I feel the exact same way! I loved Collateral. My love for Michael Mann films overrode my disdain for Tom Cruise and I saw that in theaters during the opening weekend.

I can understand this. I'm more likely to take a chance on a stand alone movie than a sequel. From a practical standpoint a sequel or remake doesn't take anything away from the original film, if the new movie is poor I can always go back and watch and watch the first one. However there have been times when a movie sequel changes something about the previous film, in which case I can't ever go back to the original with quite the same mind set. For example, I can't watch Empire Strikes Back without thinking about why Yoda is hiding out on Dagobah or wondering how the midi-chlorians affect the Dark Side Cave. I'm also not as optimistic at the end of Aliens because of how Alien 3 starts.

There is one weird set of sequels which I have enjoyed watching as more of a study in film making rather than parts of a franchise, the two Exorcist prequel films; Exorcist: The Beginning and Exorcist: Dominion. The studio ordered a new Exorcist film and gave it to a director Paul Schrader who had written the screenplays for Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. He made the movie and screened it for the studio who hated it. They thought it was too slow and boring, so the studio brought in Renny Harlin who had directed Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger. Harlin was given the exact same script, and they even kept actor Stellan Skarsgard in the lead role to make the exact same movie but with the tone the studio wanted. In the end both films were released so we can actually watch two very different versions of a film.

I had the same fear when I first heard about Blade Runner 2049. I've not taken the plunge and actually watched it yet, still very much on the fence.

documentingreality.com. Takes getting used to. My friend visits it and then takes months to recover from all the mexican stuff.

Funny thing is I've avoided horror movies until recently. Need to revisit some of these 70s classics and all.

For me Fury Road was an ok action movie, that's all. It didn't really break any new grounds or anything, but it was ok. I didn't like how the Max character was put a bit on the side and the real star was the female Furiosa. The ending left me thinking there will be some Furiosa movie next.

Pretty recently I also saw Edge of Tomorrow. It is one of those movies where it is better the less you know about it beforehand. Fortunate for me, I knew next to nothing about the movie when I saw it, not having seen trailers or anything. Sure the basic idea is not really new, there are other movies having used the same mechanic. I think e.g. Retroactive (1997) used the same basic idea better and more cleverly than EoT. EDIT: And of course Groundhog Day, taking a lighter view on the subject...

EoT was still pretty predictable and conventional movie overall. I found the first half of it more interesting than towards the ending, it got a bit boring or too predictable towards the end.

One thought I got from the movie was that the protagonist was almost like playing an action game: reload the save game as many times as necessary, until you become good enough in it and finally make it all the way through. :) Apparently it was not a PC game though, but a console game, as it had a clearly defined save point. It didn't have save-anywhere feature like PC games usually have.

I guess that's where we're different. I'm not sure why, but I have developed this skill (let's call it that) to re-watch a movie totally ignoring whatever was "added" to it later. The prequels don't ruin the original Star Wars movies for me, nor does Highlander 2 ruin the first one. When I watch the first Star Wars, I can still sort of see as it was, before any other SW movies existed, before Vader was Luke's dad or evil space Jesus. It's sort of like that movie is part of the universe of those other movies, but those other movies are not part of its universe.

Aah,..."faces of death"...I watched all these 'documentaries' as soon as I got 18, and was thus allowed to rent them from our local "Blockbuster"-equivalent.

Innocent times... :)

When I read the thread-title, I (naturally?) thought first of horror-flicks.

And after reading the rest, I still will say - some horror-movies.

To be more precisely: movies belonging to the genre, so aptly named "torture porn".

When I was younger, I could watch everything. Some things may have somewhat damped your appetite (no eating while watching some gory scenes), but you got over all of it, without losing a night of sleep thereover.

But I notice, more and more, that -the older I grow- the more sensitive I become to "realistic depictions" of,...well...torture, and the infliction of pain and injuries to people in general.

That change of my perception in regard of such depictions may have to do with the fact, that I saw a lot of this shit IRL, and it kinda loses its "charme", when you know, that these things are happening for real.

So, when I read something about movies like "Hostel", "A Serbian Film", etc...I really feel no urge, to watch these.

I guess, when you're young(er), you think you have to prove something to yourself (and your buddies), but with growing age, that thinking dwindles.

deleted

Yeah, my "skill" is an over developed attention to detail. I'm the guy who notices if the hardened cop/soldier/mercenary in a film is holding their gun wrong, of if the sound department added squealing tire effects to a car driving fast down a dirt road. Movies that are based on real events can be a chore for me to get through at times. I can suspend my disbelief to a point, so long as there is consistency through out the film. One farcical scene in a movie, that is otherwise grounded in reality, can ruin the whole film for me.

I can watch gory, horror, violent sci fi any time any place but put a historical film about real war, outrages, injustices I just cant, too real, too painful. some of them are the best movies but they upset me too much. ex, saving private ryan, black hawk down, social injustice, most westerns that arent comedies also hit my avoidance button.

exceptions are crime and murder mysteries. ive come to abhor movies that pull emo tricks.... ex. if there is a pet in the film, guaranteed it will die a horrible death to prove how 'horrible' a bad guy is, or using small children, usually girls to insert drama by placing her in danger. movies that are about drama for dramas sake i avoid like the plaque, if i see another lead actor die another long, lingering yet insightful and touching death im going to get out of my chair and beat a script writer

I know what you mean, tonal consistency is something that can make or break a movie for me too. That's not to say that a serious movie can't have some humor, and vice versa, but it needs to be well balanced andstructured so that one doesn't undermine the other.

That's why I like the Lethal Weapon movies so much, especially the first two. There's plenty of really funny scenes, but when it needs to get serious it gets serious, without jokes in the wrong place that would ruin the drama. It's a very hard balance to strike, so I really admire those films.

THIS

I've seen Cannibal Holocaust a few dozen times; I've seen Schindler's List and The Gray Zone ONE TIME.

The latter two are obviously better movies than the first, (though in fairness CH gets some crap it doesn't deserve) but I can only take watching those two movies once.

Superhero movies, I'll die of boredom.

Oh, and Star Wars.

I'm too scared to watch Event Horizon by myself at night.
But that's the only way I like to watch horror movies.

you don't watch a lot of horror films do you? :P

I'm just giving you crap. :D

EH was okay, IMO, it had it's moments, but there are much scarier movies out there, IMO.