Discuss Film & TV Series - Ratings & Recommendations

[Squiggy]

I finally got around to watching Entourage.
Sadly there's no trailer for the series but only the movie, so instead, I'll take the rating:
8,6/10 from 111.506 users

Entourage is an American comedy-drama television series that premiered on HBO on July 18, 2004 and concluded on September 11, 2011, after eight seasons.
The series was created and largely written by Doug Ellin and chronicles the acting career of Vincent Chase, a young A-list movie star, and his childhood friends from Queens, New York City, as they navigate the unfamiliar terrain of Los Angeles, California.

As for my own POV, it was by far the best series I've watched until now.
Better than How I Met Your Mother (>dat ending), Scrubs (>dat niveau) and way better than every single crime series out there.

Give it a try.
It's eight seasons and none should leave you disappointed.
The OST/musical variation centers around Hiphop/Rap, spread over Oldies, Pop, Techno and a portion of Rock.
Acting is done great by any of the main cast, as well by the side characters.
And I've never seen such a HUGE amount of celebrity guest stars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_celebrities_appearing_on_Entourage

 

[Deolrin]

Have you ever tried Game of Thrones, Squiggy? I am yet to see anything that beats that.
And while we're on the topic of good series, I've heard that the Walking Dead and Breaking Bad are both awesome.

 

[Squiggy]

Dropped after ep1
Not my cup~
Breaking Bad was awesome, yes...
"I AM the guy who knocks."

 

[Nuclear]

Game of Thrones is literally (objectively speaking) the best thing to ever exist in our universe (or outside of it). I recommend you watch a bit more before judging.

--

A movie recommendation: Pan's Labyrinth.

 

[Rui]

Yeah, but the allegedly high amount of sex is deterring me from watching it.

 

[Squiggy]

But I'm not interested in the middle age at all.
Why would I watch something with an unappealing setting?

 

[Deolrin]

I don't like the modern age at all and yet that does not deter me from watching TV shows set in modern day. The setting hardly decides how good a show is.

 

[Gilles]

Yeah, but the allegedly high amount of sex is deterring me from watching it.

I assume you mean on moral grounds. Which I think is great, but sex isn't necessarily the worst thing morally; the violence is more graphic and brutal. While I tend to also avoid sex more than violence for somewhat personal reasons, it does seem a bit inconsistent.

Having said that, the show is so damn good. I actually watched the first couple seasons edited to remove the sex scenes and boobies.

 

[Nuclear]

That's ridiculous. A guy gets his head cut off and it's fine, but golly gee, if someone has sex then it's bad.

 

[Gilles]

That's ridiculous. A guy gets his head cut off and it's fine, but golly gee, if someone has sex then it's bad.

While I agree with you for the most part, there is something to be said for the effect that sex has on most people (men especially) that violence doesn't. While I'm sure it's not the same for everyone, I'd argue that viewing sex, even imitated sex, has a more profound effect on us.

 

[Deolrin]

The sex adds realism. Plus there's a lot of important exposition to the series. If you're that bothered by it, I suggest you read the books instead. They're a lot better than the show, anyway, and they slightly less sex scenes, though I'm not sure if it would bother you as much in a book as it would in a show...

 

[Rui]

The sex is unnecessary... and irrelevant to the plot. So two people like each other? Okay, we get the message. Why do they have to show off? Realism? Do they also show them urinating and evacuating behind a tree in the jungle?

P.S. — I apologize for the bluntness, but I don't see another reason to include sex scenes in any novel or story other than to deploy a cheap maneuver for audience luring.

 

[Deolrin]

Actually, yes, they do describe them urinating (and masturbating) in several scenes in the novels. As I said, realism. Has nothing to do with two people liking each-other. Cersei and Jaime are incestuous twins while Khal Drogo is borderline raping Daenerys when he first meets her. Oh, yeah, and she's 13 in the books during those scenes while he is... Older. So yes. Gritty realism. None of that fairy tale nonsense that you would expect from a fantasy setting. The show is a bit more liberal with its sex scenes, those are meant more to maintain the tone of the books than anything else. Sexuality is a part of life, so why wouldn't it be displayed in novels and shows?
As a closing statement, I should note that I am yet to meet someone who watches Game of Thrones "for the b00bs" and not because it is an amazing story with amazing characters.

