Can we agree that this is definitive proof that not everything needs to be made into a movie?

Can we agree that this is definitive proof that not everything needs to be made into a movie?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jE2dDmMGfa4
youtube.com/watch?v=a-7rL8xyo7A
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It's not a movie it's a denzel vehicle. That being said I haven't watched it yet and probably won't if it's bad so that I can maintain my delusion that denzels only in good movies.

>why don't blacks make their own fucking movies
>*later*
>WHAT THE FUCK ARE THESE NIGGERS DOING REEEEEEEEEE

tiresome chinaman.jpg

nah its cool mayne

This is winning some Oscars, right? Pretty much mandatory given OscarsSoWhite

I'd call this pretty definitive proof that not everything needs to be made into a movie

It definitely will garner some sympathy for that, but it was also a pretty good movie for the most part. I've been recommending it to some people.

>denzels only in good movies.

Why does Sup Forums pretend critics automatically liking movies for having black people is any different than Sup Forums automatically hating movies for having black people?

At least the critics have seen the movie.

NOTHING needs to be made into a movie

> so that I can maintain my delusion that denzels only in good movies
John Q was a long time ago man. It's time to accept it.

o-ok..

Flight was genuinely good.

I hope this is good. Denzel hasn't given a legitimately good performance and been in a good movie since Philadelphia

John Q is a good ass movie.

Don't misunderstand, it's a great story and very well acted, but it really should have just stayed a play. This really seemed unnessisary. If they just wanted to reach a wider audience they should have just done a really well produced concert film of the stage performance.

No, the story and dialogue is fucking retarded. Denzel acted his ass off and just barely makes it watchable, but it's still a terrible movie.
Yeah, Flight is good, but I'm just talking about the notion that Denzel has never been in bad movies. Joh nQ exists. Also, The Equalizer, which wouldn't be so bad if it didn't go full retard at the end.

It's a good movie no lie
You guys should give it a watch if you want

>Also, The Equalizer, which wouldn't be so bad if it didn't go full retard at the end.

>he didn't like the slasher movie hijinx in the hardware store

Tsk

If Blacks are going to get Oscar nods outside of acting, it'll be for Moonlight.

It's entertaining enough on it's own but it completely betrays the rest of the movie.

>I'm just talking about the notion that Denzel has never been in bad movies.
>2001+16
>He isn't a Denzealot
wew.

So can you give me a brief synopsis other than the official one? Might check it out later tonight.

I watch just about everything the man appears in, but I'm not deluded enough to think he hasn't been in bad movies, even when he's usually the best part of those bad movies, they're still bad.

>the story and dialogue is fucking retarded

In the way that only a take charge fantasy movie could be. It's a feel good movie about fighting for what's right in a way that's completely unrealistic to us in the real world but makes for a fantastic watch in the movie world. I don't see how anyone could dislike John Q.

But speaking as a kino purist his son was one of the worst child actors ever and almost ruined the scenes he was in.

>tfw watching training day as an adult and realizing it's a piece of shit rather than the masterpiece I thought it was when I was 12

;_;

You can easily tighten the script to be far more plausible while fitting into that take charge fantasy. As it is, it's just laughably dumb, like a teenager wrote it.
>I don't see how anyone could dislike John Q
Mine isn't a minority opinion, it's been shit on by just about everyone, and for good reason.

Denzel is an aging garbage man in the late 50's with some really complicated family issues that all come to a head at once. He has a teenage son who's been offered a football scholarship and he has "mixed feelings" about him persuing it. His brother recievied brain damage in world war 2 and had been living with him until the opening of the film, but has recently moved out and that's a problem for a number of reasons, and there's trouble brewing underneath the surface of his 20 year long relationship with his long standing girlfriend Rose.

That wasn't the best, I'm sorry. But trust me it's better than that description, I'm just bad at synopsis's without spoiling stuff.

Denzel Washington plays a trash collector in 1950's Pittsburgh and the movie pretty much follows his struggles. He's a morally gray character, he loves his wife but cheats on her with someone that makes him feel bigger than he actually is, he wants his son to have a good life but is also jealous that that good life might bring the son more success than Denzel himself got since he feels like he deserved more, etc.

