his mind
-Scarlet Johanson is also bored out of her mind
-Bill Murray meets Scarlet Johanson
-Bill Murray and Scarlet Johanson do boring things for an hour or so
-Bill Murray leaves Tokyo

THAT'S IT! THAT'S THE WHOLE PLOT! The characters were given practically no personality, there was no conflict or drama, there were no twists or surprises or any complications, or anything to really keep things interesting. Seriously, this was the most pointless and emotionally vapid film I have EVER seen. Not ONCE did anybody ever act with ANY real emotion. For literally the entire film, all anybody did was stare off into space and look bored. Sure, that's emotional--boredom is an emotion. Furthermore, there wasn't a lot of clever dialogue (or a lot of dialogue, period); the humor was so subtle that it might as well have been nonexistant (I laughed, like, three times during the entire film--I guess that's considered "quite humorous" by today's extremely low standards of comedy...); the actors weren't required to do anything except look bored, which isn't exactly a challenge; there wasn't much symbolism, and there was no message or meaning apart from "Tokyo is boring"; I mean, the statement that "Lost in Translation" has a "deep and emotional plot" is so utterly WRONG that I don't even know WHERE to BEGIN! I guess any plot can be considered "deep and emotional" these days if it doesn't involve anybody saving the world! I just...I love deep and emotional plots, but this film's plot was so incredibly minimal and so incredibly LAZY that I couldn't find a single thing about it that was at ALL indicative of "deep and emotional." The film was an endless sea of bored-looking actors doing boring things with practically none of it ever having any impact on the REST of it! You could cut out like an hour and a half of that film and the entire "plot" would remain the same. Hell, I don't even consider it a film, but rather a slideshow, because films usually involve a little thing called ACTING, a little thing called a SCRIPT, a little thing called DIRECTION, a little thing called EDITING, etc. I've seen some truly terrible films, but they were still films because they actually HAD these things, even if they were terrible at them. In "Lost in Translation" all these things were SO incredibly subtle that they practically didn't exist!

And by the way, two of my favorite films are "Me & You & Everyone We Know," and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," and I also really liked "Garden State"--so it's not like I don't like "little movies" that forgo effects and action in favor of focusing on the characters. But these films actually HAD characters and knew to use them beyond just making them stare off into space looking BORED.

BLAH! Sorry, this is just a subject I feel passionate about because I can never understand why people like this film, and I can almost always see why someone would enjoy a film even when I didn't....

I don't read many novels; I prefer reference books. The novels I do read tend to be either childrens books or works written earlier than about 1930. Possibly because I do find it difficult to empathize with contemporary 'adult' situations. I do enjoy movies and TV, but I usually go more for action-type stuff or silly comedy, not things with hours of conversation. The action/adventure shows that there were so many of in the eighties - I adored all those. Collecting DVDs now.

Veresae, welcome to the "What's The Big Deal About <insert movie> Club"

While I haven't watched 'Lost In Translation', I had a similiar difficulty understanding the popularity behind 'The Matrix'. Should see how many times people have rolled eyes at me for suggesting that maybe, just maybe, there were some flaws in the movie...

Back on topic: I'm a big fan of fiction books actually - I also like the escapist quality. Sadly, however, I'm not the best with keeping track of motives and narratives, so I usually miss out on large chunks.

As for movies - again I usually find myself losing concentration about half-way through, and losing large chunks of narrative. I usually have to remind myself of how the movie proceeded later by chatting with friends and reading movie reviews, or if it's on DVD, re-watch several times