 

[Gilles]

As a closing statement, I should note that I am yet to meet someone who watches Game of Thrones "for the b00bs" and not because it is an amazing story with amazing characters.

And yet you mention taking out the boobs and sex, and it's suddenly key to the plot.

 

[Deolrin]

Well, it's all key to the plot. You can't have the show without some of the elements that make it GoT. The point is that it isn't some sort of fantasy porn with a story in between.

 

[Gilles]

Well, it's all key to the plot. You can't have the show without some of the elements that make it GoT. The point is that it isn't some sort of fantasy porn with a story in between.

But is it an amazing story with fantasy porn in between? lol

 

[Nuclear]

I don't know if we've been watching the same show at all. The sex scenes definitely don't feel like they're shoehorned in at all. Usually they advance the story by revealing something about the characters, their motivations, dark secrets etc. If I recall correctly, in the very first episode (or the second one) a sex scene was used for a major plot point.

 

[Nuclear]

Bump because the first episode of Better Call Saul has come out. It's a series about Saul Goodman, a character that first appeared on Breaking Bad. The new series will focus on him before the events of Breaking Bad.

I shall update my thoughts on it later today.

 

[Celaquil]

But I'm not interested in the middle age at all.
Why would I watch something with an unappealing setting?

That's a poor comparison, Game of Thrones is a fantasy series, and although fantasy
as a whole is largely set in a Middle Age setting, every fantasy story is different.

So if you don't like fantasy, at all, you probably wouldn't like it. But then, you are a
member of this site, and Wc3 is as much fantasy as Game of Thrones is, although they
do fall under different categories of fantasy. While Wc3 is completely high fantasy, I'd
say Game of Thrones is somewhere between high fantasy and dark fantasy, though
leaning more toward dark fantasy (with a definitive focus on realism concerning
human interactions).

As opposed to most other fantasy, Game of Thrones has a very political focus, while at
the same time focusing heavily upon human interaction and relations, because George
R.R Martin personally finds this to be the most interesting thing to write about: humans,
and how we relate to other people and situations.

It's an extremely well conducted series for a mature audience that doesn't shy away
from the effects vulgarity and severity has on us during hardship and romance.
So, if none of that sounds interesting to you, then certainly don't keep on watching,
but if anything of what I just said might intrigue you, I suggest you give it another go.
At least the entire first season.

The sex is unnecessary... and irrelevant to the plot. So two people like each other? Okay, we get the message. Why do they have to show off? Realism? Do they also show them urinating and evacuating behind a tree in the jungle?

Actually, there is a fair share of urinating. Also, I find your arguments completely
without basis. What are you saying, that sex appals you? I hardly believe that, and
if it does, it's still not an argument. In the same sense I could say that hugging appals
me and that I won't watch it because people hug.

My point is that you are criticising a critically appraised piece of storytelling based on
innocuous details that, as you say, has little to do with the overall plot. If you don't
want to watch it because of that, sure, go ahead, don't watch it. But don't go about
befouling the series to others because you yourself don't have the stomach for the
meaningless details.

 

[Rui]

(...) In the same sense I could say that hugging appals
me and that I won't watch it because people hug.

Hugging and sex acts are not the same thing. This is not irrelevant. Aside from the setting (fantasy, medieval, etc...), I'm supposing part of the reason why you watch (or not) a show has to do with what the characters do in it.

My point is that you are criticising a critically appraised piece of storytelling based on
innocuous details

Say you have a show that can pass on TV in all countries. You insert a determined length sex scene, the rest of the show stays the same. A handful of countries will now disallow the show to pass on national TV, another handful will censor it (essentially leaving it like it was before you inserted the scene), and the rest of them will probably have that red circle on the corner of the screen.
I'd say it's safe to conclude that a sex scene is hardly an innocuous detail.

that, as you say, has little to do with the overall plot. (...)