It's a fairly compelling character study.

Denzel washington once narrated a steven spielberg documentary about black US soldiers who liberated concentration camps in WW2, and all the horrors they witnessed

Later it was revealed that no black soldiers had ever entered concentration camps when they were liberated, and certainly not any of the death camps as they were all on the Soviet side.

Really makes ya....damn...rilly makes you th-....really.....agh.....

>Mine isn't a minority opinion, it's been shit on by just about everyone

Yeah I'm aware of its flaws I guess I just view it like a comic book movie so the ridiculousness of it all isn't a negative to me.

Thanks guys. I'm all about character studies.

These make the movie sound great. I'm pretty sure I read the play in high school. Most of if went over my head, but 10 years later I bet it would resonate a lot deeper.

I just marathoned the first 30 minutes and its pretty good so far. Just exited fullscreen to check the thread during an unnecessarily long scene of his retarded brother yelling.

Is the dude playing Gabe actually retarded like the kid from breaking breakfast? I honestly can't tell if it's really good acting or just awkwardly accurate casting.

Nah he's not a tar tar binks. He was Bubba in Forrest Gump. He was also in Con-Air.

That's Mykelty Williamson, he's just a pretty damn good actor.

I like it better as a stage play but far weaker material has been adapted more sloppily than this so who gives a fuck

pic related
Magnificent 7

>I've seen worse so this is acceptable,
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, now is it?

I'll admit though, I hadn't seen the stage play, but you can tell by just watching it how it would work so much better with one static set per act.

>Virtuosity
>bad

Unfuck yourself

who did it better
youtube.com/watch?v=jE2dDmMGfa4

Virtuosity fucking sucked you birdbrained meme addict

You are a woman, there's no other explanation.

Sup Forums has rotted your brain. You cannot stop shitposting

You are literally the only person I've ever met that talks badly of the movie on this board, I'm sorry you weren't breastfed as a child, but keep your shitty opinions to yourself next time.

>he gets his taste from Sup Forums

You've been rused faggot. Do you like cuck porn as well?

Well, you can stick a fork in her now. Great work.

This

That's kind of astonishing how different the same line reading is out of two different actors mouths.

James Earl is so slow and methodic that every line feels like a punch. But Denzel speeds it up and somehow that makes what's otherwise a very somber scene comedic.

It really reminds me of this

youtube.com/watch?v=a-7rL8xyo7A

Can you stop?

I think the set and lighting had alot to do with the tone. I also didn't hear any music. But yeah it's pretty jarring seeing Denzels performance there with laughs after just finishing the movie and having that same scene reduce me to tears.

Yo that's fucked up. Such disrespect to such beautiful music. Fucking jews man.

>I think the set and lighting had alot to do with the tone.
See, I don't really think so- I really think it had more to do with the blocking and the diction. James Earl was almost barking the lines at him. It was a barely contained rage, you can see it in the way his diaphragm is undulating. Denzel just seems to approach the scene with a more carefree attitude. He slaps Troy on the back, he has a smile on his face. He comes across more like a con artist trying to swindle him than an authoritarian figure trying to frighten him to the dangers of the world. The lighting and set decorations seem almost incidental.
James Earl throws 2x4's around and grabs Troy by his shirt sleeves. That's blocking, not set decoration.
wuzzuh?

Fair enough, I just felt a whole lighter tone when denzels version came on. Alot of it has to do with his cadence, yeah, but I still feel the lighting etc had an immediate effect on me.

I saw this the other day, it felt like they copypasted the play's script into the movie with almost no editing.
There were also tons of useless scenes and shots, overall a huge waste of my time

denzel is one of the worst actors in this whole movie

Jews wrote the original song

Man, the original one is heavy. The play and movie clips I've seen with sassy Denzel aren't remotely as good, and neither is the actor playing the kid just reacting to it all

that is interesting because when i did see fences there were a handful of scenes that got laughs that i think weren't meant to get laughs

You put a "sir" on the end of that if you want to post on my board