The fact that it has little to do with the overall plot is exactly what I'm criticizing about it. Still, I think Deo said there's some important plot detail that's revealed in such a scene.

(...) But don't go about
befouling the series to others because you yourself don't have the stomach for the
meaningless details.

You call it having the stomach, I call it something else.



Gilles apparently found a version with the sex scenes edited out. Maybe I'll give that one a try.

 

[Nuclear]

But it doesn't have only a little to do with the plot, it's not irrelevant and it's definitely not shoehorned in. Jesus Christ people. It's done tastefully and it advances the plot, it's perfectly acceptable for a show aimed at adults.

 

[Celaquil]

Hugging and sex acts are not the same thing.

Certainly. In the same sense that spiders and heights are not the same. But the feeling of
fear toward them is. I can, in theory, be equally outraged about hugging as you can be by
sex, it's a terribly implausible comparison, but it's a comparison to prove a point.

Say you have a show that can pass on TV in all countries. You insert a determined length sex scene, the rest of the show stays the same. A handful of countries will now disallow the show to pass on national TV, another handful will censor it (essentially leaving it like it was before you inserted the scene), and the rest of them will probably have that red circle on the corner of the screen.
I'd say it's safe to conclude that a sex scene is hardly an innocuous detail.

I don't know these countries, nor do I particularly care for them. And my point wasn't
that it was innocuous to the audience, but as an overall part of the show. I honestly
don't see any harm whatsoever in the inclusion of sex scenes in a show like this, and
I find it hard to understand why you do.

The fact that it has little to do with the overall plot is exactly what I'm criticizing about it.

Yes, and I was reproaching you about this. The fact that it has little to do with it
shouldn't at all deter you from watching, you can curl your nose and look away
while these scenes happen, but they are hardly grounds to criticise an entire series.

You call it having the stomach, I call it something else.

That's an absolutely useless statement, and it isn't an argument. If you're going to
argue your point, at least give me a clue as to what exactly you call it.

My bottom-line point is: I don't understand for the world of me how such harmless
scenes, especially considering they are not hardcore porn show-offs, can in any way
be held against the series. If you didn't like it on a whole, I wouldn't bicker, that's
your right, but outright refusing to watch it based on such small matters and, as I
previously stated, enticing others to do the same on the same basis is in my opinion
degenerative behaviour.

 

[Gilles]

Certainly. In the same sense that spiders and heights are not the same. But the feeling of
fear toward them is. I can, in theory, be equally outraged about hugging as you can be by
sex, it's a terribly implausible comparison, but it's a comparison to prove a point.

Comparing hugs to sex is like comparing a punch in the face to a gun shot in the face. Sure you can be upset about seeing someone get punched in the face, but you should feel more outrage at the site of someone getting shot.

Sex is not something to dismiss so easily. Whether or not it's harmful to portray sex in media, the profound effect it has is undeniable. I wouldn't call it a small matter.

 

[Deolrin]

Sex is not something to dismiss so easily. Whether or not it's harmful to portray sex in media, the profound effect it has is undeniable. I wouldn't call it a small matter.

I am baffled at the prospect that this is an actual quote coming from a (presumably) grown man. This is the kind of thing I expect from my heavily-religious classmate. The kind who thinks that fantasy is the work of Satan and the Earth is 5000 years old.
Could you please try and explain just exactly what you mean by that? How is the portrayal of sex in media any more harmful than the portrayal of violent murder and gore, or heavy drug abuse, or, in fact, anything? And what "profound effect" does it have? Sure, I wouldn't let a 12 year old watch Game of Thrones because they might be scarred (and not necessarily by the sex scenes), but as long as you are an adult I really don't see what kind of terrible effect witnessing sexual activity would bring upon you. I'm sorry, I'm just... Utterly baffled.

 

[Gilles]

I am baffled at the prospect that this is an actual quote coming from a (presumably) grown man. This is the kind of thing I expect from my heavily-religious classmate. The kind who thinks that fantasy is the work of Satan and the Earth is 5000 years old.

Ad hominem much?

Could you please try and explain just exactly what you mean by that?

Sure. Viewing sex actually causes the brain to "shut down", ie you stop sending as much blood to the brain since you "need" it for reproduction. I would argue that even extreme violence has less of an effect on our psyche than viewing sex. I didn't actually say that it's harmful, I simply said it isn't something to dismiss so easily.

Edit: For Keiji:Linky.

 

[Celaquil]

Comparing hugs to sex is like comparing a punch in the face to a gun shot in the face.

I don't know, but I kind of think I admitted to this here:

it's a terribly implausible comparison, but it's a comparison to prove a point.

I know "showing off" sex is infinitely more stigmatized than my example, and I guess
my point is that I don't think it should be. But then, in Game of Thrones the sex scenes
are never outrageously hardcore or revealing, you'll get to see some nakedness and
you are certainly aware of what they're doing, but it isn't so extremely... Vulgar.

Oh, and, as I said to Rui: I'm not talking about it being a "small matter" to the
audience, but a small matter in relation to the plot. There's a difference.

Viewing sex actually causes the brain to "shut down",

Curious, never heard of this, do you have a good
source to that claim? I'd like to read it.

 

[Gilles]

But then, in Game of Thrones the sex scenes
are never outrageously hardcore or revealing, you'll get to see some nakedness and
you are certainly aware of what they're doing, but it isn't so extremely... Vulgar.

See Khal Drogo and Daenerys Targaryen. It's softcore porn.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Lets talk about real program series like Top Gear and how they were firing patients out the back of an "ambulance" with an pneumatic ram.

 

[Deolrin]

I think I'll withdraw from this discussion for now... It got a bit much for me when you implied that people who watch a lot of pornography are pretty much brain-dead (or at least have some form of mental damage, I guess?). All I will say is that the pornographic scenes never really bothered me all that much. I have a classmate (high school, 12th grade) who watches the show with her father, I watch it with friends... You can ignore the sex scenes or view them as just a part of the story and the progression, like they are intended to be.

Plus, as the series progresses there seem to be less and less of the, if that's any reconciliation to you two...

EDIT:

"But the moment you are watching explicit sexual movies, that's not necessary, because you know exactly what's going on. It's not important that the door is green or yellow."

This in particular sounds stupid to me, and very easily debunked. I can recall many random details from the various sex scenes in Game of Thrones. The ones I forgot are due to not watching it since May 2014 or so and are analogous to other details I forgot all throughout the show.

 

[Nuclear]

you implied that people who watch a lot of pornography are pretty much brain-dead

Hmm, I think I found the reason for my problems with my studies.

 

[Celaquil]

See Khal Drogo and Daenerys Targaryen. It's softcore porn.

I'd say only one of the scenes were... "Softcore," but there's a point to that.

Also, as I suspected, the link you provided clearly states "may cause the brain to
shut down" - Apparently it isn't an exact science, and you shouldn't present it as such.

It got a bit much for me when you implied that people who watch a lot of pornography are pretty much brain-dead (or at least have some form of mental damage, I guess?).

He certainly didn't, he merely stated that while watching sex scenes or sexual action
the brain "shuts down" or "slows down," considering the act of sex is mostly instinct
based. Which, as I previously noted, doesn't necessarily seem to be true. And
going by the link it isn't "the brain" as much as "a part of the brain" >.>

 

[Rui]

Watched half of Kindergarten Cop.

I've also been watching The Strain TV series. The first two episodes gave me the jitters, but I guess I've gotten used to it now.

P.S. — Also watched the most part of Spanglish, but since it was a lunch and people were talking, I didn't grasp the story all that well.

 

[GhostThruster]

Ehhh half of the nudity in GoT is only there for titilation. Still, u'd be avoiding one of the best shows in recent times all because of a prudish disdain for sex

Two very underrated and very good sci-fi films I recommend: gattaca and sunshine

 

[Deathcom3s]

Not a prudish disdain of sex, just a disdain for GoT as a whole. I just don't find it very interesting anymore.

 

[Celaquil]

Can someone convince me that Exodus: Gods and Kings is the time-wasting,
horrible pile of shit that the imdb reviews make it out to be?
- Because I can't believe I've watched the same movie as them.

Personally, I found the acting good, the overall pictures extremely well executed, I loved
how Ridley didn't waste any time to needlessly introduce the characters and I didn't much
mind the creative freedom he took when making the movie.

Overall I liked it, in my book he's still an amazing director.
- And Bale, as always, did a superb job.

 

[BlackEnvyX]

Can someone convince me that Exodus: Gods and Kings is the time-wasting,
horrible pile of shit that the imdb reviews make it out to be?
- Because I can't believe I've watched the same movie as them.

Personally, I found the acting good, the overall pictures extremely well executed, I loved
how Ridley didn't waste any time to needlessly introduce the characters and I didn't much
mind the creative freedom he took when making the movie.

Overall I liked it, in my book he's still an amazing director.
- And Bale, as always, did a superb job.

I have bad memories about the night I saw that movie so I'm never going to watch it again I don't think, but as for the movie I do agree with you it was rather well done. But when dealing with stories such as the one in Exodus: Gods and Kings you're going to have an extremely divisive reaction with the way people want the characters and story portrayed.

 

[fladdermasken]

It wasn't so much shitty. The only thing I remember thinking as it played out was that it was very run-of-the-mill. Both in the portrayal of the story and the characters.

I didn't much mind the creative freedom he took when making the movie.

Examples? Off the top of my head I can't think of any. It was a stone's throw from the old DreamWorks adaptation The Prince of Egypt, barring that God was acted out by a scrawny kid in rags and not a burning bush. I guess Scott tried his best in quasi-rationalizing some of the plagues too, but that's not exactly unheard of as a directive move in old biblical/mythical movies.

Also for the sake of it, even though I couldn't care less for 3D viewings as a medium, it was incredibly poorly capitalized and the only real 3D effect they managed to act out fully was a pack of seagulls in the background of some 5 second coastline shot. Underwhelming.

Basically, I can see where people are coming from. That said, IMDb is by majority occupied by basement virgins that think they score critic points by being stupidly untoward towards everything they see that isn't a low-budget abstract indie flick where all you see is flashing colors for 49 minutes. So there's that too.

 

[N.Knight]

It wasn't so much shitty. The only thing I remember thinking as it played out was that it was very run-of-the-mill. Both in the portrayal of the story and the characters.


Examples? Off the top of my head I can't think of any. It was a stone's throw from the old DreamWorks adaptation The Prince of Egypt, barring that God was acted out by a scrawny kid in rags and not a burning bush. I guess Scott tried his best in quasi-rationalizing some of the plagues too, but that's not exactly unheard of as a directive move in old biblical/mythical movies.

Also for the sake of it, even though I couldn't care less for 3D viewings as a medium, it was incredibly poorly capitalized and the only real 3D effect they managed to act out fully was a pack of seagulls in the background of some 5 second coastline shot. Underwhelming.

Basically, I can see where people are coming from. That said, IMDb is by majority occupied by basement virgins that think they score critic points by being stupidly untoward towards everything they see that isn't a low-budget abstract indie flick where all you see is flashing colors for 49 minutes. So there's that too.

Then start writing reviews for IMDb, you can also make a few bucks in the process. I am quite convinced by your writing.

 

[BlackEnvyX]

IMDB is a pretty poor movie source for critique, I really only go there if I'm trying to find information about budgets that wikipedia doesn't have.

 

[StoPCampinGn00b]

IMDB is a pretty poor movie source for critique,

As an IMDB member, I am deeply offended. Our community is the worst best in the movie and show reviewing industry. Down with metacritic!

I won't review this, but Let's Be Cops gave me some laughs. For those of you debating to watch it and wondering how it is, it isn't a dumb, dumb comedy movie. Just one dumb would accurately describe it.

 

[BlackEnvyX]

As an IMDB member, I am deeply offended. Our community is the worst best in the movie and show reviewing industry. Down with metacritic!

I won't review this, but Let's Be Cops gave me some laughs. For those of you debating to watch it and wondering how it is, it isn't a dumb, dumb comedy movie. Just one dumb would accurately describe it.

In all honesty I've seen some funny as hell reviews on IMDB, but probably the worst reviewing site I've ever seen was some indie site that was up around two years ago (forgot the name) that focused on literally trying to find the absolute worst in everything, staff members weren't allowed to rate things above a 5/10 it was pessimistic central.

 

[fladdermasken]

Thursday night means cleaning out some old brews from my friend's supply and watching stuff from the apex of Kung Fu Cinema.

Today's spoils include a Sierra Nevada Big Foot from 2010, a Great Divide Yeti from 2010, some old unlabeled cognac and Taoism Drunkard.

Great night!

 

[BlackEnvyX]

Has anyone gotten a chance to see the "Halo: Nightfall" television series yet?

 

[fladdermasken]

Has anyone gotten a chance to see the "Halo: Nightfall" television series yet?

Nope, but expectations are slim. Even barring the fact that game-to-cinema ports usually don't work, the Halo franchise has a particularly strong gravitational pull (yeah I did) for lame sci-fi babies who devote themselves wholeheartedly to anything with decent CGI. The franchise itself is pretty cool, but it's basically fly paper for morons, and knowing the industry, this is sadly the kind of people they are likely going to try and hook. May give it a shot in the future, but it's way down on my list.

 

[Gilles]

Finished Steins;Gate recently. Really enjoyed it. While it's anime, I think it would appeal to a broader audience as it doesn't fall into typical anime plot lines. Sure it has a ton of anime themes in it, but I wonder how much of it is tongue in cheek, and the main storyline feels western, or at least not-anime, influenced.

Anyhow. It's really good.

 

[GhostThruster]

halo: nightfall was shit, don't watch it.

 

[BlackEnvyX]

Nope, but expectations are slim. Even barring the fact that game-to-cinema ports usually don't work, the Halo franchise has a particularly strong gravitational pull (yeah I did) for lame sci-fi babies who devote themselves wholeheartedly to anything with decent CGI. The franchise itself is pretty cool, but it's basically fly paper for morons, and knowing the industry, this is sadly the kind of people they are likely going to try and hook. May give it a shot in the future, but it's way down on my list.

I really wish a great game-cinema port would come along and change natural expectations for movies like that. Perhaps the upcoming Assassins Creed movie (even though I don't really play that franchise) and the upcoming Warcraft movie might boost interest in video game to film adaptations as a whole.

halo: nightfall was shit, don't watch it.

What was shitty about it? Steven Spielberg was involved in it it couldn't have been THAT bad could it?

Also, my girlfriend and I saw Insurgent (the sequel to Divergent) in theaters. It was so god damn boring, she fell asleep on my shoulder about an hour into the movie and I just sat there wondering if the movie's terrible pacing and borderline hilarious script would ever improve. At least the lead actor and actress were talented, they didn't have much to work with.

 

[GhostThruster]

the acting, special effects, dialogue, and story were all horrible. spielberg is involved in an upcoming halo tv series, which is an entirely different entity to nightfall. nightfall was a webseries produced by ridley scott.

 

[Tickles]

The new Netflix Daredevil series pilot was pretty amazing. It's nice to see that Deborah Ann Woll landed herself in a big series role after True Blood (which stuck around far longer than it should have) was finally staked. The ratings are jaw-droppingly impressive for Daredevil's pilot as well, so I know it's not just me who enjoyed it.

 

[StoPCampinGn00b]

Furious 7 was meh. The story was fair but I couldn't believe some of the things. The good guys are always getting lucky and are always near death. I'm asking my self, HOW IN THE HELL DID HE / SHE MAKE IT AND NOT DIE? (For the hundredth time!)

Well, at least those who I went with enjoyed it. I guess I'd recommend it to those who like generic action movies.

5/10